The Handbook of Conflict Resolution (3rd ed)

by Peter T Coleman

  From these and other sources, one can deduce a social psychological approach to addressing intergroup conflict that is phenomenological (stressing the subjective reality of individuals in group and intergroup settings), interactive (emphasizing the behavioral interaction of the groups in expressing, maintaining, and resolving their conflict), and multilevel (realizing that understanding is necessary at multiple levels of analysis from various disciplines within a systems orientation; Fisher and Kelman, 2011). Thus, the ideas examined in this chapter come from many sources identified in the preceding references and need to be combined with the fruits of the other social sciences in order to gain the necessary context and greater meaning. Therefore, interested readers are requested to search the literature for concepts and practices that are identified here rather than referencing this chapter as the primary source.

  INTERGROUP CONFLICT: SOURCES AND DYNAMICS

  The essence of intergroup conflict lies in three elements: incompatibilities, behaviors, and sentiments. A broad definition of destructive conflict sees it as a social situation in which there are perceived incompatibilities in goals or values between two or more parties, attempts by the parties to control one another, and antagonistic feelings toward each other (Fisher, 1990). When the parties are groups, individuals are acting and reacting toward members of the other group in terms of their social identification with their group, which forms an important part of their social identity, rather than as individuals. The definition stresses that incompatibilities by themselves do not constitute conflict, since the parties could live in peaceful coexistence. However, when there are attempts to control the other party in order to deal with the incompatibility and when such interactions result in and are fueled by antagonistic emotions, destructive conflict exists. This definition is in line with an approach to studying conflict known as realistic group conflict theory, which stresses that objective conflicts of interest cause conflict. In contrast, social identity theory holds that the simple categorization of individuals into groups (in a minimally competitive social context) is enough to create differentiation between groups and some amount of bias in favor of one’s in-group and discrimination against out-groups. In real life, both contributions are typically in play, and it is not easy to know which is the primary one, although the judgment here is to put more weight into real differences of interest.

  Sources of Intergroup Conflict

  What are some areas of incompatibilities that can give rise to destructive intergroup conflict? One useful typology, proposed by Daniel Katz (1965), identifies economic, value, and power differences as primary drivers. Economic conflict is competition over scarce resources and can occur in all manner of settings over all manner of desired goods or services. Resources are typically in finite if not short supply, and groups understandably often approach this distributive situation with a fixed-pie assumption that what one gains, the other loses. The stage is thus set for competitive strategies and behaviors to obtain one’s fair share (which the other group sees as unfair) and in so doing to frustrate the other group’s goal-directed behavior. Reciprocal interactions along this line usually generate perceptions of threat and feelings of hostility.

  Value conflicts involve differences in what groups believe in, from minor variances in preferences or principles to major cleavages in ideologies or ways of life. Conflict can arise over valued means or valued ends, that is, over how goals are achieved or what their nature or priorities are. Organizations often comprise groups in conflict over how decisions should be made (such as in an autocratic or participative manner) and over the outcomes to be prized (such as the best-quality service or highest return on investment). Societies and the world at large are composed of different cultural and religious groups with myriad variations in their preferences, practices, and priorities that can place them in situations of incompatibility. Again, the question is how the groups, particularly the dominant groups, choose to deal with these differences, for example, by forcing their cultural norms on other groups or supporting multicultural respect and harmony.

  Power conflict occurs when each group wishes to maximize its influence and control in the relationship with the other. At base, this is a struggle for dominance, whether in a corporate office or a region of the globe, and is not resolvable in the first instance, often resulting in a victory and a defeat or a tense stalemate and deadlock. Power conflict often recycles through various substantive issues, and over time the dynamic of a mutual win-lose orientation becomes apparent. This, however, is not to confuse the inherent use of power in all types of conflict in which parties work to influence each other. Power conflict is often distinguished by the use of negative power through behaviors such as threat, deception, or manipulation, as opposed to tactics of positive power such as persuasion, the use of valid information, and a consideration of the pros and cons of alternative actions. (See chapter 5.)

  To this typology can be added the more contemporary concern with needs conflict, that is, differences around the degree to which the basic human needs of groups, and the individuals within them, are being frustrated or satisfied. This line of theorizing comes partly from the work of psychologist Abraham Maslow and sociologist Paul Sites and has been brought into the conflict domain by international relations specialists John Burton, Edward Azar, and others. Basic needs are seen as the fundamental requirements for human development, and proposed lists include those for security, identity, recognition of identity, freedom, distributive justice, and participation. Identity groups are seen as the primary vehicle through which these necessities are expressed and satisfied, thus leading to intergroup conflict when one group’s basic needs are frustrated or denied. It is proposed that the most destructive and intractable conflicts on the world scene between identity groups, that is, racial, religious, ethnic, or cultural groups, are due to need frustration. However, identity groups also exist in organizations and communities wherever groups form around a common social identity, and if needs for recognition of that identity or for dignity, safety, or control are denied, conflict is similarly predicted (Rothman, 1997).

