Forsyth, Donelson R. - Group dynamics (2019, Cengage) - libgen.lc

430 C H A P T E R 13

How Do Group Members Yell at Each Other Online?

People use the Internet for all kinds of constructive express themselves in ways that are openly contemp-
purposes, such as accessing and exchanging information, tuous of others’ preferences or the group’s standards.
discussing important issues, and strengthening interper- In some Internet groups, a post that is hostile, rude, or
sonal connections, but just because people are commu- contains profanity will generate a strong reproach
nicating at a distance does not mean that they will be from the community, warning the individual to refrain
immune from conflict. People in online groups can’t from such behaviors. Some groups, too, have estab-
raise their voices, shake their fists, or stare each other lished rules about how disputants should communi-
down, but they can include profanities in their emails, cate. The contents of Wikipedia, for example, are
type their posts in capital letters, and write insulting, created, reviewed, and revised by a community of
degrading things in their messages (Turnage, 2007). volunteers, and the community’s norms, termed the
five pillars, include “interact with each other in a
Online conflict is triggered by the same factors respectful and civil manner” (http://en.wikipedia.org/
that cause conflict in offline groups: competitiveness, wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars). However, Wikipedians (as
personality differences, concerns about fairness and the editors of pages are called) do not always agree
distribution of workload and resources, struggles for about either the content of a given entry (task conflict)
power, disagreement over the group’s tasks and pro- or the way in which another editor went about mak-
cesses, and personal likes and dislikes. But the online ing a change (process conflict). Wikipedia therefore
context adds a few unique and influential elements to offers an area for every entry where editors can discuss
the conflict mix. Working online can lead to disinhibi- their issues and resolve their disputes in a “respectful
tion, so people express sentiments and opinions that and civil manner.” In many cases, however, the Wiki-
they would never say aloud in face-to-face conversa- pedians cannot meet this high standard, and an edit
tions where they are inhibited by norms of civility or by war breaks out. “An edit war occurs when editors who
self-control mechanisms. Online groups, too, allow disagree about the content of a page repeatedly
members to express themselves immediately, so there is override each other’s contributions, rather than trying
no opportunity for members to regain their composure to resolve the disagreement by discussion” (http://en.
after something or someone irritates them. In conse- wikipedia.org/). Even though the community spends
quence, “members are prone to immediate articulation considerable time editing its policies, when researchers
of negative emotions in response to a conflict” (Ayoko, examined the communication of editors working
Konrad, & Boyle, 2012, p. 169). The technology itself can behind the scenes at Wikipedia, they found little evi-
also be a source of process conflict—a group sitting in a dence of the application of basic principles of civil dis-
room conversing does not encounter the irksome tech- course (Black et al., 2011). Even in the member-friendly
nical problems that online groups often do. world of Wikipedia, disagreements, disputes, and
debates often escalated into conflict.
The discourse of online groups, however, is regu-
lated by social norms; individuals are not free to

displeasure to one another, and the result is often the balance of power in their favor. The initial dis-
increased rather than decreased conflict. agreement may involve only two group members,
but as conflicts intensify, previously neutral mem-
13-2f Few ! Many bers often join with one faction. Similarly, even
when members initially express many different
During the Jobs versus Sculley conflict, Jobs tried to views, with time, these multiparty conflicts are
persuade each member of the board to side with reduced to two-party blocs through coalition for-
him in the dispute. His goal was to form a powerful mation. Coalitions can even link rivals who decide
coalition that would block Sculley’s plans and swing to join forces temporarily to achieve a specific out-
the vote of the board in his favor. come (a mixed-motive situation). Although allies
may wish to compete with one another, no single
Coalitions exist in most groups, but when con- individual has enough power to succeed alone.
flict erupts, group members use coalitions to shift

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

CONFLICT 431

Hence, while the coalition exists, the competitive more parties to a dispute examine specific issues,
motive must be stifled (Komorita & Parks, 1994). explain their positions, and exchange offers and
counteroffers.
Coalitions draw more members of the group
into the fray. Coalitions are often viewed as con- Distributive and Integrative Negotiations Nego-
tentious, heavy-handed influence tactics because tiation sometimes amounts to little more than sim-
individuals in the coalition work not only to ensure ple bargaining or mutual compromise. In such
their own outcomes but also to worsen the out- distributive negotiation, both parties retain their
comes of noncoalition members. Coalitions form competitive orientation and take turns making small
with people and against other people. In business concessions until some equally dissatisfying middle
settings, for example, the dominant coalition can ground is reached. Haggling and bartering (“I’ll give
control the organization, yet it works outside the you $20 for it, and not a penny more!”) illustrate this
bounds of the formal group structure. Those who form of negotiation. Integrative negotiation, in
are excluded from a coalition react with hostility to contrast, is a collaborative conflict resolution method.
the coalition members and seek to regain power by Rather than trying to only maximize one’s own out-
forming their own coalitions. Thus, coalitions must comes, integrative negotiators search for solutions that
be constantly maintained through strategic bargain- will benefit both sides. Bargainers need not be moti-
ing and negotiation (Jehn et al., 2013). vated by a concern for the other’s well-being, but
they recognize that a solution that benefits everyone
13-3 CONFLICT RESOLUTION will be one that will likely be more readily adopted
and implemented (Pruitt, 2012; Thompson, Wang, &
In one way or another, conflicts subside. Even when Gunia, 2013).
members are committed to their own viewpoints,
high levels of tension cannot be maintained indefi- Negotiation Styles Individuals differ in their
nitely. Disputants may regain control of their tem- approach to negotiations. The Harvard Negotiation
pers and break the upward conflict spiral. The group Project, for example, identified three basic types
may fissure, splitting into two or more subgroups of negotiators—soft, hard, and principled (see
whose members are more compatible. One member Table 13.1). Soft bargainers see negotiation as too
may leave the group, as was the result in the Jobs close to competition, so they choose a gentle style
versus Sculley dispute. In time, group hostility abates. of negotiation. They make offers that are not in
their best interests, they yield to others’ demands,
13-3a Commitment ! Negotiation they avoid any confrontation, and they maintain
good relations with fellow negotiators. Hard bargai-
Just as conflicts escalate when group members ners, in contrast, use tough, competitive tactics dur-
become firmly committed to a position and will ing negotiations. They begin by taking an extreme
not budge, conflicts de-escalate when group mem- position on the issue, and then they make small
bers are willing to negotiate with others to reach a concessions only grudgingly. The hard bargainer
solution that benefits all parties. Negotiation is a
reciprocal communication process whereby two or distributive negotiation Resolving differences of
opinion and transactions by claiming or dividing
negotiation A reciprocal communication process resources, making offers and responding with counterof-
whereby two or more parties to a dispute examine spe- fers, and the guarded disclosure of interests.
cific issues, explain their positions, and exchange offers integrative negotiation Resolving differences of opin-
and counteroffers to reach agreement or achieve mutu- ion and transactions by identifying common and com-
ally beneficial outcomes. plementary interests and proposing solutions that satisfy
all concerned parties.

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

432 C H A P T E R 13

T A B L E 13.1 Comparisons between the Three Approaches to Negotiation

Element Soft Negotiation Hard Negotiation Principled Negotiation
Perception of others Friends Adversaries Problem solvers

Goals Agreement Victory A wise outcome reached
efficiently and amicably

Concessions Make concessions to Demand concessions as a Separate the people from
cultivate the relationship
condition of the relationship the problem

People versus Be soft on the people and Be hard on the problem Be soft on the people, hard
problems the problem and the people on the problem

Trust Trust others Distrust others Proceed independently
of trust

Positions Change your position easily Dig into your position Focus on interests, not
positions

Negotiation Make offers Make threats Explore interests

Bottom line Disclose your bottom line Mislead as to your bottom Avoid having a bottom line
line

Losses and gains Accept one-sided losses to Demand one-sided gains as Invent options for mutual
reach agreement
a price of agreement gains

Search Search for a single answer— Search for a single answer— Develop multiple options to

the one they will accept the one you will accept choose from; decide later

Criteria Insist on agreement Insist on your position Insist on using objective
criteria

Contest of wills Avoid a contest of wills Win the contest of wills Reach a result based on
standards, independent of
wills

Pressure Yield to pressure Apply pressure Reason and be open to
reason; yield to principle,
not pressure

SOURCE: Adapted from Getting to YES: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In by R. Fisher, W. Ury With B. Patton (ed.), 1981. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

uses contentious strategies of influence and says people involved. Positional bargaining, they con-
such things as “Take it or leave it,” “This is my clude, is too dangerous:
final offer,” “This point is not open to negotia-
tion,” “My hands are tied,” and “I’ll see you in When negotiators bargain over positions, they
court.” tend to lock themselves into those positions.
The more you clarify your position and defend
Principled negotiators, meanwhile, seek integra- it against attack, the more committed you
tive solutions by sidestepping a commitment to spe- become to it. The more you try to convince
the other side of the impossibility of changing
cific positions. Instead of risking entrapment, your opening position, the more difficult it

principled negotiators focus on the problem rather
than the intentions, motives, and needs of the

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

CONFLICT 433

becomes to do so. Your ego becomes identified procedure. Such criteria can be drawn from moral
with your position. (Fisher & Ury, 1981, p. 5) standards, principles of fairness, objective indexes of
market value, professional standards, tradition, and
The Harvard Negotiation Project recommends so on, but they should be recognized as fair by all
that negotiators explore a number of alternatives to parties (Kolb & Williams, 2003).
the problems they face. During this phase, the
negotiation is transformed into a group problem- 13-3b Misperception !
solving session with the different parties working Understanding
together in search of creative solutions and new
information that the group can use to evaluate Many conflicts are based on misperceptions. Group
these alternatives. Principled negotiators base their members often assume that others are competing
choice on objective criteria rather than on power, with them, when in fact those other people only
pressure, self-interest, or an arbitrary decisional

What Is Your Preferred Conflict Style?

People respond to conflict in many different ways, D. try to identify new solutions that satisfy you
but the dual-process model of conflict resolution and the others.
styles suggests each one of us has a preferred way
of dealing with the conflicts that overtake our E. find a compromise between what you favor
groups. and what they favor.

Instructions: Select your preferred way of dealing 3. During a meeting the group disagrees on an
with each one of these problems. important issue, with one side arguing in favor of
a proposal and one against it. You will
1. During a group meeting one of the other group
members disagrees with many of the points you A. stop going to the meetings until the problem
make. He speaks very critically of you and your blows over.
ideas. You will
B. urge the faction with fewer members to just
A. try to skip meetings he attends. go along with the others.

B. just go along with him, no sense in fighting C. join the side that you agree with and try to
over it. help them overcome the other side.

C. plan out a strategy so that you can take D. work out a solution that benefits everyone.
advantage of his anger.
E. act as the peacemaker who tries to make
D. meet with him so that you can find a way to both sides happy.
work together more effectively.
4. If the group starts to argue over an issue, you will
E. offer him something he wants in return for
his cooperation. A. keep quiet and don’t get involved.
B. go along with whatever the group decides.
2. After discussing the matter for several hours, the
group decides on a course of action that you think C. argue your position; you don’t give up.
is a mistake. You will D. carefully discuss ideas and solutions.

A. let the others do what they want and keep a E. keep everyone calm by finding a middle
low profile. ground that everyone can accept.

B. lend your support to the group’s decision, Scoring. For each item, response A indicates
even though you don’t agree with it. avoiding, B is the yielding style, C is the fighting style,
D is cooperation, and E is conciliatory. If you picked
C. dig in and continue to argue until you can one letter more frequently than the others, then that
win them over. is the style of conflict resolution you think you prefer.

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

434 C H A P T E R 13

wish to cooperate. Members think that people who sometimes angrily and loudly. Still others push
criticize their ideas are criticizing them personally. their solution onto others, no matter what the others
Members do not trust other people because they may want. Some actually resort to physical violence
are convinced that others’ motives are selfish ones. (Sternberg & Dobson, 1987). Some of these tactics
Group members assume that they have incompati- escalate conflicts, but others are reliably associated
ble goals when they do not (Simpson, 2007). with reduced hostility.

Group members must undo these perceptual Dual Concerns As with social values orientations,
misunderstandings by actively communicating infor- variations in methods of dealing with conflict can be
mation about their motives and goals through discus- organized in terms of two essential themes: concern
sion. In one study, group members were given the for self and concern for the other person. According
opportunity to exchange information about their to the dual concern model of conflict resolution,
interests and goals, yet only about 20% did. Those some strategies aim to maximize one’s own out-
who did, however, were more likely to discover comes; others—such as overlooking a problem
shared goals and were able to reach solutions that until it subsides—de-emphasize proself goals. Some
benefited both parties to the conflict (Thompson, conflict resolution strategies are also more other-
1991). Other studies have suggested that conflict focused. Yielding, for example, is prosocial, whereas
declines when group members communicate their contending and forcing are less prosocial (Thomas,
intentions in specific terms, make explicit references 1992; Tjosvold, Wong, & Chen, 2014).
to trust, cooperation, and fairness, and build a shared
ingroup identity (Costa & Anderson, 2017). When both concern for self and concern for
the other person are taken into account, the dual
Communication is no cure-all for conflict, concern model identifies the five core conflict res-
however. Group members can exchange informa- olution modes shown in Figure 13.5.
tion by communicating, but they can also create
gross misunderstandings and deceptions. Commu- ■ Avoidance: Inaction is a passive means of dealing
nication offers group members the means to estab- with disputes. Those who avoid conflicts adopt
lish trust and commitment, but it can also a “wait and see” attitude, hoping that problems
exacerbate conflict if members verbalize feelings of will solve themselves. Avoiders often tolerate
hatred, disgust, or annoyance. For example, when conflicts, allowing them to simmer without
Deutsch and Krauss (1960) let participants in their doing anything to minimize them. Rather than
trucking game experiment communicate with each openly discussing disagreements, people who
other, messages typically emphasized threats and did rely on avoidance change the subject, skip
little to reduce conflict (Deutsch, 1973). Commu- meetings, or even leave the group altogether.
nication is detrimental if these initial messages are Sometimes, they simply agree to disagree
inconsistent, hostile, and contentious (McClintock, (a modus vivendi).
Stech, & Keil, 1983). Communication can be ben-
eficial, however, if interactants use it to create ■ Yielding: Accommodation is a passive but pro-
cooperative norms, if it increases trust among parti- social approach to conflict. People solve both
cipants, and if it generates increased cohesion and large and small conflicts by giving in to the
unity in the group (Messick & Brewer, 1983). demands of others. Sometimes, they yield
because they realize that their position is in
13-3c Hard Tactics ! Cooperative error, so they agree with the viewpoint

Tactics dual concern model A conceptual perspective on
methods of dealing with conflict that assumes avoiding,
Group members cope with conflict in different ways. yielding, fighting, and cooperating differ along two basic
Some ignore the problem. Others discuss the dimensions: concern for self and concern for other.
problem, sometimes dispassionately and rationally,

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

CONFLICT 435

High concern orientation, which is also described as collabora-
for others tion, problem-solving, or a win–win orientation,
entreats both sides in the dispute to consider their
Yielding Cooperation opponent’s outcomes as well as their own.

Low concern Conciliation High concern ■ Conciliation: Some theorists consider concilia-
for self for self tion to be a fifth distinct way to resolve
conflicts—a middle ground between yielding
Avoidance Fighting and fighting (Euwema & Van Emmerik, 2007).
Conciliation, however, is often difficult to
Low concern distinguish from the other modes of conflict
for others resolution (van de Vliert & Euwema, 1994).

F I G U R E 13.5 The dual concern model of conflict Cooperation and Conflict When conflict erupts,
resolution. Avoiding, yielding, cooperating, appeasing group members can use any or all of the basic modes
(conciliation) and fighting, as means of dealing with of conflict resolution shown in Figure 13.5, but most
conflict, differ in the degree to which they are based conflict management experts recommend coopera-
on concern for oneself and concern for the other tion above all others: “work things out,” “put your
person. cards on the table,” and “air out differences,” they
suggest. This advice assumes that avoidance, fighting,
adopted by others. In other cases, however, and yielding are only temporary solutions, for they
they may withdraw their demands without quell conflicts at the surface without considering the
really being convinced that the other side is source. Avoiding and fighting are generally consid-
correct, but—for the sake of group unity or in ered to be negative methods, for they tend to inten-
the interest of time—they withdraw all com- sify conflicts, and they are viewed as disagreeable.
plaints. Thus, yielding can reflect either genu- The more positive, prosocial methods, yielding and
ine conversion or superficial compliance. cooperation, mitigate conflict and are viewed as
more agreeable. They are more likely to involve
■ Fighting: Contending is an active, proself means more of the members in the solution, and hence
of dealing with conflict that involves forcing they tend to increase unity (Tjosvold et al., 2014).
others to accept one’s view. Those who use this
strategy tend to see conflict as a win–lose situa- Groups may respond well to cooperation when
tion and so use competitive, powerful tactics to it is used to deal with task conflicts, but what if the
intimidate others. Fighting (forcing, dominating, problems stem from personal conflicts—differences
or contending) can take many forms, including in personalities, values, lifestyles, likes, and dislikes?
authoritative mandate, challenges, arguing, Research conducted by organizational psychologists
insults, accusations, complaining, vengeance, Carsten De Dreu, Laurie Weingart, and their col-
and even physical violence (Morrill, 1995). leagues suggests that, in such cases, collaborative
These conflict resolution methods are all con- approaches may aggravate the group conflict more
tentious ones because they involve imposing than they mollify it (see De Dreu, 2010; De Dreu &
one’s solution on the other party. Van Vianen, 2001; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). In
one field study, members of semiautonomous teams
■ Cooperation: Cooperation is an active, prosocial, working on complex, nonroutine tasks were asked
and proself approach to conflict resolution. about the ways they handled conflicts in their
Cooperating people identify the issues underlying teams. All these teams included both men and
the dispute and then work together to identify a women, and they ranged in size from 4 to 13 mem-
solution that is satisfying to both sides. This bers. Members of these teams typically interacted

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

436 C H A P T E R 13

with each other in face-to-face settings at least once cooperating with one, the most effective competi-
a week in planning sessions, and they reported tion reverser to emerge was a strategy called tit for
interacting with each other informally nearly tat (TFT, or “this for that”). TFT begins with
every day. As expected, negative methods of deal- cooperation. If the other party cooperates, too,
ing with conflicts, such as arguing and forcing one’s then cooperation continues. But if the other party
views onto others, were associated with negative competes, then TFT competes as well. Each action
team functioning. In these groups, however, collab- by the other person is countered with the matching
orative methods of conflict resolution (e.g., “discuss- response—cooperation for cooperation, competi-
ing the issues,” “cooperating to better understand tion for competition.
others’ views,” and “settling problems through give
and take”) were also negatively correlated with team The TFT stratagem is said to be nice, provoc-
functioning. Only passive responses, such as “avoid- able, clear, and forgiving. It is nice because it begins
ing the issues,” “acting as if nothing has happened,” with cooperation and only defects following compe-
and “hushing up the quarrel,” were associated with tition. It is provocable in the sense that it immediately
increases in group adjustment to the conflict. Appar- retaliates against individuals who compete. It is clear
ently, the consistent use of collaboration to deal with because people playing against someone using this
intractable differences or petty disagreements dis- strategy quickly recognize its contingencies. It is for-
tracted the groups from the achievement of their giving because it immediately reciprocates coopera-
task-related goals (De Dreu & Van Vianen, 2001). tion should the competitor respond cooperatively.

