14
Intergroup
Relations
As a social species, humans
strive to establish close ties
with one another. Yet the
same species that seeks out
connections with others also
metes out enmity when it
confronts members of
another group. Intergroup
relations are more often
contentious than harmonious.
• What interpersonal factors
disrupt relations between
groups?
• What are the psychological
foundations of conflict
between groups?
• How can intergroup
relations be improved?
Causes
Intergroup Bias
Resolution
Competition
Categorization
Intergroup contact
Discontinuity
Ingroup-outgroup bias
Cognitive cures
Power
Cognitive biases
Learning to
cooperate
Aggression
Stereotype content model
Norms
Exclusion &
dehumanization
Evolution
Categorization & identity
I am, in plainer words, a
bundle of prejudices—
made up of likings and
dislikings—the veriest
thrall of sympathies,
apathies, and
antipathies."
- Nineteenth century
English author Charles
Lamb
I have no race
prejudices, and I think I
have no color prejudices
nor creed prejudices.
Indeed, I know it. I can
stand any society.”
-- Mark Twain
Intergroup
Relations
Does membership in one
group require rejection of
other groups?
Who does more harm?
Groups or individuals?
Is it hopeless? Can conflict
only be reduced if all groups
are blended together?
Causes
What
Interpersonal
Factors Disrupt
Relations Between
Groups?
The Robbers Cave
Experiment
 Conducted by
Muzafer and Carolyn
Sherif and colleagues
in 1950s
 Two groups of young
boys: The Rattlers
and the Eagles
Scenes from the
Robbers Cave
Causes
Conflict at the Robbers Cave
Competition and
Conflict
The Discontinuity
Effect
Power and
Domination
Intergroup
Aggression
Norms of
Engagement
Evolutionary
Perspectives
 Result: Reactions to
conflict escalated from
exclusion to verbal
abuse to discrimination
to violence
 What caused the conflict
between these two
groups?
Competition for Scarce
Resources
Competition
Realistic Group Conflict Theory
Insufficient
Resources
Competition
for
Resources
Conflict
Realistic group conflict theory assumes that conflict
occurs because groups must compete with one another
for scarce resources.
Blake and Mouton documented the effects of
anticipated competition on conflict.
The Discontinuity Effect
Insko and his colleagues
find groups are more
competitive than
individuals
People in groups are ultracompetitive
Greed
Identifiability
Fear
Diffusion of Responsibility
Maier & Hinsz (2004) “Hot Sauce” Study
In a purported taste test study participants (alone or in a group) were
told another person or a group had sent them a cup of very, very spicy
sauce to consume (48.1 grams). They then were asked to measure out a
portion to send to that other individual or group.
Power and Domination
 Economic versus
militaristic (coercive)
exploitation
 Insko’s study of
laboratory
microsocieties
 Social
Dominance
Theory
(Sidanius &
Pratto)
Power: Group vs. Group
 If certain groups of people
stayed in their place, we
would have fewer
problems.
 Sometimes other groups
must be kept in their place
 We should do what we can
to equalize conditions for
groups.
 We should increase social
equality.
Spiral of negative
intergroup hostility
Intergroup Aggression
Group A
Aggression
Aversive situational
circumstances (pain,
loss of resources,
failure)
Arousal paired with
negative thoughts and
emotions
Arousal paired with
negative thoughts and
emotions
Aversive situational
circumstances (pain,
loss of resources,
failure)
Aggression
Group B
The emotional mechanisms described by the frustration aggression
hypothesis and the general aggression model can trigger impulsive
intergroup aggression.
Scapegoat Processes
Intergroup Aggression
Group A
Aggression
Aversive situational
circumstances (pain,
loss of resources,
failure)
Arousal paired with
negative thoughts and
emotions
Group C
Arousal paired with
negative thoughts and
emotions
Aversive situational
circumstances (pain,
loss of resources,
failure)
Aggression
Group B
Norms of Engagement
Norm of reciprocity and conflict spirals
Cultural norms
• Chagnon’s studies of the Yanomanö
• Culture of honor
Group norms (gangs, “culture of honor,
etc.)
Evolutionary Perspectives
Violent by nature?
• Hobbes: “nasty, brutish, and short”
• Rousseau’s “noble savage”
Cross-culture
findings
• Human societies tend to be violent,
but Fry suggests that peaceful coexistence is a possibility.
