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)
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:
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
CLASS ACTIVITY