These findings suggest that groups may wish to TFT is also a reciprocal strategy, for it fights fire
heed the advice of one member of a successful musical with fire and rewards kindness in kind. Individuals
quartet who, when asked how his group managed who follow a tit-for-tat strategy are viewed as
conflicts, explained, “We have a little saying in “tough but fair”; those who cooperate with a com-
quartets—either we play or we fight” (Murnighan petitor are viewed as weak, and those who consis-
& Conlon, 1991, pp. 177–178). Cooperative, proso- tently compete are considered unfair (McGillicuddy,
cial solutions work in many cases, but sometimes Pruitt, & Syna, 1984). Because the effectiveness of
groups must ignore the conflict and focus, instead, TFT as a conflict reduction method is based on its
on the work to be done. provocability, any delay in responding to competition
reduces the effectiveness of TFT. If a group member
13-3d Retaliation ! Forgiveness competes and this defection is not countered quickly
with competition, TFT is less effective. TFT also loses
Consistent cooperation among people over a long some of its strength in “noisy” interactions, when
period generally increases mutual trust. But when behaviors cannot be clearly classified as either compet-
group members continually compete with each itive or cooperative. It is less effective in larger groups,
other, mutual trust becomes much more elusive. although this decline is minimized if individual mem-
When people cannot trust one another, they com- bers believe that a substantial subgroup within the
pete simply to defend their own best interests total group is basing its choices on the TFT strategy
(Peterson & Ferguson, 2014). (Kerr, 2013; Komorita & Parks, 1994; Parks, 2015).

Reversing the Conflict Spiral How can the Forgiveness Greek scholars used the word
upward spiral of competition and distrust, once ini- aphiemi, or forgiveness, to describe letting go or
tiated, be reversed? Political scientist Robert Axel- voluntarily setting aside an obligation to punish.
rod (1984) explored this question by comparing a
number of strategies in simulated competitions. tit for tat (TFT) A bargaining strategy that begins with
After studying dozens of different strategies, ranging cooperation, but then imitates the other person’s choice
from always competing with a competitor to always so that cooperation is met with cooperation and compe-
tition with competition.

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

CONFLICT 437

Viewed from an evolutionary perspective, forgive- members reach a mutually agreeable solution to
ness undoes the damaging effects of conflict by their dispute (Moore, 2014). Although uninvolved
reversing the upward spiraling cycle of repeated group members may wish to stand back and let the
retaliation following real or perceived injury. Retali- disputants “battle it out,” impasses, unflagging con-
ation requires one party to impose sanctions on flict escalation, or the combatants’ entreaties may
another, but revenge is risky: It can destroy the social cause other group members or outside parties to
relationship between the wrongdoer and the retalia- help by the following:
tor and can also provoke counter-retaliatory actions.
Forgiveness, in contrast, reduces the likelihood of ■ Creating opportunities for both sides to express
vengeful behavior and also strengthens the positive themselves while controlling contentiousness.
relational bonds in the group (McCullough, Kurz-
ban, & Tabak, 2011). Forgiveness may increase both ■ Improving communication between the dis-
the forgiver’s and the forgiven’s sense of connected- putants by summarizing points, asking for
ness to the group (Burnette et al., 2012). clarification, and so on.

13-3e Anger ! Composure ■ Helping disputants save face by framing the
acceptance of concessions in positive ways
Just as negative emotions encourage conflicts, positive and by taking the blame for these
affective responses increase concession making, crea- concessions.
tive problem solving, cooperation, and the use of
noncontentious bargaining strategies (Forgas, 1998). ■ Formulating and offering proposals for alter-
Hence, when tempers flare, the group should native solutions that both parties find
encourage members to regain control over their acceptable.
emotions. “Count to ten,” calling a “timeout,” or
expressing concerns in a written, carefully edited, let- ■ Manipulating aspects of the meeting, including
ter or email are simple but effective recommendations its location, seating, formality of communica-
for controlling conflict, as is the introduction of tion, time constraints, attendees, and agenda.
humor into the group discussion (Mischel, DeSmet,
& Kross, 2006). Apologies, too, are effective means of ■ Guiding the disputants through a process of
reducing anger. When people are informed about integrative problem-solving.
mitigating causes—background factors that indicate
that the insult is unintentional or unimportant— However, if the disputants want to resolve the con-
conflict is reduced (Betancourt & Blair, 1992). flict on their own terms, third-party interventions
Groups can also control anger by developing norms are considered an unwanted intrusion (Carnevale,
that explicitly or implicitly prohibit shows of strong, 2008).
negative emotion or by holding meetings on contro-
versial topics online (Yang & Mossholder, 2004). Go-betweens, facilitators, diplomats, advisers,
judges, and other kinds of mediators vary consider-
13-3f Many ! Few ably in terms of their power to control others’ out-
comes (LaTour, 1978; LaTour et al., 1976). In an
Conflicts intensify when others take sides, but they inquisitorial procedure, the mediator questions the two
shrink when third-party mediators help group parties and then hands down a verdict that the two
parties must accept. In arbitration, the disputants
mediator One who intervenes between two persons present their arguments to the mediator, who
during conflict, with a view to reconciling the dispute. then bases his or her decision on the information
they provide. In a moot, the disputants and the
mediator openly and informally discuss problems
and solutions, but the mediator can make no bind-
ing decisions. Satisfaction with a mediator depends
on how well the intermediary fulfills these func-
tions and also on the intensity of the conflict. Medi-
ational techniques, such as arbitration, are effective

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

438 C H A P T E R 13

Is Cooperation Universally Valued?

No two cultures deal with conflict in exactly the same indirectly, with more subtlety: A person should “offer
way. In some societies, rather than letting disagree- indirect suggestions,” “express complaints indirectly,”
ments threaten the quality and stability of relation- and “talk around disagreements” when possible
ships, people maneuver around their disagreements (Hammer, 2005, p. 685). Individuals in these cultures
to stop them from escalating into full-fledged dis- prefer avoidance, but avoidance does not indicate a
putes. In other cultures, in contrast, conflict is consid- low concern for others’ outcomes as the dual-process
ered more of a test between competitors and is model suggests. In collectivistic countries, avoidance is
framed as a win–lose situation. Many Western socie- a more active strategy; a positively valued means of
ties, for example, openly value competition (Gibson & dealing with conflict that sustains, rather than threa-
McDaniel, 2010). tens, the group.

The differences across societies are linked to var- These findings offer a warning to people who
iations in cultural values pertaining to individualism/ work in multicultural groups. Even though well-
collectivism and power hierarchy. For example, in meaning group members may hope to quell a conflict
China, a collectivistic culture, members are more likely with a deft intervention, they may only make matters
to adopt harmony-enhancing strategies that minimize worse by using a method that is considered conten-
conflict, including following the rules that will yield a tious in other cultures (Brew et al., 2011). The collec-
fair resolution to the disagreement. In a more individ- tivist who seeks to deflect the group’s attention away
ualistic country, such as America, a more direct, con- from the conflict may irritate the individualist who
frontational approach may be preferred (Gelfand, wants to solve the problem, not dodge it. Conversely,
Leslie, & Keller, 2008). the individualist, believing that the conflict can be
cleared up if people just speak their minds, pushes
Most of the world’s peoples, however, recognize everyone to deal with the issues in open discussion.
the value of one particular conflict resolution The collectivists in the group will wonder why anyone
method: cooperation. This approach satisfies both who seems so intelligent in other ways would use such
individuals who are seeking their own best outcomes, a clumsy method of dealing with conflict. The cultur-
but also those who are concerned with the overall ally competent group will, instead, use a variety of
well-being of the group (Cai & Fink, 2002). But in methods to deal with conflict, shifting from one
individualistic cultures, conflict is generally viewed as approach to the other depending on the strength of
something that should be confronted directly: A per- the relations among members, the level of harm the
son should “directly express what you believe,” “ver- conflict can cause, and the extent to which others in
bally defend your views,” and “get straight to the the group have expressed a public commitment to
point” (Hammer, 2005, p. 685). In more collectivistic their position.
cultures, in contrast, people prefer to handle conflict

when the conflict is subdued, but they may not time, resources, and energy. Two men who were
work when conflict intensity is high. Overall, once friends parted as enemies. A company that
most people prefer arbitration, followed by moot, once profited from the leadership of two visionary
mediation, and inquisitorial procedures (LaTour thinkers lost one of them to a competitor.
et al., 1976; Shestowsky, 2004).
Is conflict always harmful—a pernicious process
13-3g The Value of Conflict: Redux that should be avoided? When Carsten De Dreu
and Laurie Weingart (2003) conducted a meta-
Did Apple gain from the Jobs versus Sculley conflict, analysis of dozens of studies of conflict in groups,
or did it suffer a setback as its top executives fought they discovered that, in study after study, conflict
for power and control? The group resolved the dis- undermined satisfaction and lowered performance.
pute, but not without a considerable investment of Subsequent work confirmed their findings, but also
identified factors that moderate the strength of the

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

CONFLICT 439

conflict–performance relationship. Organizational the group’s methods of dealing with conflict. All of
behavior researcher Karen Jehn and her collea- the groups experienced conflicts as their work pro-
gues, for example, suggest that some groups— gressed, but they dealt with these problems in dif-
such as top-level management teams and strategy ferent ways. The 21 best teams proactively
groups—may even perform more effectively in forecasted possible problems before they happened.
the long run if they have experienced a modicum They developed schedules and assigned responsibil-
of task conflict. So long as task conflict is not too ities carefully, in unemotional, fact-driven discus-
high in intensity, prolonged, and the catalyst for sions, to reach consensus. They did not report
other forms of conflict, then its negative effects dealing with relationship conflict, because they did
are restrained (de Wit, Greer, & Jehn, 2012; not have any. A second set of 11 high-performance
Jehn, 2014). groups had little cohesiveness, but these groups all
expressly discussed their lukewarm interpersonal
So maybe the problem is not conflict, but mis- relations and dismissed the importance of social
managed conflict. As noted in Chapter 5, many connections. These groups resolved task and process
groups pass through a period of conflict as they conflicts by voting. The 14 worst teams, who
mature. This conflict phase, so long as it is managed exhibited both declining performance and interper-
well, expands the range of options, generates new sonal dysfunction, also used discussion, but the dis-
alternatives, and enhances the group’s unity by cussion never resolved their problems. These
making explicit any latent hostilities and tensions. groups reported trying to deal with their problems
Conflict can make a group’s goals more explicit and openly, but members would just give in to more
help members understand their role in the group. It dominant members because they grew tired of
may force the members to examine, more carefully, arguing. They dealt with their performance pro-
their assumptions and expectations and may help blems by rotating duties from one member to
the group focus on its strengths and diagnose its another, but they never analyzed the effectiveness
weaknesses. A group without conflict may be of this technique.
working so perfectly that no one can identify any
improvements, but more likely it is a group that is These findings suggest that the impact of con-
boring and uninvolving for its members. Conflict, flict on a group cannot be predicted until the
then, is not the culprit. It is poor management of group’s capacity for managing its conflict is
the conflicts that inevitably arise in groups that leads known. Groups that take proactive steps to pre-
to problems (DeChurch, Mesmer-Magnus, & vent conflict from arising in the first place tend
Doty, 2013; Jehn, 1997, 2014). to be more satisfying to members than those that
only respond—and respond poorly at that—to
Organizational and business administration conflicts when they arise. Successful groups also
researcher Kristin Behfar and her colleagues tended to adopt pluralistic strategies for dealing
(2008) examined the consequences of poorly man- with conflict, rather than particularistic ones.
aged conflict in their detailed quantitative analysis They resolved conflicts using methods that applied
of 57 autonomous work teams. These groups all to the group as a whole, such as developing rules,
worked with the same resources, on the same standardizing procedures, and assigning tasks to
types of projects, and with the same time con- members based on skill and expertise rather than
straints. Over time, some of the groups became status. Less successful groups, in contrast, used
more capable in the task realm, but others did strategies that focused on specific individual com-
not. Some, too, enjoyed increasingly positive rela- plaints or the group’s concerns about one or two
tions among members, whereas others exhibited members. In these groups, the “squeaky wheel
declines in the quality of their cohesion. would get the grease,” but the repair was not suf-
ficient to restore the group to health.
Behfar’s group discovered that these changes in
task success and interpersonal bonds were related to

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

440 C H A P T E R 13

CHAPTER REVIEW

What is conflict and its causes? self-interest to the detriment of the group and
its goals. Disputes arise when members
1. When conflict occurs in a group, the actions or
beliefs of one or more members of the group ■ exploit a shared resource (a commons
are unacceptable to and resisted by one or dilemma or social trap),
more of the other members.
■ do not contribute their share (a public goods
■ Intergroup conflict involves two or more dilemma, free riding),
groups, and intragroup conflict occurs within
a group. ■ disagree on the procedures to follow in
dividing the resources (procedural justice)
■ Conflict follows a cycle from disagreement and respond negatively to resource distri-
to conflict to escalation to de-escalation to butions (distributive justice),
resolution.
■ do not agree on the norms to follow when
2. Many group and individual factors conspire to apportioning resources (e.g., equality,
create conflict in a group, but the most com- equity, power, responsibility, and need),
mon sources are competition, conflicts over the
distribution of resources, power struggles, task ■ feel they are receiving less than they
and process conflicts, and relationship conflicts. should, given their contribution to the
group (negative inequity; work by Brosnan
3. Competing: Cooperation is associated with pos- and de Waal, 2003, suggests that other
itive motivational and physiological processes, species are sensitive to unfair distributions
whereas competition increases conflict by pitting of resources), and
members against one another (Deutsch, 1949a).
■ take more than their fair share of respon-
■ Mixed-motive situations, like the prisoner’s sibility for a successful outcome (egocen-
dilemma game, tempt individuals to trism) or avoid blame for group failure
compete rather than cooperate. (self-serving attributions of responsibility).

■ Behavioral assimilation is caused by the 5. Controlling: Power struggles are common in
norm of reciprocity; competition sparks groups as members vie for control over lead-
competition (negative reciprocity) and ership, status, and position (Morrill, 1995).
cooperation (to a lesser extent) provokes
cooperation (positive reciprocity). 6. Working: As group members collaborate
on tasks, differences and disagreements can
■ Choices in the PDG are influenced by generate task and process conflict.
situational factors (e.g., the name of the
game), personality factors (e.g., social value ■ Task conflict stems from disagreements
orientation; Van Lange et al., 1997), sex, about issues that are relevant to the group’s
age, and the size of the incentives offered. goals and outcomes. Even though such
substantive conflicts help groups reach
■ Although many educational settings their goals, these disagreements can turn
stress competition, reviews conducted by into personal, unpleasant conflicts.
Johnson and Johnson (2009) suggest
cooperation-based classrooms promote ■ Process conflicts occur when members do not
both well-being and learning. agree on group strategies, policies, and
methods.
4. Sharing: Social dilemmas stimulate conflict
by tempting members to act in their own ■ Groups, by dealing with work conflict,
can improve their functioning, but in

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

CONFLICT 441

most cases such conflict undermines ■ the formation of coalitions that embroil
productivity. formerly neutral members in the conflict.

7. Liking and disliking: Relationship conflict occurs 5. The level of incivility on the Internet is influ-
when individual members do not like one enced by norms and community sanctions
another. against norm violators.

■ Any factor that causes disaffection between How can group members manage their conflicts?
group members (e.g., differences in atti-
tudes and objectionable personal qualities) 1. In many cases, members use negotiation to
can increase personal conflict. resolve disagreements and disputes. Distributive
negotiation involves dividing up resources
■ Balance theory predicts that group mem- whereas integrative negotiation involves identify-
bers will respond negatively when they ing the issues underlying the dispute and then
disagree with those they like or agree with working together to find a solution that is sat-
those they dislike, but as Taylor’s (1970) isfying to all parties.
work confirmed, conflict is greatest when
group members both disagree with and 2. The Harvard Negotiation Project maintains
dislike each other. that principled, integrative negotiation is more
effective than either soft or hard bargaining.
Why does conflict escalate?
3. Because many conflicts are rooted in misun-
1. When individuals defend their viewpoints in derstandings and misperceptions, group mem-
groups, they become more committed to their bers can reduce conflict by actively
positions, as illustrated by the dollar auction communicating information about their
and reactance. motives and goals through discussion.

2. Conflict is exacerbated by members’ tendency 4. The dual concern model identifies four (or
to misperceive others and to assume that the five) means of dealing with conflicts—
other party’s behavior is caused by personal avoiding, yielding, fighting, and cooperating
(dispositional) rather than situational (environ- (and conciliation)—that differ along two
mental) factors (fundamental attribution error). dimensions: concern for self and concern for
others.
3. As conflicts worsen, members shift from soft to
hard tactics. ■ In some cases, cooperation is more likely
to promote group unity.
■ Pruitt and his colleagues (1997) found that
individuals shift from soft tactics to hard ■ Personal conflicts—those that are rooted in
influence tactics when their initial requests basic differences in attitude, outlook, and
are denied. so on—may not yield to cooperative
negotiations. De Dreu (2010) suggests that
■ Deutsch and Krauss’s (1960) trucking game the avoiding method may be the best way
experiment indicated conflict escalates when to cope with such conflicts.
each side could threaten the other.
5. Other factors that contribute to the de-
4. Other factors that contribute to the escalation escalation of conflict in groups include
of conflict in groups include
■ responding to competition with a
■ negative reciprocity, as when negative tit-for-tat (TFT) strategy, as described by
actions provoke negative reactions in others; Axelrod (1984);

■ angry emotions that trigger expressions of ■ allowing time for individuals to regain
anger among members; and composure;

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

442 C H A P T E R 13

■ expressing positive rather than negative Is conflict an unavoidable evil or a necessary good?
emotions, including forgiveness;
1. Conflict is a natural consequence of joining a
■ using third-party interventions— group and cannot be avoided completely.
mediators—who impose solutions
(inquisitorial procedures and arbitration) 2. Research (see Behfar et al., 2008; Jehn, 2014)
or guide disputants to a compromise suggests that conflicts, when managed suc-
(moot and mediation procedures); and cessfully, promote positive group function-
ing. However, because of the difficulties
■ most cultures recognize the value of groups face when trying to deal with conflict,
cooperation, but Eastern cultures favor De Dreu and Weingart (2003) conclude
avoidance more than Western ones, that in most cases conflict causes more harm
whereas Western cultures favor competi- than good.
tion more than Eastern ones.

