Intergroup Conflict: Causes, Consequences, And Theories

Discussion

When two or more groups dispute or challenge each other and their members, this is known as intergroup conflict. It may occur between work divisions or whole organizations. It can also occur between political parties or countries. Interpersonal strife, psychological strain, and physical violence are all possible consequences. Intergroup conflict is a significant element in the development of group lifestyle and complex socialization in many social animals. It affects the group-level range of motion and space utilization and ultimately shapes the development of group lifestyle and complex socialization. Human prosocial is a phenomenon with two opposing faces. The ability to cooperate inside groups is ubiquitous, but the ability to cooperate with outsiders is often hindered by prejudice, bigotry, and malice. The emergence of tensions among groups is rapid, and these tensions often develop into intergroup confrontations. As a matter of fact, intergroup conflicts have existed for a long time, and they continue to exist now in the form of conflict between nations and between ethnic and religious groups (Attwell & Smith 2017).

More than 200 million people died as a result of wars and genocides throughout the twentieth century, according to some estimates, when taken together. In more recent years, 180,000 people perished in intergroup violence throughout the globe in 2017, while 20,000 people were murdered in terrorist acts in 69 different countries in the same year. The study of the thoughts, feelings, and motives that underlie tension has a long contribution in the world of psychological research. Intergroup conflict has been dubbed the “issue of the century” in the psychology field, and with good reason. Human prosocial is a phenomenon with two opposing faces. The ability to cooperate inside groups is ubiquitous, but the ability to cooperate with outsiders is often hindered by prejudice, bigotry, and malice. The emergence of tensions among groups is rapid, and these tensions often develop into intergroup confrontations (Böhm,  Rusch  & Baron 2020). As a matter of fact, intergroup disputes have existed for a long time, and they continue to exist now in the form of conflict between nations and between ethnic and religious groups. More than 200 million people died as a result of wars and genocides throughout the twentieth century, according to some estimates, when taken together. In more recent years, 180,000 people perished in intergroup violence throughout the globe in 2017, while 20,000 people were murdered in terrorist acts in 69 different countries in the same year. The study of the thoughts, feelings, and motives that underlie tension has a long contribution to the world of psychological research. Intergroup conflict has been dubbed the “issue of the century” in the field of social psychology, and with good reason (Fielding & Hornsey, 2016).

Throughout human history, the prevalence of conflictual relationships across social groupings has been a constant component of civilization. Unlike certain types of intergroup competition, which are socially acceptable and even promoted on the grounds that they develop ingroup devotion (team sports) and safeguard the electoral system (party politics), other expressions of social conflict are considered as very harmful. Indeed, it is noteworthy that sociologists have exhibited a special interest in ethnic conflicts throughout those historical times when this has been recognized as a societal issue by the scientific community. According to the relative impairment theory, in contrast to realistic group conflict theory, emotions of deprivation do not stem from an actual purpose scarcity of funds, but rather from comparisons made by persons with other individuals who may be heavily favored in key attributes of the comparison aspects (Fisher, 2016).

It’s been a challenge for researchers for decades to explain why some groups participate in collaborative conflict behavior while others don’t, how community diversification and homogeneity influence ethnic tensions, and what variables demonstrate why some groups are capable of maintaining cohesion while participating in conflict whereas other groups can’t do that. Few theories, however, have had a greater impact on the development of practical work in intractable disputes than social identity theory, which was developed in the 1960s.

Based entirely on the assumption that humans are by essence a layout species, “Social identity theory,” which Brown explains as one of social psychology and neuroscience “world’s foremost theories,” is founded on the notion of functional intellectual ability to distinguish between various objects (situations) and behaviors. Individuals who are “like us” and others who are “unlike us” are categorized as “like us,” which leads in the formation of in-groups and then out in the social world as a consequence of this human instinct to seek patterns and categorize people. Individuals may distinguish between different types of people by using in-group and out-group classification.