  An important qualification is that many conflicts are mixtures of the preceding sources rather than pure types. This can be true in the initial causation, as when power and economic competition are simultaneously expressed, or over time, as when value differences or need frustrations are addressed through the increasing use of negative power. The typology also does not rule out misperception and miscommunication as potential sources of conflict, but it is unlikely that serious intergroup conflict could sustain itself for any period of time based solely on these subjective aspects. This is not to deny that misperceptions can lead to behaviors that give rise to serious conflict, as when, for example, one group launches a preemptive strike against another out of the mistaken fear that the other is about to attack. However, destructive conflict is typically over real differences, poorly managed.

  Perceptual and Cognitive Factors

  Regardless of the source, conflict between groups often engages perceptual, cognitive, emotional, and behavioral mechanisms at both the individual and group levels, which exacerbate the initial incompatibilities. Social identity theory tells us that the simple perceptual act of group categorization in a minimally competitive context will set in motion a process of group differentiation with resulting in-group favoritism. This is apparently due to the need of individuals to attain and maintain a positive social identity, which they do based on the social categorization of groups and by making favorable social comparisons of their own group in relation to other groups. Thus, there is pressure to gain distinctiveness for one’s own group and to evaluate it positively in comparison with other groups, thereby leading to discrimination against other groups.

  The concept of ethnocentrism captures how identity groups tend to be ethnically centered, to accept and even glorify those who are alike (the in-group) and to denigrate, discriminate against, and reject those who are unlike (out-groups). Realistic group conflict th
eory sees ethnocentrism as an outcome of objective conflicts of interest and competitive interactions by groups to obtain their goals, a process in which the perception of threat plays a key role by heightening in-group solidarity and engendering hostility toward the threatening out-group, especially if there is a history of antagonism between the groups (Levine and Campbell, 1972). In contrast, the original research supporting social identity theory demonstrates that intergroup discrimination can occur without any clear conflict of interest or any intergroup interaction (Tajfel and Turner, 1986). However, this discrimination appeared to be limited to in-group favoritism rather than out-group derogation and hostility. The growing accumulation of research on the role of collective identity in intergroup conflict demonstrates that group members who strongly identify with their in-group are less critical of the group (the loyalty aspect of ethnocentrism), are more in favor of aggressive policies toward the out-group (the discrimination side of ethnocentrism), and are less amenable to conflict resolution interventions (Roccas and Elster, 2012).

  A direct approach to intergroup discrimination is taken by social dominance theory, which augments both realistic group and social identity theories by stressing group differences in power while still explaining individual differences in discrimination (Sidanius, Pratto, van Laar, and Levin, 2004). This theory holds that individuals vary in their social dominance orientation (SDO) and that high SDO supports ideologies that promote group-based hierarchies and legitimize both individual and institutional discrimination in favor of more powerful groups in society (Sidanius and Pratto, 1999). Social dominance theory has recently been extended to the level of societies by research that found that average national levels of SDO across twenty-seven societies correlated with a number of cultural and societal variables. In particular, high national levels of SDO were related to high levels of institutional discrimination and values of hierarchy and traditional group identification and to low levels of democracy, gender empowerment, and egalitarianism (Fischer, Hanke, and Sibley, 2012).

  All of these theories predict that individuals in intergroup conflict will engage in misperceptions that accentuate group differences (Fisher and Kelman, 2011). Groups in conflict tend to develop negative stereotypes of each other—oversimplified, inaccurate, rigid, and derogatory beliefs about the characteristics of the other group that they apply indiscriminately to all the individuals in that group. These come about partly through the processes of group categorization, which exaggerate the differences between groups and the homogeneity of the out-group. However, they also come about through selective perception and memory retrieval, by which qualities and behaviors that fit the stereotype are accepted and retained, while those that do not are rejected. Mutual stereotyping leads in part to a mirror image in which each group sees the other negatively, as aggressive, untrustworthy, and manipulative, and itself positively, as peaceful, trustworthy, and cooperative. Through the process of socialization, these simplified pictures are passed on to new group members (children, recruits, new employees) so that they can take their rightful place in defending the interests of their in-group against out-group enemies.