RESOURCES

Chapter Case: Jobs versus Sculley teams, and culture’s effects on conflict
processes.
■ Apple Confidential 2.0: The Definitive
History of the World’s Most Colorful Company ■ “Collaboration and Conflict in Work
by Owen W. Linzmayer (2004) provides Teams” by Eduardo Salas, Maritza R.
a well-researched history of the many Salazar, Jennifer Feitosa, and William S.
conflict-laden episodes in the life of Kramer (2014) examines definitions and
Apple, Inc. forms of collaboration and conflict in
groups before examining the organiza-
Causes of Conflict tional climate, practices, and procedures
that help group members manage conflicts
■ “A History of Social Conflict and and promote collaboration.
Negotiation Research” by Dean G.
Pruitt (2012) reviews the history of Conflict Resolution
conflict studies from the perspective
of a leading theorist and researcher in ■ Getting to YES: Negotiating Agreement with-
the field. out Giving In (2nd ed.) by Roger Fisher,
William Ury, and Bruce Patton (1991)
■ The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory describes a step-by-step strategy for
and Practice, edited by Morton Deutsch, resolving conflicts to the mutual benefit of
Peter T. Coleman, and Eric C. Marcus both parties.
(2006), is the definitive sourcebook for
general analyses of conflict’s causes as well ■ Conflict Management in Organizations, edited
as empirically based recommendations for by William K. Roche, Paul Teague, and
resolving conflicts. Alexander J. S. Colvin (2014) offers
practical advice for dealing with conflict in
■ The Handbook of Conflict Management groups and organizations through media-
Research, edited by Oluremi B. Ayoko, tion, negotiation, and other forms of
Neal M. Ashkanasy, and Karen A. Jehn dispute resolution; the final section
(2014), provides a broad overview of includes recommendations for dealing
all major topics related to conflict in with conflicts in international contexts.
groups, including negotiation, conflict in

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

CONFLICT 443

■ Friend and Foe: When to Cooperate, When to ■ Making Conflict Work: Harnessing the Power
Compete, and How to Succeed at Both by of Disagreement by Peter T. Coleman and
Adam Galinsky and Maurice Schweitzer Robert Ferguson (2014) draws on case
(2015) searches for the social psychological studies, empirical studies, and the authors’
foundations of conflict and suggests ways unique practical expertise to offer clear
to balance cooperation with competition advice on ways to work through conflicts
to achieve positive outcomes for all parties. successfully.

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Intergroup
Relations

14C H A P T E R

CHAPTER OUTLINE CHAPTER OVERVIEW

14-1 Intergroup Conflict: Us versus Them As a social species, humans strive to establish close
14-1a Competition and Conflict ties with one another. Yet the same species that
14-1b Power and Domination seeks out connections with others also metes out
14-1c Intergroup Aggression enmity when it confronts another group. Inter-
14-1d Norms and Conflict group relations are more often contentious rather
14-1e Evolutionary Perspectives than harmonious, as groups vie with one another
for resources, power, and influence. The very pro-
14-2 Intergroup Bias: Perceiving Us and Them cesses that strengthen and sustain groups, including
14-2a Conflict and Categorization a sense of shared identity and group pride, also cre-
14-2b The Ingroup–Outgroup Bias ate biases against other groups and the members of
14-2c Cognitive Biases those groups. But intergroup conflict is not inevita-
14-2d Stereotype Content Model ble. Even the most adversarial groups can achieve
14-2e Exclusion and Dehumanization a more harmonious coexistence by promoting pos-
14-2f Categorization and Identity itive contact between their members and refusing
to think of the other group members in negative,
14-3 Intergroup Conflict Resolution: Uniting stereotyped ways.
Us and Them
14-3a Intergroup Contact ■ What interpersonal factors disrupt relations
14-3b Cognitive Cures for Conflict between groups?
14-3c Learning to Cooperate
14-3d Resolving Conflict: Conclusions ■ What are the psychological foundations of
conflict between groups?
Chapter Review
■ How can intergroup relations be improved?
Resources

444

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

INTERGROUP RELATIONS 445

The Robbers Cave Experiment: Group against Group

On two midsummer days in 1954, twenty-two 11- clear increases in group-oriented behaviors, cohesive-
year-old boys from Oklahoma City boarded buses for ness, and positive group attitudes.
their trip to summer camp. They were “normal, well-
adjusted boys of the same age, educational level, from When each group discovered another group was
similar sociocultural backgrounds and with no unusual nearby, they expressed wariness about these outsiders.
features in their personal backgrounds” (Sherif et al., After some guarded encounters between members,
1961, p. 59). Their parents had paid a $25 fee, signed they asked the staff to set up a competition to deter-
some consent forms, and packed them off to Robbers mine which group was better than the other. Since a
Cave State Park, located in the San Bois Mountains of series of competitions between the two groups was
southeast Oklahoma. exactly what the staff had in mind, they held a series
of baseball games, tugs-of-war, tent pitching competi-
Robbers Cave was not your typical summer camp. tions, cabin inspections, and a (rigged) treasure hunt.
All the boys had been screened by a team of social
psychologists that included Muzafer Sherif, O. J. Harvey, As the competition wore on, tempers flared.
Jack White, William Hood, and Carolyn Sherif. The When the Eagles lost a game, they retaliated by steal-
Sherifs and their colleagues had spent more than 300 ing and burning the Rattlers’ flag. The Rattlers raided
hours interviewing the boys’ teachers, studying their the Eagles’ cabin during the night, tearing out mos-
academic records, reviewing their family backgrounds, quito netting, overturning beds, and carrying off per-
and unobtrusively recording their behavior in school sonal belongings. The conflict reached its crescendo on
and on the playground. The parents knew that the the final day of competition when the Eagles won the
camp was actually part of a research project, but the last event and were declared the overall winners. As
boys had no idea that the camp was an experiment. they celebrated with a swim in the stream, the Rattlers
broke into the Eagles’ cabin and absconded with the
The staff randomly assigned each boy to one of prizes. The Eagles then confronted the Rattlers, who
two groups. Each group spent a week hiking, swim- told the Eagles if they would “get down on their bel-
ming, and playing sports in their area of the camp, and lies and crawl,” then they would give back their prizes
both groups developed norms, roles, and structure. (Sherif et al., 1961, p. 115). The Eagles refused, and
Some boys emerged as leaders, others became fol- fights broke out between the groups. The staff had to
lowers, and both groups established territories within intervene to prevent the boys from seriously injuring
the park (see Figure 14.1). The boys named their one another. They moved the two groups to different
groups the Rattlers and the Eagles and stenciled these parts of the camp, amid shouts of “poor losers,”
names on their shirts and painted them onto flags. The “bums,” “sissies,” “cowards,” and “little babies.” It
staff members, who were also collecting data, noted was official: the Rattlers hated the Eagles, and the
Eagles hated the Rattlers.

The study of group dynamics confirms an ancient members to assist anyone who needs help, even
truth: Humans are a social, group-living species. if the needy belong to another group. These
But we do not all belong to the same groups. types of intergroup relations are not nonexistent,
Some of us are young, some are old. Some speak but they are exceptions rather than the rule: Inter-
this language, others that language. Some of us group relations are usually conflict-laden ones, rife
were born and raised here, some of us come from with competition, hostility, and rejection rather
someplace else. Some of us are Rattlers, but some than cooperation, acceptance, and inclusion.
are Eagles. We are a species divided, split into enu- Chapter 13 examined the causes of and possible
merable groups and subgroups. cures for conflict between two or more people—
intragroup (or interindividual) conflict—but this
An analysis of the relations between these chapter examines conflict between groups—
groups could discuss ways they work together to intergroup conflict. It begins by considering the
achieve goals that no one group can reach; how group-level processes that push groups into conflict.
groups have learned to maintain mutually beneficial As with conflict between group members,
relations over time; how groups encourage their

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

446 C H A P T E R 14

Reservoir
Pump house

Water tank

Robbers Hill Rattler swimming hole
Cave
Upper
camp

Rocks Stone
corral

3/8 mi. 3/4 mi.

REAATGTLLEER Recreation Rattler Robbers Cave State Park Area Athletic
hall cabin field

Eagle swimming hole AARREAEA N

Moccasin Creek Park Road

Copperhead O.U. camp Mess
hall

Hill

Park Road Hill

Robbers Cave Rattlesnake Bay
wooded area
State Eagle Dock
cabin

Indicates Park Area Dam

F I G U R E 14.1 The layout of the campgrounds in the Robbers Cave experiment.

SOURCE: Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation. The Robbers Cave Experiment, by M. Sherif, O. J. Harvey, B. J. White, W. R. Hood, and C. W. Sherif, 1961. Norman,
OK: Institute of Group Relations.

intergroup conflict becomes more likely when groups individual-level, psychological processes that sustain
compete against each other, but other factors— divisions between groups, including biased inter-
power, emotions, and norms—are also influential. group perceptions and stereotypes. This analysis
will underscore the complexity of intergroup
Relations between groups are further complicated by

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

INTERGROUP RELATIONS 447

conflict, but not its inevitability: The chapter closes control a scarce commodity—whether it be food, ter-
with an analysis of the ways intergroup conflicts ritory, wealth, power, natural resources, energy, or the
can be resolved (De Dreu, Aaldering, & Saygi, prizes so desperately desired by the Rattlers and the
2015; Dovidio, Gaertner, & Thomas, 2013; Tropp & Eagles—other groups must do without that resource.
Molina, 2012). According to realistic group conflict theory, this
struggle between groups over scarce resources inevita-
14-1 INTERGROUP bly leads to conflict (Brewer, 2007). All groups would
prefer to be “haves” rather than “have-nots,” so they
CONFLICT: US VERSUS THEM take steps to achieve two interrelated outcomes—
obtaining the desired resources and preventing the
The researchers’ plans for the Robbers Cave other group from reaching its goals. Groups often
experiment worked all too well. In just two compete economically as they seek to secure resources
weeks, they created a full-fledged war-in-miniature through manufacturing and trade, but intergroup
between the Rattlers and the Eagles, complete with competition can also trigger intergroup conflict, as
violent schemes, hostility, and mistreatment of each groups attempt to dominate one another through the
side by the other. The Sherifs, by starting with two use of force and counterforce. Theorists have traced
newly formed groups with no history of rivalry, suc- many negative intergroup dynamics—including strug-
ceeded in documenting the social and psychological gles between the classes of a society (Marx & Engels,
factors that pushed these two groups into an escalat- 1947), rebellions (Gurr, 1970), international warfare
ing conflict. (Streufert & Streufert, 1986), racism (Gaines & Reed,
1995), religious persecutions (Clark, 1998), tribal rival-
14-1a Competition and Conflict ries (Brewer & Campbell, 1976), police use of lethal
force against citizens (Jacobs & O’Brien, 1998), organi-
On the ninth day of the Robbers Cave experiment, zational conflicts (Brief et al., 2005), and even the
the Rattlers and the Eagles saw the tournament prizes development of culture and social structure (Carneiro,
for the first time: the shining trophy, medals for each 1970)—to competition over scarce resources.
boy, and—best of all—four-blade camping knives.
The boys wanted these prizes, and nothing was The Discontinuity Effect During the first week
going to stand in their way. From then on, all group of the Robbers Cave experiment, Mills and Simpson,
activities revolved around the ultimate goal of winning both Rattlers, competed with each other for status,
the tournament. Unfortunately, although both groups resources, and respect. But their competition did
aspired to win the prizes, success for one group meant not result in conflict, for it stabilized when Simpson
failure for the other. When groups are pitted against accepted Mills as the Rattler leader. The competi-
each other in a contest for resources, intergroup rela- tion between the Rattler and the Eagles, in
tions that were once amicable often become antago- contrast, was more intensive than that between
nistic (Chang, Krosch, & Cikara, 2016). Mills and Simpson, as is consistent with the
discontinuity effect: the tendency for groups to
Realistic Group Conflict Theory Many of the
things that groups want and need are available in realistic group conflict theory A conceptual frame-
limited supply. Should one group acquire and work arguing that conflict between groups stems from
competition for scarce resources, including food, terri-
Robbers Cave experiment A field study that exam- tory, wealth, power, natural resources, and energy.
ined the causes and consequences of conflict between discontinuity effect The markedly greater competi-
two groups of boys at Robbers Cave State Park in Okla- tiveness of groups when interacting with other groups,
homa (designed and conducted by Muzafer and Carolyn relative to the competitiveness of individuals interacting
Sherif and their colleagues). with other individuals.

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

448 C H A P T E R 14

display a level of competitiveness that is greater than Rattlers’ choice
the competitiveness displayed by individuals. Even CD
though individuals in the group may prefer to
cooperate, when they join groups, this cooperative Eagles’ choice Rattlers Rattlers
orientation tends to be replaced by a competitive win win
one (see Wildschut & Insko, 2007, for a review). 60
C 50
Social psychologists Chet Insko, John Schopler, Eagles
and their colleagues documented this discontinuity Eagles win
by asking individuals and groups to play the prison- win 20
er’s dilemma game (PDG). As noted in Chapter 13, 50
this mixed-motive game offers the two parties a
choice between cooperation and competition. Rattlers Rattlers
This interdependence is illustrated in the sample win win
PDG matrix in Figure 14.2. Option C is the coop- 20 30
erative choice and D is the competitive, defecting-
from-cooperation, choice. Cooperation will yield D Eagles Eagles
the best outcomes for both groups if they both win win
select C, but if one picks C and the other picks 60 30
D, then the cooperative group’s payoff will be
small (20 points) compared to the competitive F I G U R E 14.2 The prisoner’s dilemma game payoff
group’s payoff (60 points). If both groups select matrix used to study competition and intergroup conflict.
option D, then their rewards will be cut in half Groups tend to select option D much more frequently
(Insko et al., 1990, 1993, 1994; Schopler & Insko, than option C.
1992; Schopler et al., 1995)
interactions, they found that group activities were
When one person played another person, very marked by more competition than one-on-one
few of these pairs competed: only 6.6% over the activities. Participants diligently recorded their
course of the game. Competition was also rare interpersonal activities for an entire week, classify-
when three individuals—who would share profits ing them into one of five categories:
at the end of the game but, until then, could not
talk to one another—played another set of three ■ One-on-one interactions: dyadic interactions, such
independent individuals (7.5%). But when an inter- as playing chess, walking to class with another
acting triad played another interacting triad, 36.2% person.
of their choices were competitive, and when triads
played triads but communicated their choices ■ Within-group interactions: interacting with other
through representatives selected from within the members of one’s group, such as a club meet-
group, competition rose to 53.5% (Insko et al., ing or a classroom discussion.
1987). These findings are remarkably consistent—
a meta-analysis of 48 separate studies conducted in ■ One-on-group interactions: interacting as a single
11 different group dynamics laboratories confirmed individual with a group, such as a student
that groups are disproportionately more competi- meeting with the honor council.
tive than individuals (Wildschut et al., 2003).
■ Group-on-one interactions: interacting as a part of
Discontinuity across Social Interactions This a group with a single individual, such as a class
discontinuity between individuals and groups is confronting a teacher over a grading policy.
not confined to groups playing a structured conflict
game. When researchers examined everyday social ■ Group-on-group interactions: interacting as part of
a group with another group, such as a soccer
game or a joint session of two classes.

As Figure 14.3 indicates, the proportion of com-
petitive interactions within each type of interaction

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

INTERGROUP RELATIONS 449

One-to-one Causes of Discontinuity The consistency of the
discontinuity effect suggests that it springs from a
Within group number of causes that combine to exacerbate conflicts
between groups, including greed, fear, and social
One-to-one identity (Pinter et al., 2007). First, individuals are
greedy, but groups are even greedier. When people
Group-to-one discover that others in the group are leaning in the
direction of maximizing gains by exploiting others,
Group-to-group this social support spurs the group members on to
greater levels of greed. Changing the PDG matrix
0 10 20 30 40 50 payoff so that greed is no longer so lucrative mini-
Percent competitive mizes the discontinuity effect (Wolf et al., 2008).

F I G U R E 14.3 The level of competitiveness of five Second, people fear groups more than they fear
everyday situations ranging from one-to-one interactions individuals. They describe groups as more abrasive
to group-to-group interactions. (competitive, aggressive, and proud) and less agreeable
(cooperative, trustworthy, and helpful) than indivi-
SOURCE: From tabled data in “Memory for and Experience of Differential duals. This pessimism also colors their expectations
Competitive Behavior of Individuals and Groups” by M. B. Pemberton, C. A. about specific group interactions, for people who
Insko, and J. Schopler, 1996, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, were about to play the PDG against a group felt
953–966. that the experience would be more abrasive than
did individuals about to play the game as individuals
climbed steadily as people moved from one-on-one (Hoyle, Pinkley, & Insko, 1989). People competing
interactions to group interactions. These effects also with a group rather than a single person feel more
emerged when sports activities, which could have threatened: They say such things as “We don’t trust
exacerbated the competitiveness of groups, were you” and “You better not cheat us” to their oppo-
eliminated from the analysis (Pemberton, Insko, & nents, so communication between groups does
Schopler, 1996). Other research suggests that the little to quell tensions. If individuals feel personally
discontinuity effect may be intensified when the
other group is more group-like—that is, it is higher
in entitativity (Insko, Wildschut, & Cohen, 2013).

Are Collectivists Peacemakers?

