User:Laka2006/sandbox

Intergroup Conflict

Intergroup conflict, deeply rooted in the fabric of social psychology, is a persistent issue that arises from disagreements between groups over conflicting goals, beliefs, or values. This phenomenon not only impacts individual perceptions, emotions, and behaviors but also shapes societal dynamics and interpersonal relationships. Historical discourse, dating back to Thomas Hobbes' seminal work in 1651, lays foundational perspectives on these conflicts, which were later encapsulated in Muzafer Sherif’s realistic conflict theory in the mid-20th century. This theory, alongside others such as Festinger's social comparison theory, Tajfel and Turner's social identity theory, and evolutionary perspectives, offers comprehensive insights into the mechanisms and outcomes of intergroup conflicts. These theories explain how factors like resource competition, group identity, and evolutionary predispositions contribute to group dynamics and conflict. Today, understanding these conflicts involves exploring their root causes, different models, and the psychological impacts on both individuals and groups, paving the way for potential resolutions through strategies like intergroup contact.

Thomas Hobbes' novel Leviathan, first mention of conflict through the quote "So that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrell. First, Competition; Secondly, Diffidence; Thirdly, Glory"

Introduction

Intergroup conflict, a phenomenon discussed within the field of social psychology, refers to a disagreement or confrontation between two or more groups and their members based on conflicting goals, beliefs, or values . It has been linked with significantly altering an individuals’ perceptions, emotions, and behaviors, encompassing every aspect of a person’s psychology, and shaping their future thought processes and actions.

The first mention of intergroup conflict can be traced back to the philosophical writings of Thomas Hobbes, who in his 1651 book titled Leviathan, highlighted the nature, root causes, and consequences of intergroup conflict on individuals and communities. Further expanded upon by Muzafer Sherif et al. in 1961, they developed an experiment which demonstrated a case of intergroup conflict utilizing the realistic conflict theory, which is often regarded as one of the main theoretical foundations that lay the groundwork for understanding and explaining intergroup conflict.

Theoretical Foundations

The theoretical foundations of intergroup conflict include Festinger's social comparison theory, Tajfel and Turner's social identity theory, Campbell's realistic conflict theory, and evolutionary insights into human competition.

Social Comparison Theory

Social comparison theory, originally proposed by Leon Festinger in 1954, outlines how individuals assess their opinions and abilities by comparing themselves to others. This theory claims that people are inherently driven to use external benchmarks, whether it is another individual or an idealized standard, to evaluate their own qualities and achievements. This comparison can be either upward, against those perceived as superior, or downward, against those deemed inferior. Upward comparisons occur to motivate a person’s self-improvement while downward comparisons occur to boost a person’s self-esteem. The implications of this theory for intergroup conflict suggest that intergroup tensions can heighten as groups engage in social comparisons within or between groups. Social comparison within a group can heighten internal conflict as the members compete for their individual standing within the group, whereas, social comparison between one’s own group and an opposing group can lead to enhanced internal group cohesion and will simultaneously increase hostility between groups, as each group seeks to better its standing relative to the other.

Realistic Conflict Theory

According to Realistic Conflict Theory, intergroup conflicts develop as a result of struggle for finite resources, where various groups' aims are fundamentally incompatible. This idea, first articulated by researchers such as LeVine and Campbell and then expanded upon by Sherif in the mid-twentieth century, contends that such conflicts are "realistic" because they arise from visible, material issues. Sherif's Robber’s Cave Experiment, which entailed boys being separated into groups at a summer camp and encouraged to compete, revealed that competition exacerbates intergroup conflict. These studies also found that adopting superordinate objectives, which involve coordinated efforts that beyond the capabilities of any single group, can help to relieve these disputes by encouraging interdependence among the groups. This approach emphasizes the fundamental notion that, while competition for resources fosters intergroup antagonism, organized collaboration may transform hostile relationships into productive ones. Sherif's findings, while novel, also demonstrated through anecdotal evidence that mere awareness of another group's existence could result in intergroup discrimination, implying the profound impact of social categorization on group dynamics, a concept further explored in Tajfel's subsequent work on social identity.