  Cognitive biases also enter into intergroup conflict in the attributions that individuals make about the behavior of others, such as how they make judgments about the causes of behaviors or events. In intergroup relations, there is a tendency to see out-group members as personally responsible for negative behavior (“He is sadistic”) rather than this being due to situational factors (“He was ordered to do it”). In addition, the personal characteristics that are the focus of attribution tend to be group qualities that are embodied in the negative stereotype (“They are all monsters”). In contrast, undesirable behaviors by in-group members tend to be attributed to external conditions for which the member is not responsible (“What else could the poor man do?”). Thus, attributions perpetuate and strengthen stereotypes and mirror images and also fuel hostility between conflicting groups as each holds the other largely responsible for the shared mess they are in.

  Group-Level Factors

  The individual processes of perception and cognition make important contributions to understanding intergroup conflict, but its complexity and intractability are also due to group-level forces. Social groups, like individuals, do not usually respond in a constructive manner to differences that appear to threaten the identity or well-being of the group. The functioning of each group in terms of identity, cohesiveness, conformity pressures, and decision making has a significant impact on how conflict is played out and ultimately resolved or terminated. In addition, the structure and culture of the organization, community, or society in which intergroup conflict occurs will influence both its expression and its management. Unfortunately, these latter areas are not as well explored as they should be, and space limitations here preclude a consideration of these higher-level influences.

  All individuals are members of social groups, by either birth or choice, and the group identifications that one carries form the central element of one’s social identity. Many theorists, including those who developed social identity theory, believe that an individual’s self-esteem is linked to group membership, in that a positive self-concept requires favorable evaluations of one’s group(s) and invidious comparisons with other groups. Thus, the seeds are sown for ethnic groups to display ethnocentrism and national groups to exhibit nationalism—pride and loyalty to one’s nation and denigration of other nations. However, we do not need to be at the level of large collectivities to see the functioning of group identity. Professional groups, scientific disciplines, political parties, government departments, lobby groups, businesses, sports teams, street gangs—all have their sense of group identity that affects their relations with other groups. The dark side of social identity is that in expressing commitment and affection to in-groups, there is a tendency to devalue and disrespect out-groups, thus contributing to intergroup conflict in situations involving incompatibilities.

  Along with identity, groups tend to develop cohesiveness, essentially a shared sense of attraction to the group and motivation to remain in it. In addition to increasing satisfaction and productivity, cohesiveness is a powerful force in fostering conformity to the group and thus has important implications for intergroup conflict. Not only are cohesive groups more effective in striving toward their goals, but it is also generally accepted that intergroup conflict increases cohesiveness within the competing groups, primarily through the effects of threat. Thus, the interplay between group cohesiveness and competition is a significant factor in sustaining intergroup conflict.

  Groups in conflict are notorious for the conformity pressures that they place on members to toe the line and support the cause. Group norms (standards of acceptable behavior) and related social influence processes dictate both the stereotypes and the discriminatory behavior that are appropriate with respect to out-groups. Members who deviate from these norms are called to task and may be ridiculed, punished, ostracized, or eliminated, depending on the severity of the conflict and the deviant behavior. Polarized opinions are a characteristic of cohesive groups under threat, and insidious and powerful influences are brought to bear on members who voice disagreement with the majority.

  Cohesiveness is the main factor behind the phenomenon of groupthink articulated by Irving Janis (1982), by which an insulated group of decision makers under stress pushes concurrence seeking to the point that it overrides the realistic and moral appraisal of alternatives. Janis identifies a number of US foreign policy fiascos (the Bay of Pigs invasion, the bombing of Cambodia) as examples in which independent critical thinking was replaced by decisions to engage in irrational and dehumanizing actions toward out-groups. Groupthink is characterized by symptoms showing overestimation of the group’s power and morality, closed-mindedness, and severe pressures toward uniformity. This is compatible with a large body of theory and research that demonstrates that decision making in general is not a rational, orderly process but indeed involves cognitive biases, gro
up liabilities, and organizational constraints that produce less than optimal outcomes. (Also see chapter 9). The sobering thought with regard to intergroup conflict is that groups on both sides may be making faulty decisions that exacerbate rather than alleviate the situation.

  The role of group leadership in intergroup conflict is also an important element of decision making, given that leaders and other higher-status members hold more power than the rank and file. A common phenomenon in situations of competition and conflict is that more aggressive leaders tend to come to the fore, while cooperative or accommodating leaders tend to lose power or position. Janis postulated that a lack of impartial leadership was also an important condition of groupthink, in that directive leadership that was committed to particular directions or decisions tended to influence cohesive groups toward concurrence seeking. In addition, groups in conflict tend to influence leaders in aggressive directions, and this constituent pressure supports militant leaders toward the use of “contentious tactics” in interactions with the out-group.