Individuals and societies vary in their degree of indi- dealing with members of their own group, when
vidualism and collectivism. Individualism stresses the interacting with a member of the outgroup, they dis-
rights of the individual; collectivism exults the rights of play more hostility than individualists (Leung, 1988). In
the group. Individualists tend to make choices that one investigation, students from countries with collec-
maximize their own outcomes, so in general they tivistic and individualistic cultures were asked to iden-
respond more competitively in conflict situations. Col- tify how they would respond to a conflict with another
lectivists are more likely to adopt harmony-enhancing individual (interpersonal or intragroup conflict), to a
strategies that minimize conflict, including following conflict between their group and another group
rules that will yield a fair resolution to the disagree- (intergroup conflict), and to a conflict between their
ment (see Chapter 3). country and another country (international conflict).
Students from collectivistic countries responded more
Collectivists’ pacifism may not, however, extend negatively to intergroup and international conflicts
to individuals who are not part of their ingroup. The than to interpersonal conflicts. Those from more indi-
discontinuity effect, for example, holds in collectivistic vidualistic countries differed less in their endorsement
countries as well as individualistic ones (Takemura & of conflict resolution strategies in an international
Yuki, 2007). Moreover, even though collectivists versus an interpersonal conflict (Derlega et al., 2002).
express less anger, hostility, and aggression when

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

450 C H A P T E R 14

threatened, they take steps to protect themselves. But if intergroup exploitation as one group tries to dominate
they feel the group is being threatened, then they take the other. Not only do groups wish to monopolize
steps to protect their group (Weisel & Zultan, 2016). contested resources but they also wish to gain con-
trol over the other group’s resources, which can
Third, individuals who identify with their group include its wealth, land, peoples, and identity
tend to act to maximize the group’s collective out- (Rouhana & Bar-Tal, 1998).
comes, even if that comes at a cost to those outside
of the group (Pinter et al., 2007). This sense of group Social Dominance Theory The Robbers Cave
duty may trigger a desire to outdo the other group campground included three groups organized in a
and maximize the ingroup’s gains (Wolf et al., 2008). hierarchy of authority. The staff was more powerful
When members’ social identity is more salient than than the campers, for they controlled all the camp’s
their personal identity, they are more likely to resources and mandated each day’s activities. Nei-
respond competitively when dealing with another ther the Rattlers nor the Eagles challenged the staff,
group (Böhm, Rothermund, & Kirchkamp, 2013). but they did challenge each other as they struggled
Group-focused collectivistic individuals also respond to rise above the other in the hierarchy (Sherif,
more negatively to group-level conflicts, whereas indi- White, & Harvey, 1955).
vidualists respond more negatively to one-on-one
conflicts (Derlega et al., 2002). This hierarchical structure, and the tension that
it produced, is explained by social psychologists Jim
Deterring Discontinuity What can be done to Sidanius, Felicia Pratto, and their colleagues’ social
reduce the exaggerated competitiveness of groups rel- dominance theory. This theory assumes that, just
ative to individuals? Insko and his associates find that as some individuals within a group are more influen-
communication does little to reduce the effect, since in tial than others, groups within a community, organi-
many cases the two factions communicate negative zation, or society also vary in their capacity to
information or misinformation (Wildschut et al., influence other groups. Whereas some groups
2003). A tolerant appeasement approach to conflict come to control more of the collective’s resources
also proved ineffective in reducing discontinuity. As (e.g., wealth, property, status, and protection),
with studies of individuals, when groups respond other groups occupy positions subordinate to these
cooperatively even when the other party competes— higher status groups and may even be oppressed by
hoping to signal their good intentions and inviting a them. Sidanius and Pratto further suggest that mem-
reduction in conflict—the other group responds by bers of the dominant groups tend to believe that this
exploiting the pacifistic group. A reciprocal strategy, inequitable apportioning of resources is justified by
such as tit for tat (TFT), was a more effective strategy precedent, by custom, or even by law. They may
to counter discontinuity. As noted in Chapter 13, TFT deny that the distribution of resources is actually
matches competition with competition and coopera- unfair and claim that the dominance of one group
tion with cooperation. This strategy, Insko suggests, over another is consistent with the natural order.
allays groups’ fears that they will be exploited, for it The lower-status groups, however, often vie with
reassures them that they can trust the other group. other lower-ranked groups and with the dominant
Other methods for reducing the discontinuity effect groups for power and resources (Sidanius et al., 2007;
include decreasing the rewards of competition (by Sidanius & Pratto, 1999).
changing the values in the PDG matrix) and member’s
anonymity (Wildschut et al., 2003). social dominance theory An approach to oppression
and domination assuming that conflict between groups
14-1b Power and Domination results from dynamic tensions between hierarchically
ranked groups within society (developed by Jim Sidanius,
Intergroup conflicts, though initially rooted in Felicia Pratto, and their colleagues).
competition for scarce resources, can escalate into

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

INTERGROUP RELATIONS 451

The Corruptive Effects of Dominance This in power and status. Whereas some challenge this
cycle of domination and resistance occurs between inequality, others support the idea that some groups
nations, classes, ethnic groups, the sexes, and even should be dominant and others oppressed. Indivi-
small groups in controlled experimental situations. duals with high levels of social dominance orientation
Chet Insko and his colleagues examined exploitation (SDO) strive to maximize their group’s gains, par-
and conflict by creating a simulated social system in ticularly in relationship to other groups’ outcomes.
the laboratory. Insko’s microsocieties included three
interdependent groups, multiple generations of Sidanius, Pratto, and their colleagues examined
members, a communication network, products, and this tendency by arranging for white college students
a trading system (Insko et al., 1980, 1983). Insko who varied in SDO to play an experimental simula-
assigned the microsocieties to one of two experi- tion they called Vladimir’s Choice. The game is based
mental conditions. In the economic power condi- on a Russian parable about a peasant named Vladimir.
tion, one group could produce more varied As the story goes, God visited Vladimir one day and
products, so it quickly became the center of all bar- told him he would grant him one wish. “However,”
gaining and trading. In the coercive power condi- God added: “There is one condition. Anything I give
tion, the group whose members were supposedly to you will be granted to your neighbor, Ivan, twice
better problem solvers was given the right to confis- over.” Vladimir’s response, “Okay, take out one of
cate any products it desired from the other groups. my eyes” (Sidanius et al., 2007, p. 257). In the situa-
(Insko referred to these conditions as the Service tion based on this fable, students made choices that
condition and the Carneiro condition, respectively.) would maximize their group’s gains or those that
would undermine other groups’ outcomes. They
These differences in power had a dramatic were led to believe that they were being consulted
effect on productivity and intergroup relations. In by the school’s administration regarding how student
the economic power condition, all three groups activity funds should be spent, with some options
reached very high levels of productivity, with the favoring White student interests over minority student
advantaged group slightly outperforming the interests. These options were contrived so that in
others. In contrast, none of the groups in the coer- order to receive the maximum allocation for their
cive power condition were very productive. As the group—19 million dollars—it would mean that
“idle rich” hypothesis suggests, the members of the minority groups would receive 25 million dollars. In
powerful group spent less time working when they order to lower the amount given to the outgroup, the
could confiscate others’ work. But the other groups students had to choose an option that yielded less
reacted very negatively to this exploitation, and as money for the ingroup.
the powerful group continued to steal their work,
the members of the other groups held strikes and The majority of the students, 56%, chose the
work slowdowns and sabotaged their products. option that split the funds equally between the two
(Men, in particular, were more likely to strike groups ($13 million to each). Many also favored
back against the oppressive group.) Eventually, the allocations that would raise the amount given to
groups worked so little that the dominant group both Whites and minorities, for they apparently
could not confiscate enough products to make were not concerned with getting more than the
much profit. These results suggest that as with outgroup. Some, however, preferred receiving less
intragroup conflict, one sure way to create conflict money to ensure that their group received more
is to give one party more coercive power than the than the minority group. And who was most likely
other (Deutsch & Krauss, 1960). Apparently, when to base their choice on the ingroup’s gain over the
it comes to power, more is not always better. outgroup’s? Those who were high in social domi-
nance orientation (Sidanius et al., 2007).

Individual Differences in Social Dominance Eliminating Rivals How would the Rattlers
People differ in their appraisal of these disparities have responded if the camp counselors had given

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

452 C H A P T E R 14

What Is Your Social Dominance Orientation?

Social dominance orientation comprises two, often complementary, components. The first component, a prefer-
ence for group-based dominance hierarchy, is an explicit preference for organizations, communities, and societies
where the high-status groups dominate other groups. The second component, antiegalitarianism, does not
directly endorse dominance of one group over another, but neither does it stress the need to take steps to
reduce inequality and hierarchy. Several items from the Social Dominance Scale7, Short-form, are listed here
(Ho et al., 2015, p. 1028).

Instructions: Show how much you favor or oppose each idea below by selecting a number from 1 to 7 on
the scale below. You can work quickly; your first feeling is generally best.

1 ¼ Strongly Oppose 4 ¼ Neutral 5 ¼ Slight Favor
2 ¼ Somewhat Oppose 6 ¼ Somewhat Favor
3 ¼ Slightly Oppose 7 ¼ Strongly Favor

1. An ideal society requires some groups to be on the top and others to be on the bottom. 1234567
2. Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups. 1234567
3. Group equality should not be our primary goal. 1234567
4. It is unjust to try to make groups equal. 1234567

Scoring: Only a subset of the items from the Social Dominance Scale7 are included here, so the results should
be interpreted cautiously. However, a score of 12 would be average, for Americans, on this scale. A score of over
16 would be a relatively high score, whereas a score of less than 8 would be a low score. (For more information
see Ho et al., 2015.)

them the option of removing their rivals from the tendency was more pronounced for the teams that
Robbers Cave campground? Would a group, in its were winning rather than losing—apparently the
quest for social dominance, eliminate a rival alto- successful groups felt as if their higher status earned
gether? And would the social dominance orienta- them the privilege of eliminating the competition.
tion of the members make a difference in how they Not so unexpectedly, individuals who had higher
reacted (Chirot & McCauley, 2006)? SDO scores inflicted more punishment on their
opponents, and they chose to eliminate their rivals
Researchers studied these questions by arrang- sooner (McPherson & Parks, 2011).
ing for individuals and groups to play a competitive
game where winners would qualify for a raffle of 14-1c Intergroup Aggression
$100. Players received feedback as they played each
round, and this feedback was controlled so that Competition, alone, can trigger intergroup conflict,
some were told they were losing the competition, but it also sets in motion a number of other pro-
but others were led to believe they were winning. cesses that can further aggravate the groups. The
The players were also given the opportunity to Rattlers, as the losers, experienced a high level of
punish their opponent by taking some or all of frustration, and that frustration triggered an increase
their points and by eliminating them from the com- in aggressive, hostile actions. They also felt
petition altogether. Consistent with the discontinu- deprived, relative to the Eagles, who had managed
ity effect, groups exacted more severe punishments, to secure the prizes that they sought. Rather than
and they also eliminated their rivals earlier in the accept the blame for their failure, they denied
contest than did individuals. Unexpectedly, this

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

INTERGROUP RELATIONS 453

having lost and tried to declare themselves the win- likely retaliate, setting in motion a cycle of conflict
ners. Their loss triggered a complicated emotional escalation:
reaction that included frustration, anger, and a
desire to find a scapegoat to blame for their loss Group A experiences Group B’s retaliation,
(Meier, Hinsz, & Heimerdinger, 2008). which causes Group A’s members to have high
levels of aggressive affect, to perceive Group B
Anger and Retaliation The Rattlers were frus- as hostile and aggressive, and to experience
trated. They had set their sights on beating the heightened arousal. These internal states cause
Eagles, but on the final day of the competition members of Group A to act impulsively on their
their hopes were dashed; they had to watch as immediate appraisal of Group B as hostile and
their enemies celebrated and accepted the trophy. threatening. Group B then experiences the
When intergroup competitions end, one side is impulsively aggressive act from Group A, which
often branded the winner and one the loser. Like sets in motion the same set of internal states and
the victorious Eagles, winners experience a range of appraisal and decision processes that result in an
positive emotions, including pride, pleasure, happi- even more aggressive retaliation. (DeWall,
ness, and satisfaction. Losers, in contrast, experience Anderson, & Bushman, 2011, pp. 248–249)
the “agony of defeat”—humiliation, anger, embar-
rassment, and frustration (Matsumoto & Willing- Scapegoat Processes At Robbers Cave, the Rat-
ham, 2006). tlers attacked their enemy, the Eagles. In some cases,
however, a group that experiences a privation will
These emotions can contribute to the escalation turn against a third party, rather than the group that
of conflict between groups, for negative emotions originally caused the harm. The third group would
have long been considered potent instigators of con- be a scapegoat—a label derived from the biblical ritual
flict and hostility. The frustration–aggression of guilt transference—since anger originally aroused
hypothesis, one of the first theories that explained by one group becomes displaced on another, usually
aggression, argued that thwarting environmental more vulnerable group. Scapegoat theory assumes
conditions lead to feelings of frustration and that that attacking a scapegoat provides an outlet for
these feelings of frustration cause aggression. This pent-up anger and frustration, and the aggressive
theory has been refined and extended through group may then feel satisfied that justice has been
research, so that now the general aggression done.
model recognizes that many aversive environmental
factors—pain, threats, environmental stressors, and so Individuals often blame others for their troubles
on—can increase arousal, which, when paired with a and take out their frustrations on them, but group-
negative appraisal of the situation, can generate level scapegoating occurs when the ingroup, as a
aggression. In an intergroup context, once one whole, has settled on a specific target group to
group engages in aggression, the other group will blame for its problems (Glick, 2009). Scapegoating
is more likely when a group has experienced diffi-
frustration–aggression hypothesis An early motiva- cult, prolonged negative conditions that frustrate its
tional model that argued that individuals become more success in meeting its most essential needs (Staub,
aggressive whenever external conditions prevent them 2004). In such cases, the group may develop a com-
from reaching their goals. pelling, widely shared ideology, which, combined
general aggression model A framework for organizing
biological, environmental, social, and psychological fac- Scapegoat theory An explanation of intergroup con-
tors that influence the expression of hostile, negative flict arguing that hostility caused by frustrating environ-
behavior, including (1) person and situational inputs; (2) mental circumstances (such as abuse by others or failure)
cognitive, affective, and arousal states, and (3) cognitive is released by taking hostile actions against members of
appraisals. other social groups.

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

454 C H A P T E R 14

with political and social pressures, leads to the most An upward spiral model of conflict intensification
extreme form of scapegoating: genocide. Scapegoating accurately describes the unfolding of violence at
can also prompt oppressed groups to lash out at other Robbers Cave. The conflict began with minor irri-
oppressed groups. Even though the minority groups tations and annoyances but built in intensity. Exclu-
are victimized by the majority group, minorities some- sion, a mild form of rejection, occurred as soon as the
times turn against other minority groups rather boys realized that another group was sharing the
than confront the more powerful majority (Craig & camp. This antipathy escalated into verbal abuse
Richeson, 2016; Rothgerber & Worchel, 1997). when the groups met for the tournament. Insults
were exchanged, members of the opposing team
14-1d Norms and Conflict were given demeaning names, and verbal abuse ran
high. Next, intergroup discrimination developed. The
Intergroup conflicts, such as war between nations, groups isolated themselves from each other at
gang fights, or even the conflict between the Rattlers meals, and the boys expressed the belief that it was
and the Eagles, are not out of control, atypical inter- wrong for the other team to use the camp facilities or
personal actions that occur when the social order to be given an equal amount of food. Last came the
breaks down. Normatively, competition and hostil- acts of physical violence—the raids, thefts, and fistfights.
ity between groups are often completely consistent Thus, the conflict at Robbers Cave built in a series of
with the standards of conduct in that situation. progressively more dangerous stages from exclusion
to verbal abuse to discrimination and, finally, to
The Norm of Reciprocity Groups, like indivi- physical assault (Streufert & Streufert, 1986).
duals, tend to obey the norm of reciprocity. They
answer threats with threats, insults with insults, Cultural Norms The extent to which groups
and aggression with aggression. Consider, for respond in hostile ways to other groups varies
example, the infamous Hatfield–McCoy feud from culture to culture. The Mbuti of the Congo,
between two large families in a rural area of the the !Kung of Botswana, and many Native American
United States in the late nineteenth century tribes (e.g., the Blackfoot and Zuñi) traditionally
(King, 2013). The conflict started when Floyd avoided conflict by making concessions. In these
Hatfield stole some hogs from a McCoy. The societies, violent, aggressive actions were not
McCoys countered by stealing hogs from another socially valued, and so lethal encounters between
Hatfield, and soon members of the two families groups were rare (Bonta, 1997). In contrast, for
began taking potshots at one another. Between the Yanomanö of South America and the Mundug-
1878 and 1890, a dozen men and women died as umor of New Guinea, aggression is a cultural value
a direct result of interfamily violence. Likewise, (Chagnon, 1997). The anthropologist Napoleon
studies of gangs indicate that many street fights Chagnon called the Yanomanö the “fierce people,”
stem from some initial negative action that in reality for during the time he studied them they seemed to
may pose little threat to the offended group. The enjoy an armed conflict as much as a peaceful feast.
target of the negative action, however, responds to Adjacent villages coexisted through times of uneasy
the threat with a counterthreat, and the conflict cooperation, but any conflicts between tribes were
spirals. Battles resulting in the death of gang mem- often settled with a raid or ambush (Chirot &
bers have begun over an ethnic insult, the intrusion McCauley, 2006).
of one group into an area controlled by another
group, or the theft of one gang’s property by another A culture’s emphasis on honor, dignity, and
gang (Densley & Peterson, 2017). Large-scale inter- saving face may also influence how people in that
group conflicts, such as race riots and warfare between culture deal with conflict.
countries, have also been caused by escalating hostile
exchanges (Fisher, 2016). ■ Honor cultures: cultures where people strive to
avoid offending others, but will respond
aggressively if they feel they or their group has

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

INTERGROUP RELATIONS 455

been insulted in some way. A culture of honor cooperative, peaceful living. In contrast, gangs,
does not encourage aggression in general, but it sports hooligans, and bullies accept norms that
does support individuals who “project a stance emphasize dominance over other groups. Soccer
of willingness to commit mayhem and to risk fans show high levels of ingroup loyalty but equally
wounds or death” if insulted (Nisbett & intense forms of aggression against fans of rival
Cohen, 1996, p. xv). These norms of the cul- clubs. Groups of young girls develop intricate pat-
ture of honor are now anachronistic, but they terns of ingroup favoritism and outgroup rejection.
are sustained by misperceptions about the Even though they rarely engage in physical aggres-
commonness of aggressive behavior (Vandello, sion, their relational aggression can be so pointed
Cohen, & Ransom, 2008). Honor cultures and unrelenting that it leads to long-term negative
emerge in rural economies where civil consequences for those they target. Studies of gangs
authority is too weak to protect individuals living in urban areas suggest that these groups,
from harm. although violent, use aggression in instrumental
ways to maintain group structures and patterns of
■ Dignity cultures: societies that stress the impor- authority. Much of the most intense violence is
tance of personal integrity and individual intergroup conflict, when one gang must defend
worth. In such cultures, members learn that its area from another, or when the gang decides
each individual has inherent value, and the that it must inflict harm on someone who has
quality of their character is not defined by acted in ways that undermine the local gang’s
other people. This cultural syndrome is more authority (Decker & Pyrooz, 2012).
likely to be manifested in more economically
prosperous, individualistic countries. 14-1e Evolutionary Perspectives

■ Face cultures: societies that emphasize hierarchy, Evolutionary psychology offers a final set of causes,
humility, and harmony. Face cultures, like more distal than proximate, for conflict between
honor cultures, value respect and deference, groups. The tendency for conflict to emerge
but individuals in face cultures cooperate with between groups is so pervasive that some experts
one another to maintain one another’s believe that it may have a genetic basis. As noted
respectability. A person who is insulted by in Chapter 3, many theorists believe that contem-
another person in a face culture need not react porary humans’ ancestors lived for much of their
aggressively, for the social group will deal with evolutionary past in small bands of between 50
the offender. Taking matters into one’s own and 150. These groups provided such an advantage
hands is a selfish act, for it disrupts harmony to their members in terms of survival that, over
and circumvents the system of social hierarchy. time, humans became a social species—ready to
cooperate with other humans in the pursuit of
Anglo Americans raised in the northern and shared goals (Dunbar, 1998).
western parts of the United States tend to be guided
by a culture of dignity, southern Anglo Americans These same evolutionary pressures, however,
and Latino Americans a culture of honor, and the also left humans ready to respond negatively to
responses of Asian Americans are more likely any human who was not a member of his or her
guided by a culture of face (Kim, Cohen, & Au, group or tribe. Groups likely competed, forcefully,
2010; Leung & Cohen, 2011). against other groups, claiming territories, plunder-
ing the resources of neighboring groups, and harm-
Group Norms Some groups within the larger ing the members of those groups. If a member
society adopt unique norms and values pertaining strayed too far from the safety of his or her group,
to intergroup conflict. In the United States, for then the greatest danger was not from wild animals
example, the Mennonites and the Amish avoid but from other humans. Because outgroups were a
interpersonal conflict and strive instead for

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

456 C H A P T E R 14

Where Are the Peaceful People?

