Discuss Origins of Conflict and conflict resolution 22

In the following essay I will be discussing the origins of conflict and conflict
resolution, by explaining theories such as social identity theory, realistic conflict
theory, instrumental model of group conflict, and biological correlates which are
demonstrated in studies such as Robber’s Cave, Tajfel et al, Decety et al and Dreu et
al.

Conflict is defined as the escalation of competition into an explicit form, and the
resolution of conflict is defined as the process of reducing overt conflict through
interventionalist strategies.

One of the theories that explain conflict and conflict resolution between two or more
groups is Realistic Conflict Theory, which suggests that in any situation where two or
more groups seek the same limited resources, it will lead to conflict, negative
stereotypes and conflicts, and that conflict resolution is a result of superordinate
goals. RCT also states that the mere perception of categorization trigger ‘us’
(ingroup)r A study that supports this Theory is the Robber’s Cave Experiment.

Robber’s Cave is a study conducted by Sherif in 1954 that aims to better understand
causes and consequences of intergroup conflict. 22 white, 12-year-old, middle-class
boys were used in the study. They all shared a Protestant, two-parent background,
with no prior relationship to each other. The boys were randomly assigned to one of
two groups in a camp, the Rattlers, and the Eagles. At first, neither group was aware
of the other. In the first stage, the boys quickly developed ingroup norms, structures,
and rituals within the group itself. Once they were informed of the other group’s
existence, the groups felt superior to the other, developing negative attitudes
towards the other. In stage 2, competition was introduced, where the winning group
would receive a penknife and the loser would get nothing. At first, prejudice was
verbally expressed. Through taunting and name-calling. As the competition wore on,
the grouse developed more hostile attitudes towards each other; the Eagles burned
the Rattlers’ flag, and in retaliation, the Eagles ransacked the Eagles’ cabin. The
groups had become aggressive towards each other. In Stage 3 , a superordinate
situation was created through a broken truck, with a water tank. The groups had to
work together in order to solve the issue, thus reducing inter-group conflict. Through
this situation, there was a sudden switch from the groups being negatively
interdependent to being positively interdependent on each other.
This study strongly supports RCT, as it demonstrates the tendency for conflict when
groups are forced to compete over resources and the tendency for conflict resolution
when groups are made to obtain a mutually exclusive goal. However, the world has
since changed, as the study was conducted over 60 years ago. The study has also
been criticized of creating an artificial situation, which meant it did not necessarily
reflect real-life and realistic situations, lowering its ecological validity. Additionally,
there is a lack of generalizability in the study, as only 12-year-old white boys were
used, which excludes the study being generalized to adults and girls Therefore, the
sample was biased. There were also ethical issues imposed in the experiment, since
the participants were not protected from physical and psychological harm. Even
though the study originally related to Realistic Conflict Theory, it has helped in the
development of Social Identity Theory, proposed by Tajfel and Turner in 1979, which
attempts to explain conflict between groups where there are no tangible resources at
stake, as there are situations in reality where conflict occurs in the absence of
competition over resources.

Social Identity Theory (SIT) suggests that in-group favoritism and out-group
discrimination is a result of social categorization. Like this, SIT suggests other
concepts related to conflict. Social identity is a concept of SIT, in which people define
their identity in social terms, and therefore, an in-group member’s self-esteem is
based on the position of the group. This leads to social comparison, which involves
group members striving for higher self-esteem, and therefore a higher social identity
by improving their group, a concept called positive distinctiveness. Tajfel conducted a
study with in 1971 that supports this theory.

Tajfel et al used a minimal group paradigm for 64 British male students aged 14-15 to
investigate effects of social categorization on intergroup behaviour. The participants
knew each other well prior to the study and were randomly placed into two groups,
divided according to their preference in either a painting by Klee or by Kandinsky.
In this way they were given a social identity. The boys had to work individually (while
knowing they belonged to a Klee or Kandinsky Group)and had to award pints bo both
in-group and out-group members in an activity. They were strictly not allowed to give
points to themselves. The results showed that the boys showed strong tendency to
award more points to members of in-group rather than the members of the out-
groups. For example, the boys would often give an in-group 7 points and an out-
group member 1 ,rat her than giving them both 13 points.
This study supports the notion of the social identity theory, as the boys still regarded
themselves as belonging to a group, even though they were working individually to
give out points, which correlates to the social categorization factor of Social Identity
Theory. The study also supports i-group favoritism and positive distinctiveness, as
the boys had awarded more points to in-group members and triedto maintain a
difference between the in-group and the out-group. The study has many strengths.
One of them is that it has a high level of control of confounding variables, since the
theme of paintings were chosen purposely, as the boys had no prior experience with
the art or artists. However, it could be argued that the studz was artificial in
procedure and in fact forced the participants to make a choice , which implies
competition and leads to demand characteristics. To test the importance of this
limitation of Tajfel et al, Lockslez replicated the study in 1980, by using a coin toss to
allocate groups, rather than participants doing it themselves. They were then given a
certain number of poker chips and, mirroring Tajfel’s points. Locksley concluded that
the results were the same, illustrating that Tajfel’s forced choice made no difference
on the behaviour of the participants, furthering our knowledge of Social Identity
Theory and how the mere perception of social categorization can trigger ‘us’ and
‘them’ dynamics, where the in-group is perceived to be better (social comparison).

