An integrative theory of group conflict

Abstract

Abstract: Authors seek to extend realistic group conflict theory, as developed by Sharif and associates. Identify an a priori distinction between two extremes of social behavior: interpersonal versus intergroup. Interpersonal interaction occurs when the interaction is fully determined by interpersonal relationships and individual characteristics and not at all affected by social groups or categories. Intergroup is the other end of the continuum, in which interaction is fully determined by the members' respective memberships in various social groups or categories and not at all affected by interpersonal relationships. The pure forms of each of these likely do not exist in real life. Examples of the interpersonal extreme is wife and husband or old friends. Example of intergroup extreme is soldiers, or formal negotiation. Spend some time talking about different kinds of ways of thinking about a continua for interpersonal to intergroup behaviors. Such as what are sufficient conditions for social change. In what they call the social mobility mindset, individuals perceive that if they work hard or have good luck or whatever, it is possible for them to move into another group. One example is the idea of education as contributing to social mobility. The contrary point of view is what they call the social change system of beliefs, in which individuals perceive that they alone cannot move from one group to another group. In such a situation there is perceived an intense intergroup conflict of interests. Moving from one group to another would possibly be betraying one's own group. Such conflict may be particularly intense in our culture, calling individuals traitors or renegades. [To what extent is there a perception of movement from one group to another, and whether there is a concern for what these groups will think of the individual.] A The closer the members of the group are to the social change perception, the more uniformity they will show in their behavior toward members of the relevant outgroup. The nearer they are to the social mobility extreme, the greater will be their variability of behavior toward members of the outgroup. In other words they will be more likely to treat outgroup members in terms of their individual characteristics. "Subordinate groups often seemed to internalize a wider social evaluation of themselves as "inferior" or "second class," and this consensual inferiority is reproduced as relative self derogation on a number of indices that have been used in various studies." Page 37 the realistic group conflict theory suggests that "low status should tend to intensify outgroup hostility in groups that are politically, economically, or socially subordinate. The evidence suggests, however, that where social-structural differences in the distribution of resources have been institutionalized, legitimized, and justified through a consensually accepted status systems (or at least a status system that is sufficiently firm and pervasive to prevent the creation of cognitive alternatives to it), the result has been less and not more ethnocentrism in the different status groups the price of this has been subordinate groups self-esteem. On the other hand, whenever a subordinate group begins, for whatever reasons, to question or deny its presumed characteristics associated with its low status, this seems to facilitate the reawakening of a previously dormant conflict over objective resources. At the same time, it is likely that one of the counter reactions from the dominant groups in such situations will be to work for the preservation of the previously existing "subjective" and "objective" differentiations." Page 37-38. Hypothesis they proposed: "and unequal distribution of objective resources promotes antagonism between dominant and subordinate groups, provided that the latter group rejects its previously accepted and consensually negative self-image, and with the status quo, and start working toward the development of a positive group identity. The dominant group may react to these developments either by doing everything possible to maintain and justify the status quo or by attempting to find and create new differentiations in its own favor, or both." Page 38 so the first question involves how does positive group identity develop. Second question is what are the conditions under which these status differences are likely to enhance or reduce intergroup conflict. Cite a number of studies that show that "the mere perception of belonging to two distinct groups -- that is, social categorization per se -- is sufficient to trigger intergroup discrimination favoring the in-group. In other words, the mere awareness of the presence of outgroup a sufficient to provoke intergroup competitive or discriminatory responses on the part of the intergroup." Page 38 this is based on series laboratory studies. "The "groups" to which the interactants belong need not depend upon the frequency of intermember interaction, systems of role relationships, or interdependent goals. From the social-psychological perspective, the essential criteria for group membership, as they apply to large-scale social categories, are that the individuals concerned defined themselves and are defined by others as members of a group. We can conceptualize a group, in this sense, as a collection of individuals who perceive themselves to be the members of the same social category, share some emotional involvement in this common definition of themselves, and achieve some degree of social consensus about the evaluation of their group and other membership of it." Page 40 "social categorizations are conceived here as cognitive tools that segment, classify, and order the social environment, and thus enable the individual to undertake many forms of social action. But they do not merely systemitize the social world; they also provide a system of orientation for self-reference: they create and define the individuals place in society. Social groups, understood in this sense, provide their members with an identification of themselves in social terms. These identifications are to a very large extent relational and comparative: they define the individual as similar to or different from, as "better" or "worse" than, members of other groups. It is in a strictly limited sense, arising from these considerations, that we use the term social identity. It consists, for the purposes of the present discussion, of those aspects of an ndividual's self-image that derive from the social categories to which he perceives himself as belonging." Page 40 [social identity should be italicized] assumptions of their theory No. 1. Individuals strive for a positive self-concept No. 2. Social identity may be positive or negative depending on the perceptions of the groups that contribute to that individual's social identity No. 3 ones own group is evaluated by comparison to other groups and their characteristics. Positive comparisons lead to high prestige, negative comparisons lead to low prestige. No. 4 when social identity is unsatisfactory, individuals will try to leave their existing group and join a more positive group, or try to make their own group more positive. Group membership must be the indi individuals own self-concept, they cannot simply have been defined by others. The social situation has to allow for intergroup comparisons and evaluations. For example in the U.S. skin color is important, but in other countries language may be more salient. Third in groups compare themselves only with relevant outgroups, not with every available outgroup. "Similarity, proximity, and situational salience are among the variables that determine outgroup comparability, and pressures toward ingroup distinctiveness should increase as a function of this comparability." Page 41 this differentiation, or comparison, is therefore essentially competitive. Individuals may react in a number of ways to negative or threatened social identity: 1 through individual mobility. By leaving or disassociating oneself from the group. By "passing". By disassociating oneself psychologically from fellow members of the low prestige category. "The most important feature of individual mobility is that the low status of one's own group is not thereby changed: it is an individualist approach designed, at least a short run, to achieve a personal, not a group, solution. Thus individual mobility implies a disidentification with the erstwhile in group." Page 43 2. Groups may take a group level response. Such as by comparing on a new dimension. Or by changing the values assigned to the attributes of the group "black is beautiful". 3. Changing the outgroup as the relative comparison. For example comparing oneself to other women rather than to men. 3. Direct social competition with the outgroup. Engaging conflict and antagonism. This is similar to individual mobility, but it is for the group as a whole, maintaining the cohesiveness of the subordinate group. The key is whether or not there are cognitive alternates to the situation. Social identity becomes insecure when the existing state of affairs begins to be questioned. "Like low status groups, the high status groups will react to insecure social identity by searching for enhanced group distinctiveness." Page 45