Are humans, by nature, warlike or peaceful? The phi- example of cultures that display combative reactions
losopher Thomas Hobbes argued for warlike when he to other groups. Only 15.6% of the societies in the
wrote that humans’ lives, without the restraints of Standard Cross-cultural Sample value violence against
civilization, would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, subgroups within the community, but 61% value vio-
and short” (1651/2008, p. 86). Jean-Jacques Rousseau lence taken against members of other societies;
disagreed and championed the basic goodness of another 25% consider it to be acceptable. Nearly half
humans: “nothing can be more gentle than him in his of the cultures surveyed considered warfare against
primitive state, when placed by nature at an equal other groups to be a socially valued activity and
distance from the stupidity of brutes and the perni- another 35% viewed it to be a necessary evil. Only
cious good sense of civilized man” (Rousseau, 15% of the cultures in the survey avoided or openly
1755/2008, p. 35). denounced warfare.

The question Hobbes and Rousseau debated Intergroup conflict, however, is not a human
remains unsettled even today. Anthropological studies, universal, for some societies avoid entering into con-
for example, explore the question by examining flicts with other groups in any and all circumstances.
instances of conflict and cooperation in ancient cul- Anthropologist Douglas Fry (2007), after scouring the
tures as well as contemporary ones. Most anthropolo- ethnographic research literature, identified more
gists believe that humans survived for much of the than 70 societies that avoid conflicts with other
species’ history in relatively small groups, but little is groups. The Semai of the Malay Peninsula, for exam-
known about the relationships between these groups. ple, value harmony in their interpersonal relations
When one clan would encounter another, did these and rely on a group of tribal arbitrators to settle dis-
groups attack, retreat, or collaborate? putes that arise between group members. When
other groups encroach upon their settlements, they
Studies of intergroup conflict yield conflicting usually respond by moving away from the intruding
evidence on the question of humanity’s intergroup groups rather than defending their territories. Fry
tendencies. Bioarchaeological analysis of skeletal data concludes that “not all societies make war. Humans
suggests intergroup conflict, including raids, feuding, have a solid capacity for getting along with each
and ambushes, was common in some parts of the other peacefully, preventing physical aggression, lim-
ancient world (Martin & Harrod, 2015). Ethnographic iting the scope and spread of violence, and restoring
records of the world’s cultures, such as the Human peace following aggression” (Fry, 2007, pp. 20–21).
Relations Area Files (http://www.yale.edu/hraf/) and Nature may push groups into conflict, but the push is
the Standard Cross-cultural Sample (http://escholarship. not an irresistible one.
org/uc/wc_worldcultures), include example after

substantial threat, the human mind developed the et al., 2010). Because of these evolved reactions, men
capacity to determine each person’s tribal alle- are more likely to encounter rejection by members of
giance. Those who failed to distinguish between another group than are women (see Salvatore et al.,
insiders and outsiders were less likely to survive. 2017, for an exception).

These pressures may have gendered intergroup Intergroup conflict was also instrumental in
relations. Men were, and continue to be, the warriors fostering the conditions needed to promote
of human groups: They are physically larger, stronger, ingroup cooperation. Few experts believe that
and more biologically ready to aggress than are humans, as a species, could have survived had
women (Sell et al., 2017). In consequence, men, they not developed the means to cooperate with
when they encounter an outgroup male, instinctively one another in the pursuit of joint outcomes. The
respond defensively, fearing he may physically attack development of this remarkable human capacity
them. Women respond negatively to outgroup males required a stable community of members, with
because they fear both physical and sexual assault care focused first on genetically related individuals
(McDonald, Navarrete, & Van Vugt, 2012; Navarrete and secondarily on group members who would be

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

INTERGROUP RELATIONS 457

present on future occasions when helping could be The conflict at Robbers Cave was fueled by the
reciprocated. These conditions, so essential to the competitive setting, situational norms, the struggle
survival of these fragile groups, could be maintained for power, and the frustrations that followed each
only if group members were well known to one loss, but these factors cannot fully account for the
another and normatively bound to reciprocate almost automatic rejection of members of the other
exchanges without undue levels of selfishness. group. Group members reject members of other
This capacity for intragroup cooperation may have groups not because they fear them or because they
been further enhanced by the presence of out- must compete with them, but simply because they
groups. Facing a threat from an outgroup, the belong to a different group.
ingroup became more unified, producing a level
of solidarity that increased each member’s likeli- 14-2a Conflict and Categorization
hood of surviving by linking him or her to the
survival of the group as a whole (Van Vugt, De Mills was a member of the Ratters, and Craig was an
Cremer, & Janssen, 2007). Eagle. When they met each other, on the path to the
dining hall at Robbers Cave campground, the same
These pressures resulted in adaptations that thought went through both of their minds: this per-
increased the fitness of the individual, but at the son is not in my group (Ratner & Amodio, 2013).
price of creating a generalized hostility for members
of other groups. The human species developed an Social categorization provides a cognitive founda-
extraordinary capacity for altruism, cooperation, tion for intergroup conflict. Once Mills realized
and selflessness, but these prosocial behaviors are the boy approaching him was an Eagle and not a
usually reserved for members of the ingroup and Rattler, he considered him to be one of them—an
sustained by hostility toward the outgroup. outsider who was different from the Rattlers. As
Sherif (1966, p. 12) explained, “Whenever indivi-
14-2 INTERGROUP BIAS: duals belonging to one group interact, collectively
or individually, with another group or its members
PERCEIVING US AND THEM in terms of their group identification, we have an
instance of intergroup behavior.”
The boys in the Robbers Cave experiment dis-
played antipathy toward the other group even Does the mere existence of identifiable groups
before the idea of a competitive tournament was within society, and the cognitive biases generated
mentioned. The Rattlers and Eagles had not even by this differentiation, inevitably push groups into
seen each other when they began to refer to “those conflict? Research by Henri Tajfel, John Turner,
guys” in a derogatory way: and their colleagues, as discussed in Chapter 3,
demonstrated the pervasiveness of the intergroup
When the ingroup began to be clearly delin- bias in their studies of a minimal intergroup situa-
eated, there was a tendency to consider all tion. Like the Sherifs, they examined groups that
others as outgroup…. The Rattlers didn’t had no prior group history. But, unlike the Sherifs,
know another group existed in the camp until they took this minimalism to its limit by creating
they heard the Eagles on the ball diamond; but groups that were hardly groups at all. Formed on
from that time on the outgroup figured the basis of some trivial similarity or situational fac-
prominently in their lives. Hill (Rattler) said tor, the group members did not talk to each other,
“They better not be in our swimming hole.” were anonymous throughout the study, and could
The next day Simpson heard tourists on the not personally gain in any way from advantaging
trail just outside of camp and was convinced one person in the study over another. Even in
that “those guys” were down at “our dia- these minimal groups, people favored their own;
mond” again. (Sherif et al., 1961, p. 94) they gave more money to members of their own
group and withheld money from the outgroup. Tajfel

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

458 C H A P T E R 14

and Turner concluded that the “mere perception of other researchers’ theories as inadequate. Across a range
belonging to two distinct groups—that is, social cate- of group and organizational settings, members rate
gorization per se—is sufficient to trigger intergroup their own group as superior to other groups (Dasgupta,
discrimination favoring the ingroup” (Tajfel & 2004; Hewstone, Rubin, & Willis, 2002).
Turner, 1986, p. 13; see Otten, 2016, for a review).
Ingroup Positivity and Outgroup Negativity
Categorization sets in motion a number of affec- The ingroup–outgroup bias is really two biases com-
tive, cognitive, emotional, and interpersonal pro- bined: (1) the selective favoring of the ingroup, its
cesses that combine to sustain and encourage members, and its products, and (2) the derogation of
conflict between groups. We do not simply segment the outgroup, its members, and its products. At Rob-
people into the categories “member of my group” bers Cave, the pro-ingroup tendency went hand in
and “member of another group” and then stop. hand with the anti-outgroup tendency. When they
Once we have categorized others according to were asked to name their friends, 92.5% of the Eagles’
group, we feel differently about those who are in choices were Eagles, and 93.6% of the Rattlers’
the ingroup and those who are in the outgroup, choices were fellow Rattlers. When asked to pick
and these evaluative biases are further sustained by the one person they disliked the most, 95% of the
cognitive and emotional biases that justify the evalu- Eagles selected a Rattler, and 75% of the Rattlers
ative ones—stereotypic thinking, misjudgment, and identified an Eagle. In many intergroup conflicts,
intensification of emotions, and social identity. This however, ingroup favoritism is stronger than outgroup
section reviews these processes, beginning with the rejection (Greenwald & Pettigrew, 2014). For exam-
most basic: the tendency to favor one’s own group. ple, a rock band may prefer its own music, but not
necessarily criticize another band’s music, and one
14-2b The Ingroup–Outgroup Bias ethic group may take pride in its own traditions with-
out condemning others’ traditions. Social psychologist
The sociologist William Graham Sumner (1906) main- Marilynn Brewer (2010), after surveying a number of
tained that humans are, by nature, a species that joins studies of intergroup conflict, concluded that the
together in groups. But he also noted a second, equally expression of hostility against the outgroup depends
powerful, human tendency: favoring one’s own group on the similarity of ingroup and outgroup members,
over all others. “Each group nourishes its own pride anticipated future interactions, the type of evaluation
and vanity, boasts itself superior, exalts its own divini- being made, and the competitive or cooperative
ties, and looks with contempt on outsiders” (p. 13). At nature of the intergroup situation. Overall, however,
the group level, this tendency is called the ingroup– ingroup love is stronger than outgroup hate (Halevy,
outgroup bias; at the tribal, ethnic, or national level, eth- Weisel, & Bornstein, 2012).
nocentrism (Sumner, 1906).
Double-Standard Thinking Craig, who was an
The magnitude of the bias depends on a host of Eagle, likely evaluated the actions taken by the Eagles
situational factors, including the group’s outcomes, more positively than the actions taken by the Rat-
the way perceptions are measured, ambiguity about tlers, even when those actions were identical. When
each group’s characteristics, and members’ identifica- people succumb to double-standard thinking,
tion with the group. Overall, however, the ingroup– they redefine their own group’s actions as generous
outgroup bias is robust. A rock band knows its music and just, and condemn the very same actions taken
is very good and that a rival band’s music is inferior. A
70-year-old knows old people are wiser than the double-standard thinking Judging the actions and
young, and an 18-year-old knows young people are attributes of one’s own group positively, but viewing
smarter than the elderly. One ethnic group prides these very same behaviors or displays negatively when
itself on its traditions and also views other groups’ tra- the outgroup performs them.
ditions with disdain. One team of researchers thinks
that its theory explains intergroup conflict and criticizes

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

INTERGROUP RELATIONS 459

by the outgroup as hostile and unjust. Our warnings another concept—such as goodness. When indivi-
are requests, but the other side calls them threats. We duals are shown pairs of words or images that match
are courageous, though they consider us stubborn. Pride their intuitive associations of these two concepts, such
in our own group is nationalism, but the other group as ingroup/kind and outgroup/evil, they respond
takes it as evidence of extremism. We offer them con- quickly and without error. When, however, they
cessions, but they interpret them as ploys (De Dreu, respond to pairings of concepts that they do not asso-
Nauta, & Van de Vliert, 1995). ciate with one another, such as ingroup/bad and out-
group/friendly, then they respond more slowly
The linguistic intergroup bias also results in a (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 2008).
subtle recasting of ingroup members’ actions in a
more positive light. When individuals display this The IAT has revealed subtle ingroup–outgroup
bias, they describe actions differently depending on biases in dozens of studies using all types of social
who performs it. If an ingroup member engages in a categories. Even when people deny any and all pre-
negative behavior, such as crying during a game, ferences based on race, color, or creed, the IAT tells
then members would describe that behavior very a different story: whites favor whites over blacks;
concretely—Elliott “shed some tears.” If an out- U.S. citizens favor Americans over Canadians; mem-
group member performed the same behavior, they bers of fraternities favor other fraternity members
would describe the action more abstractly—Elliott over independent students; Catholics favor Catholics
“acted like a baby.” Positive behaviors, in contrast, over Protestants; the young favor the young over the
are described in abstract terms when attributed to an old; and so on. These biases occur even when people
ingroup member but in very concrete terms when are striving to suppress their biases (Greewald, Banaji,
performed by an outgroup member (Maass, 1999). & Nosek, 2015; see Jost et al., 2009, for a review,
and Oswald et al., 2015, for a critique of the IAT’s
Implicit Intergroup Biases Group members accuracy in assessing implicit bias).
often express their preferences openly. Sports fans
cheer on their own team and boo their opponents. 14-2c Cognitive Biases
The Rattlers expressed pride in their own group’s
accomplishments and ridiculed the Eagles. Racists When Mills saw Craig, he did not merely judge him
express support for members of their own group more negatively than he would one of his fellow Rat-
and speak harshly of people with racial backgrounds tlers (the ingroup–outgroup bias). He probably made
different from their own. inferences about Craig—his physical strength, his ath-
letic skill, even his morality—solely on the basis of one
But in many cases, the ingroup–outgroup bias is piece of information: Craig was an Eagle. When peo-
an implicit one—subtle, unintentional, and even ple categorize others, their perceptions of these indivi-
unconscious, operating below the level of awareness. duals are influenced more by their category-based
Even though people may, when asked, claim that expectations than by the evidence of their senses.
they are not biased against outgroup members and
do not favor their own group, their biases emerge Outgroup Homogeneity Bias Most group mem-
when their implicit attitudes are measured. One bers are quick to point out the many characteristics
such measure, the Implicit Association Test (IAT) devel- that distinguish them from the other members of
oped by social psychologist Anthony Greenwald and their own group (“Why, I’m not like them at
his colleagues, assesses the extent to which people all!”), but when they evaluate members of out-
associate one concept—such as the ingroup—with groups, they underestimate their variability (“They
all look the same to me”). For example, Craig, an
linguistic intergroup bias The tendency to describe Eagle, would describe the Rattlers as poor sports
positive ingroup and negative outgroup behaviors more who cheated whenever possible. When describing
abstractly, and negative ingroup and positive outgroup the Eagles, in contrast, he would admit that a few of
behaviors more concretely. the members were sissies and that maybe one Eagle

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

460 C H A P T E R 14

liked to bend the rules, but Craig would probably members of the outgroup can be accurately inferred
argue that the Eagles were so heterogeneous that from information pertaining to just a few of its
sweeping statements about their typical qualities members (Quattrone & Jones, 1980).
could not be formulated. Studies of a variety of
ingroups and outgroups—women versus men, The opposite process—assuming that the char-
physics majors versus dance majors, Sorority A ver- acteristics of a single individual in a group can be
sus Sorority B, Princeton students versus Rutgers inferred from the general characteristics of the whole
students, Canadians versus Native Americans, and group—can also bias perceptions. Craig might know
Blacks versus Whites—have documented this out- that the Eagles are opposed to swearing, but he
group homogeneity bias. Group members’ con- would be reluctant to say each Eagle agrees on this
ceptualizations of other groups are simplistic and rule. When he finds out the Rattlers, as a team, have
undifferentiated, but when they turn their eye to chosen a snake as their emblem, he would be much
their own group, they note its diversity and com- more willing to assume that each and every member
plexity (Boldry, Gaertner, & Quinn, 2007). of the Rattlers likes the snake emblem. Social psy-
chologist Scott Allison and his colleagues studied this
The outgroup homogeneity bias does not emerge group attribution error by telling students that an
across all intergroup settings. The group that is disad- election had recently been held either at their college
vantaged in some way is usually viewed as more homo- or at another college to determine how much fund-
geneous, whereas the more powerful group is viewed ing should be given to the college’s athletics pro-
as more variable (Guinote, Judd, & Brauer, 2002). The grams. They then told the students the results of
bias can also reverse entirely, resulting in the ingroup the vote and asked them to estimate the opinion of
homogeneity bias (Haslam & Oakes, 1995; Simon, the “typical student” at the college where the vote
Pantaleo, & Mummendey, 1995). Under conditions was taken. When the students thought that the vote
of extreme conflict, both tendencies may emerge, had been taken at their own college, they did not
prompting group members to assume that “none of want to assume that the individual’s opinion would
us deserves this treatment,” and “they have harmed match the group’s opinion. But when they thought
us; they must all be punished” (Rothgerber, 1997). that the vote was taken at another college, they were
much more confident that the individual’s opinions
Group Attribution Error Group members tend would match the group’s opinions (Allison &
to make sweeping statements about the entire out- Messick, 1985b; Allison, Worth, & King, 1990).
group after observing one or two of the outgroup’s
members. If an African American employee is vic- Ultimate Attribution Error When individuals
timized by a European American boss, the victim form impressions of other individuals, the fundamen-
may assume that all European Americans are racists. tal attribution error (FAE) prompts them to attribute
Similarly, a visitor to another country who is trea- the actions of others to their personal qualities
ted rudely by a passerby may leap to the conclusion rather than to the constraints of the situation. But
that everyone who lives in that country is discour- when group members form impressions of out-
teous. Individuals in intergroup situations fall prey group members, the ultimate attribution error
to the law of small numbers when they assume (UAE) prompts them to attribute only negative
that the characteristics and qualities of all of the

outgroup homogeneity bias The perceptual tendency group attribution error Mistakenly assuming that spe-
to assume that the members of other groups are very cific group members’ personal characteristics and prefer-
similar to each other, whereas the membership of one’s ences, including their beliefs, attitudes, and decisions, are
own group is more heterogeneous. similar to the preferences of the group to which they belong.
law of small numbers Basing generalizations about the ultimate attribution error (UAE) Attributing negative
outgroup on observations of a small number of indivi- actions performed by members of the outgroup to dis-
duals from that group. positional qualities and positive actions to situational,
fluctuating circumstances.