Evolutionary
Psychology
• Evolutionary pressures favored
individuals who preferred the ingroup to
the outgroup
• Outgroup violence solidified the ingroup
• Intergroup rejection is stronger for male
members of the outgroup
Causes
Intergroup Bias
Resolution
Categorization
Tajfel and Turner’s “minimal intergroup
situation”
Ingroup-outgroup
bias
• Groups were nominal, based on some
trivial factor (such as art preferences)
Cognitive biases
• When asked to distribute resources to
others,
favored the members of one’s
Stereotype content
model
own group
Exclusion &
They concluded (1986, p. 13): the “mere
dehumanization
perception of belonging to two distinct
groups—that is, social categorization per
Categorization
& identity
se—is
sufficient to trigger intergroup
discrimination favoring the ingroup”
Ingroup-outgroup bias
Ingroup
Favoring the ingroup over the outgroup:
Ethnocentrism
Ingroup positivity tends to be stronger than
outgroup negativity
Double-standard thinking (and linguistic
intergroup bias)
Implicit intergroup
biases (IAT findings)
Outgroup
Cognitive Biases
Outgroup
homogeneity
bias
• The perceptual tendency to assume that the members of
other groups are very similar to each other, whereas the
membership of one’s own group is more heterogeneous.
Group
attribution error
• Mistakenly assuming that specific group members’ personal
characteristics and preferences, including their beliefs, attitudes,
and decisions, are similar to the preferences of the group to
which they belong.
Ultimate
attribution error
• Attributing negative actions performed by members of
the outgroup to dispositional qualities and positive
actions to situational, fluctuating circumstances.
Stereotypes
• A socially shared set of cognitive generalizations (e.g., beliefs,
expectations) about the qualities and characteristics of the
members of a particular group or social category.
Stereotype content model
Stereotype
content
model:
outgroup
viewed in
terms of
warmth and
competence
Emotions: Pity,
contempt, envy,
admiration
Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2007
Exclusion &
dehumanization
Categorization &
identity
Inclusion
Personal
Identity
Achievements
Need for selfesteem
Group
achievements
Social Identity
Increased
self-esteem
Group
favoritism
Outgroup
rejection
Not clear if outgroup rejection raises self-esteem
Conflict
Resolution
Intergroup contact
Cognitive cures
Learning to
cooperate
Contact between
the groups at the
Robbers Cave
did not reduce
hostilities
How can intergroup conflict
be minimized?
Intergroup contact
Factors
that
augment
the
positive
impact of
intergroup
contact
Beyond the “basic” ingredients:
Empirical findings
• Superordinate goals
(worked at Robbers Cave)
• Successful cooperation
• A common enemy
• Online contact: The virtual
contact hypothesis
• Friendships: The extended
contact hypothesis
Intergroup contact
Factors
that
augment
the positive
impact of
intergroup
contact
Beyond the “basic” ingredients:
Empirical findings
• Superordinate goals
(worked at Robbers
Cave)
• Successful cooperation
• A common enemy
• Friendships: The
extended contact
hypothesis
Intergroup contact
High quality contact is
best, but any contact
better than nothing
Contact is more
effective in
recreational,
laboratory, work and
educational settings
than in residential
and tourist settings.
Pettigrew and Tropp's
review
Cognitive cures
Cognitive
approaches
to conflict
reduction
• Decategorization
• Recategorization: The
common ingroup identity
model
• Cross-categorization
• Controlling
stereotyped thinking
Learning to
cooperate
Conflict
management:
interpersonal
skill training
procedures
• Jigsaw learning groups
• School-based training in
conflict resolution
•
•
•
•
•
Define the conflict
Exchange Information
View from multiple perspectives
Generate solutions
Select mutually advantageous
solution
Causes
Intergroup Bias
Resolution
Competition
Categorization
Intergroup contact
Discontinuity
Ingroup-outgroup bias
Cognitive cures
Power
Cognitive biases
Learning to
cooperate
Aggression
Stereotype content model
Norms
Exclusion &
dehumanization
Evolution
Categorization & identity
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do
that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and
toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of
destruction....The chain reaction of evil--hate begetting
hate, wars producing more wars--must be broken, or we
shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.
Martin Luther King, Jr.