 They can also rely on mental conceptions that help them establish expectations and direct their conduct as they navigate social encounters. Rather than the formation of in-groups and out-groups becoming sufficient to produce inter-group conflict, it is the interest in maintaining the highest possible sense of individual and group sense of worth that causes the manifestation of the sorts of preconceptions that are familiar to scientists who study inter-group conflict. Individuals have a fundamental need to see themselves and the communities to which they belong in a good light in order to be able to see themselves in a favorable way, according to this theory. Individuals are motivated to rate their own group more highly than they do other groups as a result of their desire for self-and group respect. In a series of well-known tests, participants demonstrated the proclivity to act in a preferential manner toward ingroup members while discriminating against outgroup members, even when the criterion for group identity was arbitrary and arbitrary.  Indeed, according to the so-called “minimum group paradigm,” just informing a person that he or she is a member of a certain group, regardless of whether or not a prior connection or shared characteristics exists, is sufficient to elicit in-group favoring and out-group prejudice (Wright,  Mazziotta  & Tropp 2017).

A range of variables, including prior experiences, expectations, current ambitions, and motives, among others, might influence an individual’s “relative accessibility,” or their ability to cognitively reach the different levels of categorization. ” Some winter sports participants, such as snowboarders, may be able to tell the difference between skiers and snowboarders, while individuals who do not engage in winter activities may perceive riders as an unified social group. Meta-contrast concept: When the gap between two social constructs is viewed as minimal in compared to the difference between all the other social constructs, it makes it simpler to distinguish between distinct social personalities. It’s possible for two snowboarders to be labelled as in-group members . in addition depending on where they are in relation to each other on a snowy mountainside. It’s possible for two snowboarders to be labelled as in-group members . in addition depending on where they are in relation to each other on a snowy mountainside. However, if there are three skiers and three snowboarders in the very same group, a snowboard may consider both snowboarders to be in-group members, and the lifeguard to be an out-group members. (Weisel, 2016).

In the context of intergroup interactions, the subjective feeling is felt when one’s ingroup is contrasted to a relevant outgroup and is viewed as being disadvantaged in this comparison, as opposed to absolute deprivation. A larger likelihood of feeling deprived exists when groups make upward comparisons, indicating that the chosen outgroup has more power, position or income than those in the group drawing a comparison (Thielmann  & Böhm 2016).

Also possible is the distinction between those who report just personal deprivation, those who claim both individually and collectively deprivation, and those who report only group hardship but no personal suffering. It goes without saying that this distinction has implications for the techniques used by persons who want to alter the status quo in aspects or circumstances in which they perceive themselves to be deprived. In the socially constructed setting, different levels of identifying salience (individual versus group membership) are expected to elicit higher levels of social way of comparison (intimacy versus interethnic), which will then help to clarify feelings of neglect and the behaviours that result from people (personal versus group identity). (Trepte & Loy 2017).

The work of researchers investigating bias is an example of a theory that is directly tied to the work of others. According to Allport, prejudice is defined as “a hostility founded on a false and inflexible generalization.” It may be aimed against a group as a whole or at individuals because he or she is a member of a minority” (Schellhaas & Dovidio 2016). Racism is one of the most important factors in intractable disputes, and it is also a byproduct of the construction of social identities. Participants in a dispute regard individual of the out-group as less “equal” or “human,” and as a result, they are more likely to rationalize acts of harassment and bigotry directed against them. Prejudice may also be used to explain inequities in material or resource distribution that disadvantage members of the out-group. According to Bar-Tal, accumulating enmity between groups as a consequence of conflict contributes to the continuance of conflict by preserving distrust and the “ethos of conflict” in a community, which in turn contributes to the continuation of the conflict (Saroglou, 2016).

Researchers have found a contradiction between realistic social conflict theory and social identity theory, as they have distinguished between “pure prejudice” and antipathies coming from “actual conflict of interests.” They have also found a disagreement between the two theories (Saroglou, 2016).

However, they do not have to be mutually exclusive in order to exist. “Realistic disagreement is like a note on an instrument,” according to Allport. It causes any preconceptions that are sensitive to it to vibrate in unison with one another. The pure note is difficult to identify from the surrounding jangle”, according to the ear. The interplay of actually impact individuals and the asymmetrical attitudes and interests created along those group boundaries get intertwined with one another as well as with the surrounding environment when there is a dispute. (Rusch & Gavrilets, 2020).