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

INTERGROUP RELATIONS 461

actions to outgroup members’ dispositional qualities itself upon the evidence in the very act of securing
(Hewstone, 1990; Pettigrew, 2001). If outgroup the evidence.” When group members see through
members rob a bank or cheat on a test, then their eyes clouded by stereotypes, they misperceive and
actions are explained by reference to their person- misremember people and events. Because indivi-
ality, genetics, or fundamental lack of morality. But duals tend to interpret ambiguous information so
should an outgroup member perform a positive that it confirms their expectations, stereotypes can
behavior, that action is attributed to a situational act as self-fulfilling prophecies (Allport & Postman,
factor—perhaps good luck or a special advantage 1947). Stereotypes also influence memory, so recall
afforded the outgroup member. In any case, the of information that is consistent with stereotypes is
perceiver will conclude that the good act, and the superior to recall of stereotype-inconsistent infor-
outgroup member who performed it, is just a spe- mation (Howard & Rothbart, 1980). Individuals
cial case. Because of the UAE, the perceiver con- who expect the worst from the outgroup can
cludes that there is no need to reappraise the group more easily remember the times that outgroup
because the outgroup member is not responsible for members acted negatively rather than positively
the positive act (Doosje & Branscombe, 2003). (Sahdra & Ross, 2007). Because stereotypes affect
both the encoding of new information and the
Stereotypes When an Eagle met another Eagle on retrieval of old information, group membership is
the trail, he probably expected the boy to be friendly, one of the most important cues that can influence
helpful, and brave. But if he encountered a Rattler, judgment and memory (Allen et al., 2009).
he expected the boy to be unfriendly, aggressive, and
deceitful. These expectations are based on stereo- 14-2d Stereotype Content Model
types, which are cognitive generalizations about
the qualities and characteristics of the members of a Each one of the Rattlers stereotyped the Eagles, but
particular group or social category. Stereotypes help they also applied stereotypes to all the other groups
perceivers make rapid judgments about people based that populated their world: men, women, camp
on their category memberships (Schneider, 2004). counselors, priests, parents, teachers, students,
Because they are widely adopted by most of the neighbors, baseball players, and so on. Each one
ingroup, stereotypes are group-level biases, shared of these stereotypes likely included unique informa-
social beliefs rather than individualistic expectations tion pertaining to that group, but the stereotype
(Jetten & Haslam, 2016). But stereotypes tend to be content model suggests that these stereotypes also
exaggerated rather than accurate, negative rather than overlapped to a degree as well. People do not
positive, and resistant to revision even when directly assume that each group they encounter is utterly
disconfirmed. As psychologist Gordon Allport (1954) unique, but instead they intuitively estimate
wrote, “Prejudgments become prejudices only if where the group falls along two basic dimensions:
they are not reversible when exposed to new warmth and competence. Some groups (including
knowledge” (p. 8). the ingroup, in most cases) are viewed as warm,
nice, friendly, and sincere, whereas other groups
If stereotypes have all these perceptual and cog- are considered to be filled with unpleasant,
nitive limitations, why do they persist? Walter unfriendly, and even immoral people. The second
Lippmann (1922), who first used the word stereotype dimension is competence: Some groups are thought
to describe mental images of people, argued that a to include competent, confident, skillful, able
stereotype resists disconfirmation because “it stamps

stereotypes A socially shared set of cognitive general- stereotype content model A theory of group percep-
izations (e.g., beliefs and expectations) about the qualities tion positing that people’s stereotyped views about social
and characteristics of the members of a particular group groups reflect their beliefs about the warmth and com-
or social category. petence of the stereotyped group.

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

462 C H A P T E R 14

individuals, whereas other groups are viewed as the ingroup and the outcome (Mackie & Smith,
incompetent or unintelligent. The Rattlers, for 2015). Fear and jealousy, for example, are more
example, may have adopted a stereotypic view of common emotions in members of the lower-
the Eagles that rated them as neutral on the warm status groups, whereas contempt or anger is charac-
dimension but more negatively on the competence teristic of those who are members of higher-status
dimension. The stereotype content model suggests groups.
that group members, by appraising the outgroup’s
standing on warmth and competency, answer 14-2e Exclusion and Dehumanization
two important questions: “Will this group attempt
to harm me and my group?” and “Is this group People respond emotionally to the outgroup, usu-
capable of harming me and my group?” (Cuddy, ally leaning in a negative direction. This negativity
Fiske, & Glick, 2007, 2008; Fiske, 2010a; see may be relatively mild, amounting to little more
Figure 14.4). than unease when interacting with outgroup mem-
bers or a general preference to be with someone
The stereotype conflict model, in addition to from the ingroup rather than the outgroup. Indivi-
identifying warmth and competence as the two duals may not even admit their negativity toward
basic dimensions that structure most people’s members of the other group, yet they display it
stereotypes about other groups, suggests that these through their nonverbal actions, social awkward-
two dimensions also influence people’s emotional ness, and nervousness when in the presence of the
reactions to other groups (Cuddy et al., 2009). outgroup (Dovidio et al., 2004). In other cases,
Instead of assuming people’s reactions to outgroups however, individuals may display far more intense
are generally negative and their appraisal of the emotions in response to the outgroup, including
ingroup is generally positive, the stereotype conflict hatred and disgust (Sternberg, 2003).
model breaks this general emotional reaction down
into four specific emotional states: admiration, Group Hate Hatred, as Allport (1954) explained
envy, contempt, and pity (see Figure 14.4). These in The Nature of Prejudice, is usually a group-level
emotional reactions depend on the relative status of emotion. Drawing on ideas discussed by Aristotle,
Allport observed that “anger is customarily felt
High toward individuals only, whereas hatred may be
warmth felt toward whole classes of people” (1954,
p. 363). And while individuals often regret giving
Pity Admiration way to anger directed at another person, they feel
no such remorse about their group-level hatred.
Low High “Hatred is more deep-rooted, and constantly
competence competence desires the extinction of the object of hate”
(1954, p. 363).
Contempt Envy
Hate causes a more violently negative reaction
Low to the outgroup than such emotions as fear or
warmth anger. Often, group members fear the other
group, for example, when outgroup members are
F I G U R E 14.4 The stereotype content model. viewed as competitors who may take harmful
action toward the ingroup. Anger is also a domi-
SOURCE: “The BIAS Map: Behaviors from Intergroup Affect and Stereo- nant emotion in intergroup conflict settings, when
types,” by Amy J. C. Cuddy, Susan T. Fiske, and Peter Glick, 2007, Journal of previous negative exchanges between groups are a
Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 631–648. cause for irritation, annoyance, and hostility. Hate,
however, is the feeling associated with many of the

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

INTERGROUP RELATIONS 463

How Do You Feel about That Group?

People don’t just like or dislike other groups. Instead, they feel a range of emotions when thinking about the
groups they belong to, and the many other groups that they encounter in their daily lives. The stereotype conflict
model, for example, identifies four basic emotion-based reactions to groups: envy, contempt, pity, and admiration.

Instructions. For the following hypothetical situations, select the one emotional reaction you would most
likely experience.

1. A group of students in your school has it all figured out. They seem cold and aloof—you don’t like them very
much on a personal level—but they are undeniably successful. They are always the ones who get the
achievement awards and whenever they compete—in athletics, academics, or community service—they
outdo everyone else. In thinking about this group, you would likely experience:

(a) admiration (b) envy (c) contempt (d) pity

2. You like everyone at the company where you work except the people in one of the support divisions. It’s not
just that all the people in that group are unfriendly, rude, and bitter—they are—but even worse: they are
incompetent. Time and again projects are held up because they just can’t do their jobs. In thinking about this
division, you would likely experience:

(a) admiration (b) envy (c) contempt (d) pity

3. There is a family in your neighborhood that has the worst luck. They are the nicest people, but have experi-
enced one crisis after another. One of the parents was laid off unexpectedly, and they are having financial
troubles. Their health is not the best, and someone over there seems to always have some sort of illness—
sometimes something serious. They lost their family dog just last week. In thinking about this family, you
would likely experience:

(a) admiration (b) envy (c) contempt (d) pity

4. During a family vacation you visit a small town that was founded primarily by families who moved here from
Italy. The residents are very friendly, and can be seen stopping to talk to each other as they go about their
day’s activities. You learn that the crime rate is low, and so is the level of stress and tension. The residents
seem very happy with their lives. In thinking about this town, you would likely experience:

(a) admiration (b) envy (c) contempt (d) pity

Scoring. There are no right or wrong answers, but the stereotype conflict model offers the following predic-
tions about each of the four scenarios: 1(b), 2(c), 3(d), and 4(a). Envy is most likely when the outgroup, although
judged negatively, is nonetheless higher in status than the ingroup and this status difference is thought to be
due to the competence of the outgroup. Contempt occurs when the outgroup is viewed negatively in terms of
both competence and warmth. The members of such an outgroup are viewed as responsible for their failings,
and there is little consideration given to the idea that the division between the two groups can ever be lessened.
Pity, as an intergroup emotion, is directed at outgroups that are viewed negatively in terms of competence, but
are thought to also have positive, endearing qualities. Outgroups that evoke pity are not blamed for their plight,
unlike outgroups that are held in contempt. Admiration is rare in intergroup contexts, for it is experienced when
the outgroup is perceived as being both high in warmth and high in competence, an unusual occurrence. Inter-
group admiration occurs when the outgroup is thought to be completely deserving of its accomplishments, when
the outgroup’s gains do not come at a cost to the ingroup, and when the outgroup members are generally
judged positively (Cuddy et al., 2009).

most negative consequences of intergroup conflict. were caused by the intrinsically evil nature of the
Hate is expressed primarily when group members outgroup. In one study of people’s reactions to ter-
believe that previously harmful acts done by mem- rorist attacks, fear was associated with avoiding the
bers of the outgroup were intentional ones that outgroup and anger with support for education to
purposely harmed the ingroup and that the actions improve intergroup relations. Those who felt

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

464 C H A P T E R 14

hatred for the other group, in contrast, advocated Dehumanization occurs when the ingroup denies
for the group’s utter destruction through physical the outgroup those qualities thought to define
violence against it (Halperin, 2008). humans. Some of these qualities may be those
thought to be uniquely human: culture, refinement,
Moral Exclusion When intergroup conflict high moral standards, and the capacity to think ratio-
reaches extreme levels, with members of one nally. Others are qualities that the ingroup associates
group attacking, harming, and killing members of with humanity’s strengths, such as emotional respon-
other groups, the ingroup–outgroup bias becomes siveness, warmth, openness, self-control, and depth
equally extreme. During extreme intergroup con- (Haslam, 2015). The ingroup may also come to
flicts, group members view their own group as believe that the outgroup experiences raw, primary
morally superior and members of the outgroup as emotions such as anger or happiness, but not the
less than human (Bandura, 2016). more refined emotions that make humans truly
human: affection, admiration, pride, conceit, remorse,
Such moral exclusion is more likely when one guilt, and envy (Leyens et al., 2003). People describe
group perpetrates extreme violence against another dehumanized outgroup members as disgusting or
group—European Americans enslaving Africans, the revolting because they are thought to be sources of
Nazi’s genocide of Jews, ethnic violence between contamination and impurity (Maoz & McCauley,
Croats and Serbs, and the continuing warfare 2008).
between Israelis and Palestinians (Staub, 2004).
Groups that subjugate others tend to rationalize This concept of dehumanization is no hyper-
their violence by attributing it to the actions, inten- bole. When researchers used an fMRI scanner to
tions, or character of their victims. As their aggres- track perceivers’ reactions to images of people
sion intensifies, however, their rationalizations from various groups, their results suggested that
prompt them to increasingly devalue their victims. dehumanized outgroup members are no longer
Eventually, the aggressors denigrate the outgroup perceived to be humans. When individuals viewed
so completely that the outsiders are excluded from general images of people, the areas of the brain that
moral concern (Staub, 1990). Groups that have a typically respond when people process social infor-
history of devaluing segments of their society are mation (the medial prefrontal cortices) showed
more likely to engage in moral exclusion, as are increased activity. However, when they were
groups whose norms stress respect for authority and shown images of people from an outgroup—
obedience. These groups, when they anticipate con- homeless individuals and drug addicts—those same
flict with other groups, rapidly revise their opinions areas did not rise above their resting state of neuro-
of their opponents so that they can take hostile nal activity. The insula and amygdala were acti-
actions against them (Opotow, 2000). vated, however; these portions of the brain are
most active when people are experiencing strong
Dehumanization Moral exclusion places the out- emotions, such as disgust and contempt (Harris &
group outside the moral realm. Dehumanization Fiske, 2006; Krendl, 2016).
moves the outgroup outside the human realm.
Dehumanization also increases the likelihood
moral exclusion A psychological process whereby that the ingroup will aggress against the outgroup.
opponents in a conflict come to view each other as Albert Bandura and his associates tested this possi-
undeserving of morally mandated rights and protections. bility experimentally by giving groups the opportu-
dehumanization Believing that other individuals or nity to deliver painful electric shocks to a second
entire groups of individuals lack the qualities thought to group each time it performed poorly. In reality,
distinguish human beings from other animals; such dehu- there was no other group, but participants nonethe-
manization serves to rationalize the extremely negative less believed that they could control both the inten-
treatment often afforded to members of other groups. sity and duration of the shocks they gave the group.
In one condition, the experimenter mentioned that

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

INTERGROUP RELATIONS 465

the outgroup members—who were similar to one Whites) were negatively associated with the strength
another in background but different from the of their ingroup identification (Duckitt & Mphuth-
subjects—seemed like nice people. But in the ing, 1998). British people’s attitudes toward the
other condition the experimenter mentioned, in French were negatively correlated with the strength
an offhand remark, that they were an “animalistic, of their British identities (Brown et al., 2001). When
rotten bunch.” As expected, when dehumanized by individuals feel that the value of their group is being
the experimenter, the groups increased their hostil- questioned, they respond by underscoring the dis-
ity and aggression, delivering more intense shocks tinctiveness of their own group and by derogating
(Bandura, Underwood, & Fromson, 1975). others (Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Dietz-Uhler &
Murrell, 1998).
14-2f Categorization and Identity
Identity and Self-Esteem Social identity theory’s
Social identity theory offers a compelling explana- suggestion that ingroup favoritism is in the service
tion for the robust relationship between categoriza- of ingroup members’ self-esteem is also consistent
tion and conflict. This theory, as noted in with findings that individuals who most need reas-
Chapter 3, assumes that membership in groups surance of their worth tend to be the most negative
can substantially influence members’ sense of self. toward other groups. Individuals who experience a
When the boys joined the Robbers Cave experi- threat to their self-esteem tend to discriminate more
ment and became firmly embedded in their groups, against outgroups, and low-status, peripheral mem-
their identities changed. They came to think of bers of the group are often the most zealous in their
themselves as Rattlers or Eagles, and they accepted defense of their group and in the rejection of the
the group’s characteristics as their own. The theory outgroup (Noel, Wann, & Branscombe, 1995).
also suggests that “when group memberships are Individuals are also more likely to draw compari-
framed by comparison with other groups, behavior sons between their group and other groups in areas
within the group and toward members of out- where the comparison favors the ingroup. The
groups can be conceived of as deriving from the Rattlers, for example, lost the tournament, so they
value and meaning that the group provides for its admitted that the Eagles were better than the Rat-
members” (Abrams, 2015, p. 203). If the Rattlers tlers at sports. But the Rattlers could stress their
oppose the Eagles, then each boy who thinks of superiority in other spheres unrelated to the
himself as a Rattler will also oppose the Eagles. If games, such as toughness or endurance (Reichl,
the Rattlers triumph over the Eagles, then each one 1997). Group members also display group-level
of the Rattlers triumphs. But if the Eagles vanquish schadenfreude. They take pleasure when other groups
the Rattlers, then each member of the Rattlers is fail, particularly when the failure is in a domain that
diminished. Group members, therefore, stress the is self-relevant and when the ingroup’s superiority
value of their own group relative to other groups in this domain is uncertain (Leach et al., 2003).
as a means of indirectly enhancing their own worth.
But does favoring the ingroup and condemn-
Identity and Intergroup Conflict The basic ing the outgroup raise one’s self-esteem? The
premise of social identity theory is supported by effectiveness of this technique for sustaining self-
the evidence that people favor their group, even in esteem has not been confirmed consistently by
minimal group conditions, and by the fact that the researchers. In some cases, derogating outgroup
biasing effects of group membership are even more members raises certain forms of self-esteem and
substantial when (1) individuals identify with their praising the ingroup tends to bolster self-
group rather than simply belonging to it and (2) esteem—but only so long as the ingroup’s norms
the relative status of existing groups is salient. Black support that bias (Iacoviello et al., 2017). Also,
Africans’ attitudes toward an outgroup (Afrikaans though people are quick to praise their ingroup,
they still think that they are superior to most

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

466 C H A P T E R 14

people—including all the members of their own The Contact Hypothesis The Robbers Cave
group (Lindeman, 1997). researchers first tried to reduce the conflict by unit-
ing the groups in shared activities. They based their
14-3 INTERGROUP CONFLICT intervention on the contact hypothesis, which
assumes that ingroup–outgroup biases will fade if
RESOLUTION: UNITING US people interact regularly with members of the out-
group. So the Sherifs arranged for the Rattlers and
AND THEM the Eagles to join in seven pleasant activities, such as
eating, playing games, viewing films, and shooting
What happens when one group encounters off firecrackers. Unfortunately, this contact had lit-
another? In many cases, conflict. Competition, dif- tle impact on the hostilities. During all these events,
ferences in power, norms, and negative emotions the lines between the two groups never broke, and
combine to instigate intergroup hostilities. The antilocution, discrimination, and physical assault
tendency to distinguish between us from them cre- continued unabated. When contact occurred dur-
ates divisions where none are warranted. Rejection ing meals, “food fights” were particularly prevalent:
and animosity flourish, and acceptance and support
dwindle. But encounters between groups need not After eating for a while, someone threw some-
inevitably lead to conflict. First, contact between thing, and the fight was on. The fight consisted
groups can, in the right circumstances, reduce ten- of throwing rolls, napkins rolled in a ball, mashed
sions between groups rather than increase them. potatoes, etc. accompanied by yelling the stan-
Second, the cognitive processes that often under- dardized, unflattering words at each other. The
score the differences between people can also sus- throwing continued for about 8–10 minutes,
tain collective, more inclusive, identities. Third, then the cook announced that cake and ice
just as group members learn to respond to others cream were ready for them. Some members of
who are outside of their groups in negative ways, each group went after their dessert, but most of
so they can learn to respond positively when they them continued throwing things a while longer.
encounter people from other groups. This section As soon as each gobbled his dessert, he resumed
reviews these three approaches to promoting posi- throwing. (Sherif et al., 1961, p. 158)
tive intergroup relations.
The Sherif’s discovered that bringing groups
14-3a Intergroup Contact together, even in a relatively pleasant circumstance,
was not sufficient to reduce conflict: The Eagles
The Robbers Cave researchers were left with a and the Rattlers used the situation to continue their
problem. The manipulations of the first two phases warfare.
of the experiment had worked very well, for the
Rattlers–Eagles war yielded a gold mine of data Creating Positive Contact Contact lies at the
about intergroup conflict. Unfortunately, the situa- heart of such social policies as school integration,
tion had degenerated into a summer camp version foreign student exchange programs, and the Olym-
of William Golding’s (1954) Lord of the Flies. The pics, but simply throwing two groups together in an
two groups now despised each other. As conscien- unregulated situation is a risky way to reduce inter-
tious social scientists, the Sherifs and their collea- group tensions. Contact between racial groups at
gues felt compelled to try to undo some of the desegregated schools does not consistently lower
negative effects of the study—to seek a method
through which harmony and friendship could be contact hypothesis The prediction that contact
restored at the Robbers Cave campsite. between the members of different groups will reduce
intergroup conflict.

