Transcript No Slide Title

Intergroup Conflict
Outline
• Sources of intergroup conflict
– Competition and conflict
– Social categorization
• Intergroup conflict resolution
– Contact
– Beyond contact
– Cognitive cures
Robbers Cave Experiment
(Sherifs, 1961)
• A field study attempting to better
understand the causes and
consequences of intergroup conflict.
– Subjects:
• Normal boys of the same age, educational level,
similar sociocultural backgrounds
– Group formation:
• Arrived in 2 separate groups (Rattlers and the
Eagles). Remained apart for one week.
Robbers Cave Experiment
(Sherifs, 1961)
– Ingroup/outgroup rivalry:
• Occurred spontaneously when each group
realized the other boys were there. It was
spurred by the Sherifs who set up competitive
tournament.
– Tournament conflict escalation:
• Rejection, verbal insults, name calling and
physical violence
Robbers Cave Experiment
(Sherifs, 1961)
Competition and Conflict:
Us versus them
1) Competition between groups for resources
– Realistic conflict theory:
• Intergroup conflict is caused by competition among
groups over limited resources.
– Competition implicated in class struggles,
international warfare, racism...
Competition and Conflict
• 2. Reciprocity of contentious strategies
– Groups also follow the norm of reciprocity
• Hatfield/McCoy dispute
– A spiral model of conflict intensification
accurately describes Robbers cave:
•
•
•
•
Verbal abuse
Avoidance
Discrimination
Physical assault
Competition and Conflict
• 3. Scapegoating
• Hostility caused by frustrating
circumstances are sometimes taken out
on innocent members of other social
groups
– Explains rise in prejudice when the
economy takes a downturn
– Study showing a significant negative
correlation between the number of black
men lynched in the US and the price of
cotton. (Hovland and Sears, 1940)
Class Activity
• Form two groups:
– Group A: People wearing tennis shoes
– Group B: People not wearing tennis shoes
• Group tasks:
– Group A:
• List as many reasons as you can think of as to why the
members of group B did not wear tennis shoes today.
– Group B:
• List as many reasons as you can think of as to why the
members of group A are wearing tennis shoes today.
Social Categorization:
Perceiving Us and Them
• 1) Ingroup/outgroup bias:
– We favor our own group and derogate the
outgroup
• At Robbers Cave, when asked to name their
friends Eagles picked Eagles, Rattlers picked
Rattlers
• Boys used negative characteristics to describe
the outgroup, but rated their own group more
favorably
Social Categorization
• Cognitive consequences of categorization
– A. Outgroup homogeneity effect:
• Assuming outgroup members are all the same
– B. Ingroup differentiation bias:
• We assume our group is complex and diverse
– C. Extremity bias:
• We make more extreme judgments about people
in other groups
Social Categorization
– D. Law of small numbers:
• We base judgments about another group based on
observations of a small number of individuals
– E. Group attribution error:
• We base judgments about individuals on the general
characteristics of the whole group
– F. Stereotypes:
• We rely on cognitive generalizations about qualities
and characteristics of members of a particular group
Social Categorization
• Does categorization cause conflict?
– Minimal group paradigm
• A research procedure used to study intergroup
conflict that creates temporary groupings of
anonymous people whose interdependence is
virtually nil
• Even in minimal groups there is evidence of
bias!
Social Identity Theory (SIT)
• Three basic assumptions of SIT:
• People categorize the social world into ingroups and
outgroups
• People strive for a positive self-concept; they derive
a sense of self-esteem from their social identity
• People’s self-concept partly depends on their
evaluation of their group relative to others.
• Thus, Social Identity Theory suggests:
• We ridicule members of other groups to raise the
value of our own group; thus, raising the value of our
self.
Intergroup Conflict Resolution
• Peaceful co-existence through benign
contact
– Contact hypothesis:
• Frequent contact between groups reduces
conflict between those groups
– The Sherifs brought the boys together
• Watching films, lighting fireworks, eating
– This failed!
• Contact during meals lead to food fights!
Intergroup Conflict Resolution
• Beyond contact
– Superordinate goals hypothesis:
• Situations that encourage groups to work
together to achieve a common goal can reduce
conflict between these groups.
• Sherifs created a series of emergencies that
could only be handled by the groups working
together
• After 6 days of this cooperation the tensions
were fairly well wiped out!
Superordinate Goals
Happy Ending!
Conflict Reducing Contact Situations
• Necessary ingredients:
• 1) Cooperation:
– Work together for common goals
• 2) Status
– Equal status!
• 3) Personal interaction
– Involving, positive interactions; not superficial
• 4) Norms
– Encouraging egalitarian attitudes
• 5) Positive outcomes:
– Should results in success!
Intergroup Conflict Resolution
• Cognitive cures for conflict
– Decategorization
• Minimizing the salience of group memberships
and stressing the individuality of each person
– Recategorization
• Collapsing groups in conflict into a single group
or category
– Controlled stereotyped thinking (Devine)
• Stereotypes are automatically activated- but
we can control our subsequent thoughts