In any event, both types of bias are significant contributors to social conflict because they both introduce an element of unreasonable prejudgment into social engagement with the other, regardless of whether or not there are competing interests at issue. If, for example, Turkish Cypriots continue to feel enmity against Greek Cypriots as a group, achieving a negotiated settlement and putting it into action would be difficult, regardless of whether the initial source of the issue was a real collision. (Hogg, 2016).

It is the method in which individuals who belong to other social classes or clusters see, think about, feel regarding, behave towards, and engage with those who belong to other groups that is referred to as intergroup connections. If you substitute the term ‘group’ in intergroup interactions with, for instance, the words ‘national’ or ‘ethnic,’ then it becomes evident what is meant by inter-group connections(Mackie & Smith 2015).  Historically, inter-ethnic relations have been defined as how racial minorities perceive, treat, and engage with one another. We also know that inter-ethnic interaction are often aggressive, laden with tension and extortion, and marked by animosity, intolerance, and prejudice, to name a few characteristics. One of the most difficult issues mankind has is reducing conflict and extortion, as well as eradicating intolerance and prejudice, and fostering collaboration, tolerance, and social harmony among people. Human misery is at the heart of this task, and the stakes are very high in terms of success (Gutenbrunner & Wagner 2016).

Conclusion

Human existence is based on the formation of groups. People arrange their lives around their group identities, and they receive practical and psychological advantages from belonging to a group. People structure their lives along with their identity groups. In addition to this, there is a great predisposition for conflict between subgroups, as well as prejudice and aggression. Therefore, the conflict has been the subject of much research, and this review gives an overview of the many threads of research that have been done on the subject. There is a widespread tendency for people to accept and view representatives of their own groups (i.e., in-groups) more favorably than members of other groups (i.e., out-groups), according to research. Intergroup contact (i.e., relations between groups) are also more likely to be conflict-prone than intragroup relations. There are a variety of factors that contribute to this proclivity for intergroup conflict and in-group prejudice. Conflict is primarily fueled by two factors: first, the widespread and automatic propensity of people to categorize themselves and others according to their affiliation with an in-group or affiliation with an out-group, and second, the role that individuals’ in-group identities play in guiding their responses to dangers of all different types. Once a dispute between two groups has erupted, a variety of social and psychological mechanisms are put into motion that have the tendency to perpetuate and increase the conflict once it has started. Despite the fact that conflict seems to be unavoidable, there are reasons to be optimistic.

References

Attwell, K., & Smith, D. T. (2017). Parenting as politics: social identity theory and vaccine hesitant communities. International Journal of Health Governance.

Böhm, R., Rusch, H., & Baron, J. (2020). The psychology of intergroup conflict: A review of theories and measures. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 178, 947-962.

Fielding, K. S., & Hornsey, M. J. (2016). A social identity analysis of climate change and environmental attitudes and behaviors: Insights and opportunities. Frontiers in psychology, 7, 121.

Fisher, R. J. (2016). Towards a social-psychological model of intergroup conflict. In Ronald J. Fisher: A North American Pioneer in Interactive Conflict Resolution (pp. 73-86). Springer, Cham.

Gutenbrunner, L., & Wagner, U. (2016). Perspective-taking techniques in the mediation of intergroup conflict. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 22(4), 298.

Hogg, M. A. (2016). Social identity theory. In Understanding peace and conflict through social identity theory (pp. 3-17). Springer, Cham.

Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (2015). Intergroup emotions.

Rusch, H., & Gavrilets, S. (2020). The logic of animal intergroup conflict: A review. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 178, 1014-1030.

Saroglou, V. (2016). Intergroup conflict, religious fundamentalism, and culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 47(1), 33-41.

Schellhaas, F. M., & Dovidio, J. F. (2016). Improving intergroup relations. Current Opinion in Psychology, 11, 10-14.

Thielmann, I., & Böhm, R. (2016). Who does (not) participate in intergroup conflict?. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(8), 778-787.

Trepte, S., & Loy, L. S. (2017). Social identity theory and self?categorization theory. The international encyclopedia of media effects, 1-13.

Weisel, O. (2016). Social motives in intergroup conflict: Group identity and perceived target of threat. European Economic Review, 90, 122-133.

Wright, S. C., Mazziotta, A., & Tropp, L. R. (2017). Contact and intergroup conflict: New ideas for the road ahead. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 23(3), 317.