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

INTERGROUP RELATIONS 467

levels of prejudice (Schofield, 1986). When units of T A B L E 14.1 The Necessary Conditions for
an organization that clash on a regular basis are relo- Creating Positive Contact
cated in neighboring offices, the conflicts remain Condition Situations Identified by
(Brown et al., 1986). In some cases students experi- Equal status Allport (1954)
ence so much tumult during their semesters spent
studying abroad that they become more negative Common goals Description
toward their host countries rather than more positive
(Stangor et al., 1996). Competing groups in labora- Cooperation The members of the groups
tory studies remain adversaries if the only step taken Support of should be equal in terms of
to unite them is mere contact (Stephan, 1987). Even authorities, background, qualities, and char-
before they initiated the contact, the Sherifs pre- law, or custom acteristics that influence prestige
dicted that a “contact phase in itself will not produce and rank in the situation.
marked decreases in the existing state of tension
between groups” (Sherif et al., 1961, p. 51). The situation should involve a
joint task with a common goal
Why does contact sometimes fail to cure conflict that is of equal interest to both
(Tropp & Page-Gould, 2015)? Contact situations can groups.
create strong emotional reactions for group mem-
bers: anger, fear, anxiety, and even shame and pity. The task should require cross-
If the contact situation is superficial or negative in group interaction and high levels
tone, then these emotions will likely continue to of interdependence.
disrupt the relationships between the groups (Tam
et al., 2007). Moreover, if members of the two The norms of the situation should
groups use the contact situation as one more oppor- encourage positive interactions,
tunity to insult, argue with, physically attack, or dis- and these norms must be
criminate against one another, then certainly such endorsed explicitly by authorities
contact should not be expected to yield beneficial and by the groups themselves.
effects (Riordan & Riggiero, 1980).
between the Eagles and the Rattlers, they achieved
The setting must, instead, create positive contact the results they had hoped for: peace at Robbers
between groups. As psychologist Gordon Allport Cave. Following the failure of simple contact,
(1954) explained in his original statement of the they arranged for the groups to work together in
contact hypothesis, the two groups should not be the pursuit of superordinate goals—goals that can
merely assembled in one place. They should, be achieved only if two groups work together. The
instead, be unified in a situation with the qualities staff created these superordinate goals by staging a
listed in Table 14.1: equal status, common goals, series of crises. They secretly sabotaged the water
intergroup cooperation, and support of authorities, supply and then asked the boys to find the source
law, or custom (Pettigrew, 1998). Several of these of the problem by tracing the water pipe from the
ingredients were also identified by a team of camp back to the main water tank, located about
researchers led by Kenneth Clark and including Isi- three-quarters of a mile away. The boys became
dor Chein, Gerhart Saenger, and Stuart Cook. This quite thirsty during their search and worked
group developed the social science statement filed together to try to correct the problem. Eventually,
in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Brown vs. Board they discovered that the main water valve had been
of Education, which ruled that segregation of schools turned off by “vandals,” and they cheered when the
was unconstitutional (Benjamin & Crouse, 2002). problem was repaired. Later in this stage, the boys

Contact and Superordinate Goals When the superordinate goals A goal that can only be attained if
Sherifs ratcheted up the quality of the contact two or more individuals or groups work together by
pooling their efforts and resources.

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

468 C H A P T E R 14

pooled their monetary resources to rent a movie groups discussed in Chapter 5: the Red Devils and
that they all wanted to see, worked together to the Bull Dogs. These two groups experienced con-
pull a broken-down truck, prepared meals together, siderable levels of conflict, as did the Rattlers and
exchanged tent materials, and took a rather hot and the Eagles, but in this study, the Sherifs’ reduced
dusty truck ride together. Like feuding neighbors tension by introducing a common enemy (Sherif
who unite when a severe thunderstorm threatens & Sherif, 1953). They arranged for the two warring
to flood their homes or warring nations that pool groups to pick their best players for a camp-based
their technological skills (in a recurring science fic- all-star team who then played a game against the
tion theme) to prevent the imagined collision of boys from another camp. This intervention was
earth with an asteroid, the Rattlers and the Eagles successful, for during the game the boys forgot
were reunited when they sought goals that could about their previous group loyalties and cheered
not be achieved by a single group working alone. whenever their camp’s team scored.

Cooperation and Cohesion Superordinate goals The Sherifs point out, however, that although
create conditions favorable for the gradual reduc- combining groups in opposition to a common
tion of tensions between groups, but in most cases enemy worked for a short time (during the actual
several cooperative encounters will be needed competition or crisis), once the enemy was
before conflict is noticeably reduced. At Robbers removed, the groups returned to the status quo
Cave, the researchers used a series of superordinate antebellum. In fact, the 1949 groups were never
goals to improve cross-group relationships. When successfully reunited despite the experimenters’
students from two different colleges worked extended efforts. Also, the use of a common
together on problems, the cooperative encounter enemy to create cooperation can enlarge a conflict;
led to increased liking for members of the outgroup in the Sherifs’ research, the tension that had divided
only when it occurred twice (Wilder & Thompson, a single camp came to divide two different camps.
1980). Similarly, in public schools, a long period of At the international level this method would
cooperative intergroup contact is needed to reduce amount to solving the disagreements between two
intergroup prejudice, and if cooperation is not con- nations by attacking a third (Kessler & Mummen-
stantly encouraged, then groups inevitably drift dey, 2001).
apart once again (Moody, 2001).
The Importance of Friendships Researchers
Working together in the pursuit of superordi- have confirmed the importance of the four factors
nate goals is also more effective if the groups actually identified by Allport in his original statement of the
attain the goal; if the cooperative venture fails, then contact hypothesis (see Table 14.1), but they have
conflict will likely ensue. Cooperating groups who also identified other factors that, if not necessary
manage to succeed like one another, but when conditions, are those that often turn an adequate
groups fail, the negative affect associated with a contact situation into a highly successful one.
poor performance will spread to the outgroup with Many researchers, for example, stress the extent to
each group blaming the other for the outcome. which the situation promotes informal, personal
Thus, cooperation is not enough: The cooperation interactions with outgroup members rather than
must also lead to success rather than failure (Blan- superficial, role-based contacts. If the members of
chard, Adelman, & Cook, 1975; Worchel, 1986). the groups do not mingle with one another, they
learn very little about the other group, and cross-
A Common Enemy The Robbers Cave experi- group friendships do not develop (Davies & Aron,
ment was not the first time the Sherifs and their 2016). Social psychologist Thomas Pettigrew
colleagues had used a summer camp to study inter- (1997), for example, in a study of 3,806 people
group conflict processes. Their first field study, con- living in four countries in Europe, discovered that
ducted in northern Connecticut, featured the two people who reported having friends who were

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

INTERGROUP RELATIONS 469

members of an outgroup (another race, nationality, within one’s group is a close friend, and their rela-
culture, religion, or social class) were less prejudiced tionship with the outgroup member is a close one
than those who had no outgroup friends. Other as well (Eller, Abrams, & Gomez, 2012).
investigations have confirmed this tendency, lead-
ing Pettigrew to conclude: The Effects of Contact Does contact across vari-
ous types of situations and between various kinds of
The power of cross-group friendship to reduce groups stimulate conflict reduction? Thomas Petti-
prejudice and generalize to other outgroups grew and Linda Tropp (2000, 2006, 2011) exam-
demands a fifth condition for the contact ined this question in a meta-analysis of 515 separate
hypothesis: The contact situation must provide studies of contact and conflict. This massive pool of
the participants with the opportunity to studies examined the responses of nearly a quarter
become friends. Such opportunity implies close of a million people from around the world. It
interaction that would make self-disclosure and included studies with tightly controlled methods
other friendship-developing mechanisms pos- as well as those with less stringent controls. Some
sible. (Pettigrew, 1998, p. 76) studies measured contact directly, whereas others
used participants’ own self-reports. Some studies
Cross-group friendships not only weaken the were experimental, with treatment and control
negative intergroup biases of the two friends, but conditions, but others were correlational or quasi-
they can also lower the level of antipathy displayed experimental. The studies examined a variety of
by other group members—even those without intergroup conflicts, including those based on
friends in the outgroup. Social psychologist Stephen race, sexual orientation, age, and ethnicity.
Wright and his colleagues (1997) tested this
extended contact hypothesis by conceptually Their careful meta-analysis (which took the
replicating the Robbers Cave experiment with col- researchers eight years to complete) confirmed the
lege students—but they made certain to create a utility of the contact method in reducing conflict.
friendship pairing that cut across the two group’s They found that face-to-face contact between
boundaries. The two group members who were group members reduced prejudice in 94% of these
friends were more positive toward the outgroup, studies and that the basic correlation between contact
but more important: This positivity generalized and conflict was − .21; the more contact, the less
throughout the rest of the groups. Even though prejudice between groups. They also noted, how-
the other group members had not themselves ever, that contact had a stronger impact on conflict
developed friendships with members of the out- when researchers studied high-quality contact situa-
group, the knowledge that someone in their tions that included equal status, cooperation between
group considered an outgroup member to be lik- groups, and so on. In such studies, the correlation
able moderated the ingroup–outgroup bias. Wright between contact and conflict climbed to −.29.
concluded that intergroup conflict sometimes pre-
vents friendships from forming, but that friendships The effects of contact also varied across situa-
that cut across groups can undo some of the perni- tions. Contact in recreational and work settings had
cious effects of the ingroup–outgroup bias. This the strongest impact on conflict, whereas contact
effect is even more pronounced when a friend that occurred when group members visited another
group’s country (i.e., as tourists) had the least
extended contact hypothesis The prediction that impact (see Figure 14.5). The impact of contact
cross-group friendships not only increase the two friends’ on conflict also varied across countries. For exam-
acceptance of the respective outgroups but also cause ple, it was greatest in Australia and New Zealand,
other members of their groups to become more positive followed by the United States and Europe. Contact
toward the outgroups as well. worked to reduce conflict in all other countries, but
its strength was less in some parts of the world (e.g.,
Africa, Asia, and Israel). Some types of intergroup

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

470 C H A P T E R 14

Recreational once antagonists. When individuals cooperate
with the outgroup, their “us versus them” thinking
Laboratory fades, along with ingroup favoritism, outgroup
rejection, and stereotyping (see Dovidio & Gaertner,
Work 2010; Hodson & Hewstone, 2013).

Educational Decategorization During the waning days at
Robbers Cave, the boys began to abandon their col-
Mixed lective identities. Some boys became less likely to
think of themselves as Rattlers, but instead viewed
Residential themselves as individuals with specific interests, skills,
and abilities. This decategorization, or personaliza-
Travel/tourism tion, of group members reduces intergroup conflict
by reminding group members to think of outgroup
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 members as individuals rather than as typical group
members (Brewer, 2007). In one study, researchers
F I G U R E 14.5 Degree of conflict reduction personalized the outgroup by merging two distinct
between groups across seven contact situations. groups and giving them problems to solve. Some of
the groups were urged to focus on the task, but
SOURCE: From tabled data in “A Meta-analytic Test of Intergroup Contact others were encouraged to get to know one another.
Theory” by T. F. Pettigrew and L. R. Tropp, 2006, Journal of Personality This latter manipulation decreased the magnitude of
and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783. the ingroup–outgroup bias, although it did not elim-
inate it completely (Bettencourt et al., 1992). Indi-
conflict were also more resistant to the curative viduation can also be increased by reducing the
power of contact than others. Heterosexuals’ atti- perceived homogeneity of the outgroup. When
tudes toward gay men and lesbians improved the group members were told that one member of the
most after contact, followed by attitudes related to outgroup strongly disagreed with his or her own
race and ethnicity. Contact lost some of its strength group during an episode of intergroup conflict,
in studies of contact between people of different ingroup–outgroup biases were muted (Wilder,
ages. Also, contact had less effect on the attitudes 1986). The participants looked at the outgroup and
of members of minority groups relative to members saw a collection of individuals rather than a unified
of majority groups (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2000). group (Wilder, Simon, & Faith, 1996).

Pettigrew and Tropp conclude that contact Recategorization The common ingroup iden-
works best in situations that conform to Allport’s tity model, developed by social psychologists John
original recommendations regarding positive con-
tact situations, but they were also heartened by decategorization Reducing social categorization ten-
the positive effects obtained in less than ideal situa- dencies by minimizing the salience of group member-
tions. Drawing on both their findings and social ships and stressing the individuality of each person in
identity theory, they suggest that contact works the group.
most effectively when it helps reduce the anxiety common ingroup identity model An analysis of
associated with conflict between the groups and recategorization processes and conflict, predicting that
when membership in the two groups is salient to intergroup conflict can be reduced by emphasizing
their members. They suspect that contact fails when membership in inclusive social categories and the inter-
members feel threatened by the outgroup and that dependence of the individuals in the groups (developed
the level of contact is not enough to assuage that by Samuel Gaertner, John Dovidio, and their colleagues).
anxiety (Stephan, Ybarra, & Rios, 2016).

14-3b Cognitive Cures for Conflict

Intergroup contact does more than just promote
positive interactions between people who were

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

INTERGROUP RELATIONS 471

Does Online “Contact” Improve Intergroup Relations?

The contact hypothesis recommends reducing inter- factors identified by the contact hypothesis—task
group conflict by arranging for the members of dif- focus, collaborative orientation, and the support of the
ferent groups to interact with each other in authority—are incorporated in the online contact sit-
cooperative, task-focused situations. In some cases, uation. When groups are cautioned to interact with
however, offline contact between group members is each other frequently, respectfully, and in supportive
impossible. The members of some groups are sepa- ways, virtual multicultural teams tend to be more
rated by great distances and so cannot convene easily productive, and members liking for one another
in a single location. Nor is it ever easy for groups with increases (Hasler & Amichai-Hamburger, 2013).
a legacy of hostility to move easily from insularity to
positive contact (Wagner & Hewstone, 2012). The Internet has also been used as an online
meeting place for groups with a history of intergroup
In such cases, online collaboration provides an hostility. Educators in Ireland, for example, developed
alternative way to bring groups together in cooperative an online program that linked students in the Republic
contact. Social networking sites such as Facebook, of Ireland and Northern Ireland (Austin, 2006). Another
gaming communities, discussion forums, and blogs all program, Net Intergroup Contact (located at http://
promote interaction among visitors to these sites and so www.intergroupcontact.com), facilitates intergroup
provide the venue, if not the motivation, for contact. contact by placing participants into groups that work on
These sites also take much of the challenge out of con- collaborative tasks. Members share information about
tact, for the experience can be ended should it become themselves through online profiles, and all sessions are
uncomfortable. Online situations may, in fact, more supervised by a mediator (Amichai-Hamburger, 2012).
easily meet the conditions required for successful con- A third example comes from the virtual community,
tact. The playing field of the Internet is a relatively level Second Life®. In this avatar-based game environment,
one, for indicators of status, wealth, or position are members of distributed, multicultural teams worked
hidden when people interact virtually. Moreover, the together to complete a virtual team-building exercise:
disinhibition that is so often problematic in Internet building a bridge across a ravine on one of the Second
interactions may be of service during intergroup ses- Life® islands. Reactions to the experience were very
sions, for individuals may be more willing to engage in positive: 95% of the participants agreed that the expe-
intimate self-disclosures needed to create a more per- rience helped them learn how to work with people from
sonal, rather than formal, connection. Interacting with different cultures (Lewis, Ellis, & Kellogg, 2010).
others online may also take advantage of the positive
effects of imagined intergroup contact. Even if partici- These online contact settings offer a possible
pants do not consider an online connection to another alternative to traditional face-to-face intergroup con-
person to be a “real” relationship, if the interaction is a tact procedures. They may, of course, prove to be
positively toned encounter, it should promote feelings untenable. Rather than an opportunity to act in posi-
of confidence about future offline interactions with the tive ways to resolve conflicts, the Internet may provide
outgroup (see Crisp & Turner, 2013). just another place where one group can enter into
disputes with another. These projects may, however,
Initial tests of the virtual contact hypothesis are be the first in a long line of effective online methods
encouraging. Studies of multicultural virtual teams for helping people move beyond bias to understand-
used in business and educational settings, for example, ing and away from conflict toward reconciliation
suggest that these groups become more cohesive if the (Amichai-Hamburger, Hasler, & Shani-Sherman, 2015).

Dovidio, Samuel Gaertner, and their colleagues, This recategorization will undo the conflict-
recommends reducing bias by shifting group mem- exacerbating cognitive factors that are rooted in the
bers’ representations of themselves away from two ingroup–outgroup bias, but will also permit mem-
separate groups into one common ingroup category. bers to retain their original identities (so long as they

virtual contact hypothesis The prediction that online recategorization A reduction of social categorization
contact between the members of different groups will tendencies achieved by collapsing groups in conflict into
improve relations between these groups. a single group or category.

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

472 C H A P T E R 14

do not conflict with the recategorized group). Because individuals in a single group or breaking down groups
people belong to multiple groups, they may be able altogether, decreases the power of the problematic
to identify one that includes them all. Recategoriza- group identity by shifting attention to alternative
tion can also be achieved by systematically manipulat- memberships that are less likely to provoke
ing the perceptual cues that people use to define ingroup–outgroup tensions. The Sherifs, if they had
“groupness.” When the members of competing implemented this strategy at Robbers Cave, would
groups were urged to adopt a single name, space have introduced at least one other category and split
was minimized between the members, and their out- the Rattlers and the Eagles into two new groups. The
comes were linked the perceived unity (entitativity) of boys, for example, were drawn from both the north
the combined group increased and ingroup–outgroup and the south side of Oklahoma City, so the Sherifs
biases diminished (Gaertner et al., 1999, 2000, 2016). could have separated them into these two groups and
introduced activities that would have made these
Social psychologist Jason Nier and his colleagues identities salient.
(2001) confirmed this shifting of identities at a football
game between the University of Delaware and the When others are viewed as belonging to multi-
Westchester State University. They arranged for ple categories rather than just one, intergroup differ-
European and African American interviewers to entiation decreases and with it goes intergroup bias.
approach European American fans and ask them if Cross-categorization also prompts individuals to
they would answer a few questions about their food develop a more complex conceptualization of the
preferences. The interviewers manipulated shared outgroup, which leads in some cases to decategoriza-
social identity by wearing different hats. For example, tion. The effectiveness of cross-categorization
when interviewers approached a Delaware fan, they depends, however, on individuals’ willingness to do
wore a Delaware hat to signal their shared identity, or the cognitive work needed to rethink their concep-
a Westchester hat to indicate they were members of tualization of the outgroup and their mood. If pres-
the outgroup. Ingroup–outgroup identity did not sured by time constraints that placed demands on
influence European Americans’ compliance with their ability to process information or a mood-
a European American interviewer’s request. How- souring situation, the boys at Robbers Cave may
ever, the participants were more likely to agree to have fallen back on the older, better-known
be interviewed by an African American if the inter- Eagles–Rattlers distinction (Urban & Miller, 1998).
viewer and interviewee apparently shared a com-
mon university affiliation. The Sherifs introducing Controlling Stereotyped Thinking Rather than
a common enemy in their study of the Red Devils attacking the categorization process, social psycholo-
and the Bull Dogs would be an example of gist Patricia Devine (1989, 2005) recommended
recategorization. controlling the impact of stereotypes on perceptions.
Although people may not be able to avoid the acti-
Cross-Categorization Ingroup–outgroup biases vation of stereotypes, they can control their subse-
are also minimized when group members’ other quent thoughts to inhibit ingroup–outgroup biases.
classifications—in addition to their group identity that Devine found that the European Americans she
is the focus of the conflict—are made salient to them studied could easily list the contents of their culture’s
(Crisp & Hewstone, 2007). Cross-categorization, or stereotypes about African Americans. She also found
multiple social categorization, instead of uniting all that European Americans who were low in preju-
dice could describe the stereotype as accurately as
cross-categorization A reduction of the impact of those who were high in prejudice. The unprejudiced
social categorization on individuals’ perceptions by mak- European Americans, however, could control their
ing salient their memberships in two or more social thoughts after the stereotypes were activated. When
groups or categories that are not related to the categories asked to list their thoughts about African Americans,
that are generating ingroup–outgroup tensions. the unprejudiced participants wrote such things as

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

INTERGROUP RELATIONS 473

What Are the Barriers to Intergroup Forgiveness?