Tajfel and Turner's Social Identity Theory Composition

Social Identity Theory

Social identity theory asserts that an individual’s self-concept is partially shaped by their membership or belonging to certain social groups. Such various social groups include religions, ethnicities, and sexual orientations, as well as less formal associations like sports teams, friend circles, and families. Tajfel and Turner developed the social identity theory in 1979 to help explain how social contexts shape both individual and group behaviors, emphasizing the role of collective psychology, discriminatory practices, and group dynamics. This theory is particularly relevant when discussing intergroup conflict, as it addresses how group identifications can lead to competition and conflict between different groups, driven by a desire to enhance one's group status. Social identity theory also significantly enriches discussions and experiments concerning intergroup biases and homogeneity, offering insights into the origins of harmful intergroup behaviors.

Evolutionary Theory

The evolutionary theory of intergroup conflict, as addressed by Melissa M. McDonald and others, proposes that human tendencies toward intergroup conflict have evolutionary origins. This viewpoint argues that such conflicts are not just modern societal phenomena, but rather the result of deeply rooted psychological mechanisms influenced by evolutionary rules. Historically, these conflicts have frequently been fueled by what is known as the "male warrior hypothesis," which proposes that males are primarily the instigators and participants in these wars due to evolutionary forces connected to coalition formation and resource competition. This idea is reinforced by the fact that intergroup violence has been a feature of both human and non-human society throughout history, ranging from minor disputes to large-scale conflicts. In essence, the evolutionary theory asserts that human predispositions to establish in-groups and out-groups, as well as to preserve our in-group while attacking or defending against out-groups, has produced survival and reproduction benefits. These behaviors were most likely selected over generations because they assisted our ancestors in gaining access to resources, securing mates, and protecting relatives, all of which increased their reproductive success. These evolutionary motivators, however, are just as likely to cause external conflict between rivaling groups and also internal conflict within one's own group.

Causes of Intergroup Conflict

Socioeconomic causes

Economic disparities play a significant role in fueling intergroup conflict. Differences in wealth, education levels, and economic growth rates create a fertile ground for competition over scarce resources. This competition often leads to conflicts as groups fight to protect their economic interests and ensure their survival. The perceived threats to a group’s economic stability can also heighten tensions, leading to conflict. Studies have shown that even the anticipation of economic downturns can lead to heightened prejudices and discriminatory policies against perceived out-groups. The Realistic Conflict Theory highlights how these conflicts are rational responses to actual competitions over limited resources, which can exacerbate societal divides. Furthermore, perceived threats to a group’s economic stability can intensify tensions, leading to increased prejudices and discriminatory policies, particularly during anticipated economic downturns. Social factors like group identity also play a crucial role, where perceived threats to group welfare prompt members to behave cooperatively or selfishly, influencing the nature and intensity of the conflict.

Types of Intergroup Conflict

Objective Versus Subjective Conflict

Intergroup conflicts are frequently caused by "objective" issues such as power, money, or territorial disputes, which are fueled by tangible external causes based in social, economic, or political institutions. In addition to these concrete disputes, there are "subjective" conflicts, which are psychological or symbolic in nature and include attempts to establish a positively valued difference among groups. Objective conflicts are simple and entail direct rivalry for resources, but subjective conflicts involve deeper psychological processes and might persist even after the original grounds for conflict have passed. Subjective disputes are difficult to settle because they can become embedded in the group's identity and perception, frequently outliving the circumstances that caused them.

Explicit Versus Implicit Conflict

Explicit conflicts are identified and managed by societal norms or regulations, such as in experiments, contests, or sporting events. In these instances, actions against the out-group can be classified as instrumental (actions based on motivation to win) or noninstrumental (including unnecessary discrimination). This discrimination is frequently expressed through stereotyping of out-group individuals in order to explain bias and increase in-group distinctiveness. In contrast, implicit conflicts arise in the absence of explicit standards or norms and are not openly acknowledged. This sort of conflict involves seemingly harmless activities that can have major consequences, such as the in-group prioritizing their relative advantages at the expense of the out-group, even if it reduces the overall rewards. Both explicit and Implicit conflicts occur between in-group and out-group members, yet are still a type of intergroup conflict as it occurs between subgroups, or specific group members, within one overarching group as well.