Although Social Identity Theory has a strong explanatory power on the rise of conflict
through social status and social factors, it cannot be considered a complete way of
explaining complex human behaviour. It fails to take into consideration the impact of
an environment that interacts with the ‘self’. For example, poverty may play a larger
role in behavior than one’s own sense of group. It also fails to explain why, in some
cases, our personal identity is stronger than the group identity. Additonally, Rubin
and Hewston concluded in 1998, that an increase in self-esteem associated with out-
group discrimination is too short-lived to have long-lasting effects on how in-group
members perceive themselves.

Another development of the realistic conflict theory is the instrumental model of

group conflict, theorized by Essos et al in 2001. The model suggests that perceived
intergroup competition is the result of two factors; resource stress, in which there is
pereception of the limited availability of valued resources and the salience of a
potentially competitive out-group, in which some groups are more likely to be
perceived as competitiors than others. An example of a resource could be healthcare
facilties and resources in a country. In turn, this intergroup competitions prduces
negative affective and cognitive responses, involing zero-sum beleifs, or the belief
that the more one group obtains, the less there is available for the other group and
possibly emotional responses, such as anxiety and fear. To address this intergroup
tension, individuals and groups employ strategies, including diminishing the
competitiveness of the out-group through discriminatory behaviors and negative
stereotypes, enhancing the competitiveness of the in-group, and resorting to
avoidance tactics such as denying access to resources or territory. Unlike the
previously mentioned theories, this model suggests that there are attempts that in-
groups make, in order to compete for their own goal, rather than work together for a
superordinate goal. Bloomer’s theory in 1958 suggests that conflict arises when in-
groups feel they have an entitlement to resources, and then when outgroups arrive,
the in-groups perceive them merely as competition. This relates to the model, as
there is perceived resource stress.

These negative group dynamics often do not successfully resolve important conflicts
in reality. Conflict is placed on spectrum, and may start with milder forms, such as
prejudice and discrimination, and then escalate over time, taking more violent and
overt forms. Sometimes, these factors can be further aggravated by aggravating
factors, which according to Staub in 1999 are difficult living conditions in a society,
scapegoating, creation of group ideologies and the frustration of basic human needs.
Scapegoating is often resorted to by ingroups towards outgroups, which can also lead
to negative schemas and negative attribution.

Conflict and co-operation have biological explanations and origins, in addition to

sociocultural factors. A study conducted by Decety et al in 2004 used an fMRI to
investigate activity in the brain in response to intergroup conflict. Particioants played
a computer game either in competition or co-operation with another person. Results
showed that distinct brain regions were found to be selective associated co-operation
and comeition. The oribitofrontal cortex was highly active with co-operative
participants and for competitive partciants, their inferior parietal cortex and medial
prefrontal cortex seemed to be the most active. This shows that humans process
information differently depending on their expectations from others. This claim is
further supported by Dreu et al 2012, a study that takes on a modified version of the
prisoner’s dilemma, a game where prisoners are given four options, that decide their
punishment, without discussing with each other. See figure 1. Participants of this
study were made to take a dose of oxytocin, known as the hormone that promotes
fidelity and pro-social behaviour, which showed that they wee more likely to engage
in defence-motivated non-cooperation and overall increase in cooperation within the
in-group, therefore increasing competiton with out-groups.
 Figure 1 Prisoner’s dilemma

Overall, origins of conflict and conflict resolution stem from many factors. Theories
such as SIT and RCT argue that conflict arises in the presence of competition over
resources, while Instrumental model of group conflict argue that conflict arises due
to Resource stress, the perceived limited availability of resources, which can lead to
overt displays of prejudice and discrimination through aggravating factors. Bioloigal
factors shed light on oxytocin and its impact on increasing in-group cooperation and
competiion with out-groups. Addtionally, certain regions of the brain portray different
activity levels when it comes to competition an cooperation, showing that different
brain processes take place in association with each of the events.