by Paul Seager
Case study: Tajfel’s minimal group paradigm study
A group of schoolchildren were shown a number of slides depicting paintings by either the artist Klee or Kandinsky, and then asked to express a preference for one or the other. It was suggested to the children that they would be allocated to a group based on their choice, but, in actuality, they were randomly assigned to one of the two groups (Klee or Kandinsky) regardless of their preferences (though the children were not aware of this). Individually, the children were then given a number of matrices (a sample matrix is shown below), and told that each column in the matrix represented a number of points that could possibly be given to two anonymous individuals who were only denoted by the ‘painting group’ to which they belonged and an arbitrary number (e.g. Klee group #72). For each matrix, the children were asked to put an ‘X’ by one of the columns to designate how they would like the points to be distributed.
The allocation tasks given to the children were designed to measure discrimination (the prejudice shown) between an individual’s own group (the ‘ingroup’) and the other group (the ‘outgroup’). In the sample matrix above, an individual in the Klee group was asked to make an allocation between two anonymous individuals – one belonging to their own group (Klee Group #72) and one belonging to the other group (Kandinsky Group #47). If they chose a column where there was little, or no, difference between the allocations of points to the two individuals (e.g. the column marked ‘a’), this would suggest no prejudice was present. However, if a column was chosen where there was a marked difference in the point distribution (e.g. the column marked ‘b’), then this would indicate that some form of prejudice was present. Such prejudice would be remarkable given that:
• group membership was arbitrary;
• each individual did not know who else was in their group;
• there was no interaction between the group members;
• the individuals to whom the points were being distributed were anonymous;
• the group had no history and there was no prospect of a future for the group.
Tajfel was not expecting to find any prejudice at this point in his experiments, as the groupings were as basic as groups could possibly get; he was simply intending to use the task as a baseline to which he could add other factors until prejudice did start to occur. However, his findings were quite unexpected: he found that there was a consistent trend for participants to choose a column which allocated more points to the anonymous individual who was a member of their own group (as opposed to a column giving an equal distribution of points). Tajfel’s findings have been interpreted as a show of how easy it is for some form of prejudice to occur.
Key idea: J-curve hypothesis
A graphical representation of how relative deprivation occurs when attainments no longer meet expectations.
Research has identified two different types of relative deprivation. These are:
• Egoistic relative deprivation: this is the idea that an individual perceives that they are deprived compared to their fellows; for example, a worker doing the same job and with the same title might feel deprived if they were earning less than someone else with the same job and title.
• Fraternalistic relative deprivation: this suggests that members of a group feel deprived compared to members of a different group, or compared to what it believes that it is entitled. For example, a group of workers who only receive a one per cent pay rise might feel deprived when their managers receive a five per cent pay rise, or when they have received a three per cent pay rise previously but only a one per cent rise this year.
Research suggests that fraternalistic relative deprivation is a more predictive indicator of social unrest (such as demonstrations and law-breaking) than egoistic relative deprivation (which is more likely to lead to individual stress symptoms such as lack of sleep and headaches).
However, for fraternalistic deprivation to be developed fully and lead to action, there are four additional factors that should be taken into consideration:
1 There needs to be a strong identification with the group to which an individual belongs. For example, a relatively new recruit to a group may not feel as great an affiliation to the group as do longer-term members, and this may prevent them from joining in with any collective group action.
2 There must be a feeling held by the members of the group that any action contemplated would actually have the desired effect in terms of reducing the perceived deprivation. Any considered actions should also seem to be both practical and viable in terms of leading to the desired change.
3 Generally, there is a feeling that distributive injustice is an important factor behind fraternalistic relative deprivation; that is to say, the group has less than it is entitled to compared to either its expectations or to other groups. However, a second form of injustice – procedural injustice – may also play a role; this is where there is a perception that the group has been the victim of unfair procedures. The latter form of injustice has been found to be a strong predictor for action, though it can sometimes be very difficult to untangle the two different types of injustice when trying to interpret the cause and effect of any intergroup behaviour.
4 It depends on the nature of the ingroup–outgroup comparison; that is, it depends on who a group compares itself against to measure the deprivation. Typically, groups compare themselves against similar groups, for example residents in one town are more likely to compare themselves to those in a similar town, when considering whether the council services they get are acceptable and whether they need to stage any form of protest. However, the most prominent form of intergroup conflict will occur when comparisons are made between distinctly different groups (e.g. blacks vs. whites in 1960s America).
The consideration of all of these factors will lead to a better understanding of when unrest and disruptive behaviour is most likely to occur.