Interpersonal forgiveness is the process by which an strength of identification with the ingroup (and
individual, internally, forgives a single perpetrator. exclusion of the outgroup), negative emotions, includ-
Intergroup forgiveness, in contrast, requires forgiving ing anger, and claiming victimization and exploitation
an entire group of people, as well as individual mem- by the outgroup. This study, however, also identified
bers of that group. several situational factors that promote forgiveness,
including peaceful contact, empathy, the exchange of
Intergroup forgiveness is an effective method for apologies, and acceptance of a common group iden-
repairing the relationships between adversarial groups tity. The two strongest predictors of improved rela-
by promoting trust and cooperation. However, forgiv- tions achieved by forgiveness, however, were collective
ing a group that has harmed one’s group is not easily guilt and the reestablishment of trust between the
done, particularly when conflicts result in significant two groups (Van Tongeren et al., 2014; see, too, a
physical, psychological, and social harm. A meta- special edition of the journal Group Processes and
analytic analysis of the situational factors that facili- Intergroup Relations edited by Noor, Branscombe, &
tate and inhibit intergroup forgiveness identified Hewstone, 2015).
three particularly influential barriers to forgiveness:

“Blacks and Whites are equal” and “It’s unfair to judge Jigsaw Learning Groups Studies of public
people by their color—they are individuals.” Preju- schools in the United States suggest that desegrega-
diced people, in contrast, listed negative, stereotypical tion often fails to eliminate racial and ethnic preju-
thoughts. Devine and her colleagues have also found dices. Although integrated schools bring students
that unprejudiced European Americans feel guilty from various groups into contact, they do not
when they respond to African Americans in stereotyp- always promote cooperation between these groups.
ical ways, whereas prejudiced European Americans do Instead of including the necessary ingredients for
not (see Devine & Sharp, 2009, for a review). positive intergroup interactions, many school sys-
tems fail to encourage interaction among the mem-
14-3c Learning to Cooperate bers of various subgroups, and staff openly express
hostile attitudes toward the outgroup members.
Conflict between groups is one of the most com- Some schools, too, group students on the basis of
plicated phenomena studied by social scientists, but prior academic experiences; as a result, education-
the goal of greater understanding and the promise ally deprived students are segregated from students
of reduced tension remain enticing. Schools, com- with stronger academic backgrounds (Cook, 1985;
munities, businesses, and even nations, to deal with Schofield, 1986).
the problems that intergroup conflicts can create,
have sought ways to help members recognize the Social psychologist Elliot Aronson and his col-
sources of their disputes and learn to manage their leagues developed the jigsaw method to increase
differences successfully. Many of these approaches collaborative learning and also reduce intergroup
build on both the contact and cognitive approaches conflict (Aronson, 2000; Aronson & Patnoe,
while adding elements designed to fit the given sit- 1997; Aronson et al., 1978). Students from different
uation (for a comprehensive review, see Paluck
2012). These programs, when applied with dili- jigsaw method A team-learning technique that involves
gence, often yield substantial reductions in conflict, assigning topics to each student, allowing students with
although their success depends on their duration, the same topics to study together, and then requiring
their design, and their fidelity to the intervention these students to teach their topics to the other members
strategy (Aberson, 2010; Stephan & Stephan, 2005). of their groups (developed by Elliot Aronson and his
colleagues).

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

474 C H A P T E R 14

racial or ethnic groups are assigned to a single learn- Conflict experts, such as Herbert Kelman
ing group. These groups are then given an assign- (2012), recommend training people to be more
ment that can be completed only if each individual effective managers of intergroup conflict. Kelman
member contributes his or her share. Study units are and his colleagues have met repeatedly with high-
broken down into various subareas, and each mem- ranking representatives from countries in the Middle
ber of a group must become an expert on one sub- East to solve problems in that region of the world.
ject and teach that subject to other members of the Kelman has carefully structured the workshops so
group. In a class studying government, for example, that participants can speak freely, and he intervenes
the teacher might separate the pupils into three- only as necessary to facilitate the communication
person groups, with each member of the group process. The workshops are completely confidential,
being assigned one of the following topics: the judi- discussion is open but focused on the conflict, and
ciary system (the Supreme Court of the United expectations are realistic. The workshops are not
States), the duties and powers of the executive designed to resolve the conflict, but to give partici-
branch (the office of the president), and the func- pants the behavioral skills needed to solve conflicts
tions of the legislative branch (Congress). Students themselves (Rouhana & Kelman, 1994).
can, however, leave their three-person groups and
meet with their counterparts from other groups. David Johnson and Roger Johnson (2009) have
Thus, everyone assigned to study one particular applied these principles in their school-based coop-
topic, such as the Supreme Court, would meet to erative learning program. They designed their pro-
discuss it, answer questions, and decide how to teach gram to achieve three major goals: to decrease the
the material to others. Once they have learned their amount of tension between groups in schools and
material, these students rejoin their original groups colleges; to increase students’ ability to solve pro-
and teach the other members of their group what blems without turning to authorities; and to give
they had learned. Thus, the jigsaw class uses both students skills they can use when they become
group learning and student teaching techniques. adults. The program teaches students a five-step
The technique can also be used in a variety of approach to resolving conflicts: (1) define the con-
courses and grade levels and has even been adapted flict; (2) exchange information about the nature of
for use in online learning settings (Pozzi, 2010). the conflict; (3) view the situation from multiple
perspectives; (4) generate solutions to the conflict;
Training in Conflict Resolution Intergroup and (5) select a solution that benefits all parties.
conflicts resist resolution, despite the best intentions
of those involved to settle the problem amicably. In Johnson and Johnson, in evaluations of the
one of the Sherifs’ studies, for example, an informal program, reported substantial reductions in disci-
attempt by one of the Bull Dogs’ leaders to negotiate pline problems after training as well as increases
with the Red Devils ended in increased antagonism: in academic achievement (Roseth, Johnson, &
Johnson, 2008). These programs can be made
Hall … was chosen to make a peace mission. even more effective by structuring the task so that
He joined into the spirit, shouting to the Bull each group member makes a contribution, ran-
Dogs, “Keep your big mouths shut. I’m going domly assigning students to roles within the
to see if we can make peace. We want peace.” group, and making certain that all groups contain
Hall went to the Red Devil cabin. The door an equal number of representatives from the
was shut in his face. He called up that the Bull groups being merged. Too much of an emphasis
Dogs had only taken their own [belongings] … on individual performance—created by assigning
and they wanted peace. His explanation was grades based on relative performance or degree of
rejected, and his peaceful intentions were preparation—can undermine the effectiveness of
derided. He ran from the bunkhouse in a hail the program, but research suggests that the inter-
of green apples. (Sherif & Sherif, 1953, p. 283) vention yields positive gains even in less than ideal
settings (Miller & Davidson-Podgorny, 1987).

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

INTERGROUP RELATIONS 475

14-3d Resolving Conflict: Conclusions Sherifs created conflict, but they also resolved it.
When it came time to return to Oklahoma City,
In his classic treatise The Nature of Prejudice, Allport several of the group members asked if everyone
(1954) wrote that “conflict is like a note on an could go in the same bus:
organ. It sets all prejudices that are attuned to it
into simultaneous vibration. The listener can When they asked if this might be done and
scarcely distinguish the pure note from the sur- received an affirmative answer from the
rounding jangle” (p. 996). staff, some of them actually cheered. When
the bus pulled out, the seating arrangement
The Sherifs and their colleagues created just did not follow group lines. Many boys
such a “jangle” at Robbers Cave. The Rattlers looked back at the camp, and Wilson (E)
and the Eagles were only young boys camping, cried because camp was over. (Sherif et al.,
but their conflict followed patterns seen in disputes 1961, p. 182)
between races, regions, and countries. But just as
the Robbers Cave experiment is a sobering com- If the Robbers Cave conflict can end peacefully,
mentary on the pervasiveness of conflict, the reso- perhaps others can as well.
lution of that conflict is cause for optimism. The

CHAPTER REVIEW

What interpersonal factors disrupt relations between generational studies suggest that coercive
groups? influence is associated with greater
increases in conflict (Insko et al., 1980).
1. Muzafer and Carolyn Sherif and their collea-
gues (1961) studied the causes of and remedies ■ Individuals who are high in social domi-
for intergroup conflict in their Robbers Cave nance orientation are more likely to prefer
experiment. allocations that benefit their group relative
to other groups, and they are more likely
2. Realistic group conflict theory assumes that conflict to eliminate rival groups.
occurs because groups must compete with one
another for scarce resources. 5. The emotional reactions described by the
frustration aggression hypothesis and the general
3. Insko, Schopler, and their colleagues (1994) aggression model can trigger impulsive inter-
have documented the heightened competi- group aggression. Scapegoat theory explains why
tiveness of groups, or the discontinuity effect. groups that experience setbacks sometimes
When groups play the Prisoners Dilemma fight other, more defenseless groups.
Game, they are more competitive than the
individual members, for a number of reasons. 6. The norm of reciprocity, cultural norms,
and group norms can instigate and sustain
4. Conflict increases when one group attempts to conflict.
dominate and exploit another group, and the
target group resists exploitation. ■ Cultures of honor, dignity, and face adopt
unique norms pertaining to violence.
■ Social dominance theory, developed by Sidanius
and Pratto (1999), examines tensions ■ Anthropological evidence suggests that
between hierarchically ranked groups in human societies tend to be violent, but
society. Fry’s (2007) findings suggest that peaceful
coexistence among cultures is a
■ Groups exploit other groups both eco- possibility.
nomically and coercively, but Insko’s

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

476 C H A P T E R 14

7. Evolutionary psychology suggests natural outgroup’s competence and warmth, and
selection favored individuals who preferred they elicit four basic emotional reactions in
ingroup members over outgroup members. intergroup situations: pity, admiration,
This theory suggests that evolutionary pressures envy, and contempt.
have resulted in the tendency for individuals to
respond more negatively to outgroup members 4. When conflicts become more intense, mem-
who are male rather than female. bers may display more extreme reactions to
outgroups, including hate, moral exclusion, and
What are the psychological foundations of conflict dehumanization.
between groups?
■ As Allport (1954) observed, hatred tends to
1. Social categorization causes perceivers to dis- be directed at groups rather than
tinguish between ingroup and outgroup individuals.
members, even in Tajfel and Turner’s (1986)
minimal intergroup situation. ■ Dehumanized individuals evoke a different
reaction, at the neurological level, than
■ The ingroup–outgroup bias, when applied those who are not dehumanized, and
to larger groups such as tribes or nations, was Bandura’s (2016) research indicates that a
labeled ethnocentrism by Sumner (1906). group is likely to be treated more nega-
tively when described as “animalistic.”
■ Ingroup favoritism tends to be stronger
than outgroup rejection. 5. Social identity theory suggests that individuals,
by championing the ingroup, protect and sus-
■ Double-standard thinking and the linguistic tain their identity and self-esteem.
intergroup bias frame the behaviors and
characteristics of the ingroup more posi- How can intergroup relations be improved?
tively than these same behaviors and
characteristics displayed by the outgroup. 1. The contact hypothesis maintains that relations
between groups are improved when the groups
■ Measures of implicit bias, such as the interact together in a positive contact situation.
Implicit Association Test (IAT) developed
by Greenwald and his colleagues (2008), ■ The original hypothesis, proposed by All-
can detect subtle, unconscious forms of bias. port (1954) and referenced in the social
science statement filed in Brown vs. Board of
2. During intergroup conflict, group members’ Education, indicated that contact is most
judgments are often distorted by a number of effective in situations that maintain equal
cognitive biases, including the outgroup homo- status, common goals, intergroup cooper-
geneity bias, the law of small numbers, the group ation, and support of authorities, law, or
attribution error (Allison & Messick, 1985), and custom.
the fundamental attribution error.
■ The Sherifs successfully reduced conflict in
3. Lippmann (1922) coined the word stereotype to the Robbers Cave camp by prompting the
describe cognitive generalizations about the boys to work toward superordinate goals.
qualities and characteristics of the members of a
particular group or social category. ■ The effectiveness of contact increases if
contact is lengthy in duration, results in
■ Stereotypes bias the encoding and retrieval success, and creates opportunities for the
of information about the ingroup and the development of cross-group friendships.
outgroup. Contact that promotes friendship (e.g., the
extended contact hypothesis, Wright et al.,
■ Stereotype content model: The contents of 1997), imagined contact and online
most stereotypes reflect judgments of the

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

INTERGROUP RELATIONS 477

contact (the virtual contact hypothesis) intergroup forgiveness urges members to
improve intergroup relations. accept and move beyond prior conflicts.

■ Pettigrew and Tropp (2011), using meta- ■ Devine’s (2005) studies of stereotypic think-
analysis, concluded that contact is an ing indicate that even though individuals
effective means of reducing conflict, but its may be aware of the contents of stereotypes
effects vary across contexts. pertaining to outgroups, they can learn to
control the impact of this biased cognitive
2. Cognitive approaches to conflict reduction response on their judgments.
seek to reverse the negative biases that follow
from parsing individuals into ingroups and 3. Conflict experts such as Kelman (2012) rec-
outgroups. ommend managing conflict by teaching group
members the skills they need to resolve inter-
■ Decategorization encourages members to personal disputes.
recognize the individuality of the outgroup
members. ■ Aronson’s (2000) jigsaw method is an edu-
cational intervention that reduces preju-
■ The common ingroup identity model dice by assigning students from different
developed by Dovidio and Gaertner racial or ethnic groups to a single learning
(2010) suggests that recategorization— group.
collapsing the boundaries between
groups—reduces conflict yet can ■ School-based conflict management pro-
promote the retention of identities. grams, like those developed by Johnson
The common enemy approach is an and Johnson (2009), are designed to reduce
example of recategorization. conflict between groups by teaching stu-
dents to recognize conflict, communicate
■ Cross-categorization involves making salient, about the source of the conflict, and
multiple group memberships and identify mutually acceptable solutions.

RESOURCES

Chapter Case: The Robbers Cave Experiment contribute to escalating conflict between
groups, concluding with series of sugges-
■ Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation: The tions for future research. This chapter is
Robbers Cave Experiment by Muzafer Sherif, one of many excellent chapters examining
O. J. Harvey, B. Jack White, William R. group processes in general, and conflict in
Hood, and Carolyn W. Sherif (1961) particular, in the APA Handbook of Person-
describes in detail the well-known study of ality and Social Psychology: Group Processes
conflict between two groups of boys at a (Mikulincer, Shaver, Dovidio, & Simpson,
summer camp. 2015).

Causes of Intergroup Conflict ■ “Explanations of Interindividual–
Intergroup Discontinuity: A Review of
■ “Conflict and Negotiation Within and the Evidence” by Tim Wildschut and
Between Groups” by Carsten K. W. de Chester A. Insko (2007) reviews various
Dreu, Hillie Aaldering, and Özu m Saygi explanations for the tendency for groups to
(2015) provides an overview of the social be more competitive and less cooperative
psychological and neurological factors that

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

478 C H A P T E R 14

than individuals, contrasting those that studies of the processes and situational
stress core motives (greed and fear) and conditions that determine when contact
those that examine the decisional processes does and does not reduce conflict.
of groups making choices in competitive
situations. ■ “Proactive Behavior across Group
Boundaries: Seeking and Maintaining
Intergroup Relations Positive Interactions with Outgroup
Members,” an issue of the Journal of Social
■ The Oxford Handbook of Intergroup Conflict, Issues edited by Birte Siem, Stefan Sturmer,
edited by Linda R. Tropp (2012), with 21 & Todd L. Pittinsky (2016), includes
chapters by leading experts on intergroup empirical studies of the impact of positive
conflict and its resolution, includes multi- intergroup processes, such as cross-group
chapter sections pertaining to the factors friendships, positive emotions, and group
that cause conflict and its perpetuation, norms, on reductions in intergroup con-
strategies for reducing conflict, and systems- flict. This journal is a publication of the
level approaches for preventing conflict. Society for the Psychological Study of
Social Issues (SPSSI), one of the oldest
■ “Intergroup Relations” by Vincent Yzer- scientific societies devoted to the study of
byt and Stephanie Demoulin (2010) is a social problems and their solutions.
theoretically sophisticated review of the
latest theories and research pertaining to ■ When Groups Meet: The Dynamics of Inter-
intergroup processes. group Contact by Thomas F. Pettigrew and
Linda R. Tropp (2011) examines the his-
Resolving Intergroup Conflict tory and current empirical status of one of
the most tried and tested methods for
■ Advances in Intergroup Contact, edited by reducing conflict between groups:
Gordon Hodson and Miles Hewstone encouraging intergroup contact.
(2013), as its title suggests, brings together
chapters that summarize the empirical

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Groups in
Context

15C H A P T E R

CHAPTER OVERVIEW CHAPTER OUTLINE

Just as individuals are embedded in groups, so 15-1 Places
groups are embedded in physical and social envir- 15-1a A Sense of Place
onments. Groups can be found in all kinds for 15-1b Stressful Places
places—from the comfortable and quiet to the 15-1c Dangerous Places
noisy and unsafe—and these contexts matter. Inter-
personal distances, territories, and work spaces influ- 15-2 Spaces
ence efficiency, performance, and satisfaction, for 15-2a Personal Space
few groups can function effectively in a space that 15-2b Reactions to Spatial Invasion
doesn’t suit its purpose. As Lewin’s law of interac- 15-2c Seating Arrangements
tionism, B ¼ f ðP, EÞ, states, group members’ reac-
tions (B) are a function of member’s personal 15-3 Locations
qualities (P) and the social and physical environment 15-3a Types of Territoriality
(E) where the group is located. Groups alter their 15-3b Group Territories
environments substantially, but in many cases, it’s 15-3c Territoriality in Groups
the place that shapes the group.
15-4 Workspaces
■ What is the ecology of a group? 15-4a The Person–Place Fit
15-4b Fitting Form to Function
■ What are the determinants of spatial relations in
a group? Chapter Review
Resources
■ What are the causes and consequences of a
group’s tendency to establish territories?

■ How can group places, spaces, and locations be
improved?

479

Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.