Psychological Impact of Intergroup Conflict

On Individuals

Intergroup conflict often precipitates identity crises and cognitive dissonance within individuals, marked by a struggle to reconcile conflicting personal values with group norms. This dissonance is particularly prevelant when individuals feel compelled to adopt group ideologies that conflict with their personal beliefs, leading to significant psychological distress and anxiety. Such internal conflicts can profoundly affect an individual's self-concept and social identity and could lead to deindividuation, which alters their worldview and interaction patterns within and outside their group.

On Groups

At the group level, intergroup conflict can lead to either increased cohesion or significant fragmentation. Heightened conflict can strengthen group solidarity as members unite against a perceived out-group threat, enhancing loyalty and cooperation within the group. This cohesion often results in a stronger collective identity and a more unified group stance. However, prolonged conflict can also deplete group resources and morale, leading to fragmentation. This can manifest as internal divisions or a breakdown in communication and cooperation, potentially leading to the dissolution of group unity or even the splintering of the group into factions.

Main Case Study: The Robber's Cave Experiment

Representation of Gaertner and Dovidio's Common Ingroup Identity Model

Sherif et al.’s (1954) Robbers Cave Experiment is regarded as one of the most important experiments relating to intergroup conflict as it significantly advanced realistic conflict theory by demonstrating that intergroup conflict arises from competition for scarce resources. Involving 22 eleven to twelve-year-old boys at Robbers Cave State Park, the study highlighted how artificially created groups developed hostilities when competing for rewards and mitigated these conflicts through cooperative tasks toward superordinate goals. Despite its foundational role in social psychology, the experiment has faced criticism for ethical concerns, methodological rigidity, and lack of ecological validity. The participants, unaware they were part of a study, were subjected to significant stress under highly controlled conditions that poorly mimic the complexities of real-world intergroup interactions. This has raised questions about the generalizability of the findings and the ethical standards of the research. Subsequent studies have built on Sherif's work by exploring intergroup relations in diverse settings and addressing ethical considerations. Studies such as Pettigrew and Tropp's meta-analysis on intergroup contact, Wright et al.'s exploration of extended contact, Aronson's jigsaw classroom approach, and Gaertner and Dovidio's Common Ingroup Identity Model, have all contributed to a deeper understanding of intergroup dynamics and intergroup conflict as well as the mechanisms that can facilitate cooperation and reduce prejudice within groups.

Resolutions for Intergroup Conflict and Future Research Directions

Intergroup contact has proven to be an effective tool for reducing, resolving, and preventing these conflicts by fostering understanding and empathy between groups. According to research by Hewstone and colleagues, direct interactions between members of opposing groups, under optimal conditions like equal status and common goals, can decrease prejudice and enhance cooperative relationships. The theory suggests that when these conditions are met, contact can lead to reduced anxiety, increased empathy, and greater knowledge of the other group, all crucial for attitude change and conflict reduction. Both direct and extended forms of intergroup contact, wherein knowledge that one's in-group members have positive relationships with out-group members, have been shown to significantly impact attitudes and perceptions, leading to increased trust and forgiveness, key components for conflict resolution. Future research should explore how to tailor contact interventions to specific cultural and sociopolitical contexts to enhance their effectiveness. This includes investigating long-term impacts of interventions and their ability to change societal norms and policies. Additionally, the integration of technology in facilitating virtual intergroup contacts could be particularly useful in regions where direct contact is not feasible. Further investigation is also needed into the mechanisms through which intergroup contact reduces prejudice and conflict, such as the roles of empathy, trust, and perceived threats. Understanding conditions under which negative contact experiences might exacerbate conflicts could provide crucial insights for managing and structuring contact opportunities more effectively. While intergroup contact is not a universal cure, it holds significant potential as part of a broader strategy for intergroup conflict resolution. Its effective implementation can help bridge divides and lay the groundwork for lasting intergroup peace, marking it as a crucial area for continued research and application in peace psychology and conflict resolution studies.