A further reason for why conflict between groups might occur comes directly from the findings of the summer camp studies by Sherif and his colleagues. They formulated the realistic group conflict theory which argues that conflict stems from competition for scarce resources (see below). In the case of the summer camp studies, the scarce resource was the prizes on offer which could only be awarded to one of the groups; however, the theory suggests that scarce resources could equally be represented by food, territory, wealth, power, natural resources, energy and so forth. Hence this theory seems to be able to explain real world occurrences of conflict and prejudice; for example, the reason there may be prejudice towards, and conflict with, immigrants is the perception that they take jobs, and other benefits (such as medical and monetary resources), away from the indigenous population, thereby representing a competition for limited resources.
‘The realistic group conflict theory provides a powerful explanation for many instances of intergroup discrimination and prejudice. Moreover, it has the advantage of being able to account for changes in levels of prejudice over time or across different social contexts; such changes can often be attributed to changing economic and political relations between the groups concerned.’
(Brewer & Brown, 1998, p. 565)
Key idea: Realistic group conflict theory
The notion that conflict between groups is due to competition for scarce resources which if one group possesses the other group cannot have.
A key idea in this theory is the concept of interdependence, whereby scarce resources, or mutually exclusive goals, are the target of one or more groups. If one group gains the resources or achieves the goals, then the other group misses out and is likely to suffer as a result. If this is the case then intergroup conflict is likely to occur. This has been demonstrated in many studies, both in the field (such as the summer camp studies) and in the lab (such as Zimbardo’s prison studies).
Overall, realistic group conflict theory seems to be good at explaining conflict in the real world; however, that in itself is a slight weakness as it could be the case that there are many othe
r factors present in different settings that might also explain the conflict. Additionally, it is also the case that some form of conflict or competition can occur when group goals are not interdependent, or when groups are non-competitive (as seen in Tajfel’s minimal group paradigm above), or even sometimes when the groups are actually co-operative.
There does seem to be a clear contrast between the two preceding explanations for intergroup conflict. Relative deprivation suggests that social comparison with a targeted outgroup is the reason for conflict. Conversely, realistic group conflict theory suggests it is the competition for real and valued resources that is the reason for the conflict.
However, a further explanation for why intergroup conflict occurs may be because members of a given group want to feel that their group is superior to other groups, which in turn will make the individuals within the group feel better about themselves. Thus Tajfel and Turner proposed social identity theory as an explanation for intergroup conflict.
Social identity theory uses the idea that there are two facets of an individual’s identity – their personal identity and their social identity (see Chapter 2). The former relates to their personality traits and their interpersonal relationships, whereas the latter refers to the groups to which they belong. Social identity theory suggests that we define ourselves by the groups to which we belong (ingroups) or don’t belong (outgroups); this is referred to as self-categorization. The more successful and prestigious the groups are to which we belong, then the better we feel about ourselves (e.g. the higher our self-esteem). However, regardless of the success or prestige of our group, if our social identity comes under threat, then action may need to be taken against any outgroup that is posing the threat.
Key idea: Self-categorization and social identity theory
Self-categorization refers to the way in which an individual thinks of themselves as belonging to different groups. This categorization helps to define who they are as a person and gives them a social identity (as opposed to a personal identity) in terms of their group memberships.
Social identity is just one aspect of group membership that may escalate intergroup conflict. Many other aspects of group life can also help to increase the likelihood of conflict, and a review of Chapters 10 and 11 will illuminate this proposition further. For example, group polarization (in terms of decision making) may lead to a more extreme (polarized) view of any outgroups being discussed. Similarly the concept of groupthink may lead a group into conflict with another because alternative options were not considered. Chapter 9 on aggression may also offer clues as to why conflict can become more inevitable if we consider Berkowitz’s idea that environmental cues lead to a more aggressive stance (e.g. the weapons effect): for example, one might question the wisdom of a group meeting in a place referred to either as a ‘war room’ or an ‘emergency briefing room’ when considering its response to the actions of an ‘outgroup’. Intergroup relations might be better served if such places were renamed as ‘peace rooms’.
Improving intergroup relations
In light of the ease with which conflict may occur between rival groups, social psychologists have also focussed their attention on ways in which to prevent or reduce conflict, and a number of effective ways have been identified.
One of the primary ways in which to reduce conflict between two groups is to introduce superordinate goals. This idea arose from Sherif’s summer camp studies when they were looking for ways to reduce the conflict between the two groups of boys. A superordinate goal is a task that can only be accomplished if both sides work together. For example, Sherif and his colleagues arranged a situation whereby both groups of boys were being transported on a lorry that broke down. The only way in which they could get back to camp was if they worked together to pull the lorry (neither group could achieve this feat on their own). Other superordinate goals created by Sherif included getting the boys to work together to find out the reason for why the water supply to the camp had ceased, pooling their money to hire a film that both groups wanted to see, and preparing meals together. Of course, it is unlikely that just one instance of a superordinate goal will be effective at reducing conflict, and many may be needed. There are two important points to consider with regards to the successful functioning of this method:
1 It is important that neither side could achieve any of the tasks on their own (or at least not easily).
2 It is important that the goal is achieved successfully, as working together but failing can actually exacerbate the conflict.
In terms of the theoretical reason for why this strategy might work, it is likely that the social identity of the groups is being rewritten: instead of belonging to two distinct groups, one group has been formed (to achieve the task) to which all members belong. Another theory that relates in some way to this method for reducing conflict is the contact hypothesis (see Chapter 13). However, some aspects of the contact hypothesis are also appropriate for consideration in terms of superordinate goals, such as ensuring that members of both groups mingle with one another during the accomplishment of a goal in order that they learn about one another and to promote opportunities for friendships to form.
A number of cognitive methods have also been utilized to reduce conflict. The first is decategorization, which is almost the opposite of social categorization. This method, sometimes referred to as personalization, works by attempting to get the members of the conflicting groups to think about the outgroup members as individuals. For example, one study merged two groups (who were in conflict) and gave them problems to solve; in one condition, the participants were told to focus on solving the problems, and in the other condition they were told to focus more on getting to know one another. Results suggest that the latter condition de-escalated the conflict far more effectively than the former, though it didn’t completely resolve it.
Key idea: Decategorization
Reducing the effect of social categorization as much as possible by re-emphasizing the individuality of each member in the group and reducing the importance of the group.
A second method attempts to get the two groups in conflict to move away from thinking of themselves as two groups and to think of themselves as one group instead; this is referred to as recategorization. This can be achieved in a number of ways, one of which is to manipulate environmental cues, such as giving the new group one name and reducing the space between members when they are brought together. In one of the summer camp studies, Sherif and colleagues introduced a common enemy to the two groups (in that specific case, it was the Red Devils and Bull Dogs) and this had the effect of bringing about a recategorization of the groups’ identity.
Key idea: Recategorization
Reducing the effect of social categorization by reworking the groups in conflict into one group.
A third method, referred to as cross-categorization, makes the individuals in the conflicting groups aware of their other group memberships i.e. other groups to which they belong. Whereas other types of categorization (e.g. decategorization and recategorization) attempt to unite the individuals within one group, cross-categorization attempts to reduce the salience of the problematic group membership by emphasizing less problematic group memberships. For example, in the summer camp studies, it might have been possible to reduce conflict by getting the boys to form new groups based on the place where they lived. Of course, this does require an initial willingness from individuals to undertake this cognitive restructuring of their situation, and this may not always be possible.
Key idea: Cross-categorization
Reducing the effect of social categorization by emphasizing an individual’s membership of other social groups unrelated to the group in conflict.
A further method for improving intergroup relations is mediation, whereby a third party is employed to help both sides to move towards a mutually acceptable goal. It is important that the mediator is seen to be impartial by both sides and has sufficient power (e.g. to bring about a solution, and to put pressure o
n any side that shows intransigence). It is also necessary that the positions of both sides in the dispute are quite close.
Although only a small number of ways for reducing intergroup conflict have been covered here, there are certainly many more that have been tested. The general trend for creating such methods tends to be that if it is possible to theorize why conflict occurs in the first place, then it is possible to use these theoretical perspectives to reduce conflict. Thus we have seen how social identity theory and social categorization have been used to create interventions. This is also the case for other social psychological theories and ideas. For example, as covered in previous chapters, the norm of reciprocity plays a very strong role in motivating human behaviour (e.g. social influence, prosocial behaviour, etc.), and it is no surprise therefore that it forms the basis for a conflict reduction intervention referred to as G.R.I.T. (graduated and reciprocated initiatives in tension reduction). When employing this method, one of the conflicting groups announces publicly that it will make a small concession in the conflict and then follows through with the promise. This then puts pressure on the other group to reciprocate – and as we have seen, the need to reciprocate can exert a very strong influence indeed.
Summary
Understanding intergroup behaviour is important given the nature and prevalence of conflict in the world today. By understanding both the minimal conditions that might cause some form of intergroup bias to exist, and the reasons and explanations for why intergroup conflict might occur, it is possible to conceive of ways to reduce conflict. Whilst it might be overly optimistic to believe that conflict can ever be eradicated, it is reassuring to know that there are methods to reduce it when it does transpire, and that this reduction can be applied to both children (who may not know any better) and adults (who probably should know better).