Article 1a: When social identity- defining groups become violent (Chapter2, Handbook of collective violence)

Question 1

Collective violence

Answer 1

Is characterised by orchestrated, coordinated and sustained violent acts that are perpetrated by one group of people against another, often led by division between groups (wars, mass killings, gang violence, terrorism).

Question 2

Social identity theory

Answer 2

Individuals derive their self-identity and social categorisation form the groups they belong to. This involves comparing ourselves to those who we belong to (in-group) and to those who we don’t belong to (out-group).

We want to attain a positive and distinctive social identity: one that is better than, and clearly defined and distinct from other groups.

Question 3

Social categorisation/ depersonalisation

Answer 3

We automatically categorise the world and the people around us into groups, and stop to view them as unique individuals.

Question 4

Self-categorisation theory (Turner)

Answer 4

We represent social categories in our minds as prototypes: sets of attributes that define a group (social identity). We prototype ourselves about who we are and others about who they are, which causes a sense of shared reality. This can lead to polarised identities.

Question 5

Polarised identities

Answer 5

When in-group prototypes are defined rigidly and are pulled to extreme positions and away from the outgroup.

Question 6

2 key motives for why people join and identify with groups

Answer 6

1. Uncertainty reduction: uncertainty about our sense of self makes us want guidance and direction, which a group can do (especially an unambiguous, central-core group).
2. Self-enhancement: the need to compare ourselves with the out-group to be better than them.

Question 7

(1) Uncertainty reduction motive (for joining and identifying with a group)

Answer 7

Uncertainty can be caused by 4 things:
1. Difficult life conditions
2. Prototypes
3. Collective angst
4. Quest for significance

Question 8

Difficult life conditions

Answer 8

Are usually the cause of extremely heightened self-uncertainty and for people to seek groups that are extremely rigidly structured and have closed-off group boundaries.

Examples: economic upheaval, tense intergroup relations.

Can cause: negative views of the out-group and hatred.

Question 9

Prototypes

Answer 9

We define who ‘we’ are as an in-group and why we are different from ‘them’ as an out-group. This helps use to form strict boundaries of the group and a distinctive social identity (–> uncertainty reduction).

Question 10

Collective angst

Answer 10

When groups become concerned about a dangerous out-group. This produces:
- In-group strengthening behaviour
- Complete in-group conformity
- Demonisation of the out-group
- Hatred towards the out-group
- Vicarious retribution: acts of extreme violence due to loss of a member of the group.

Question 11

Quest for significance

Answer 11

Acts to restore a sense of significance, competence and control. (People seek to derive positive self-esteem from their group membership).

Question 12

(2) Collective self-enhancement motive (for joining and identifying with a group)

Answer 12

Collective self-enhancement refers to the tendency of individuals to boost the image of their group (the “collective”) in order to enhance their own self-esteem and sense of worth. It involves viewing one’s group in an overly positive light and emphasizing its superiority compared to other groups. Collective self-enhancement is the cause and consequence of:
- Minimal group paradigm (cause)
- Out-group discrimination (consequence)

Question 13

Minimal group paradigm

Answer 13

Participants who were randomly categorised into groups based on minimal criteria (like artist preference) still favoured their own group when asked to divide money among 2 groups –> even minimal intergroup conditions shape in-group favouritism and ethonocentrism.

Question 14

Out-group discrimination

Answer 14

For this to exist, other conditions need to exist besides just being a group, like perceived threat to the out-group. When aggravating conditions are added to minimal intergroup contexts, intergroup relations can escalate to out-group derogation and hatred.

Question 15

Group relative deprivation

Answer 15

A feeling of angry resentment to the out-group, due to a feeling of unfair disadvantagement. These feelings can lead to radicalisation, out-group derogation and hatred.

Question 16

Realistic group-conflict theory (RCT)

Answer 16

Intergroup conflict is a result of in-groups and out-groups having competing goals over tangible resources.

• Example 1: In the cave experiment boys were randomly assigned to a group and had to perform competitive tasks over scarce resources. This resulted in severe tensions and acts of violence towards the other group.
• Example 2: Resource threat is also seen in modern society, like people’s fear that immigrants will ‘steal’ all their jobs.

Question 17

Social identity theory of leadership

Answer 17

Prototypical members, like leaders, are also seen as the most reliable source of identity-related informations. This is why they have the most influence over the group members. Prototypical leaders are more trusted, supported and influential.

Question 18

Why prototypical leaders have more influence

Answer 18

• Self-categorisation and depersonalisation based on group-prototype leads members to conform to shared group prototyped and behaviour-prototypes. This causes prototypical leaders to be a reliable source of identity-related information.
• High prototypical members are often more liked –> more influence.
• Prototypical leaders embody the group’s norms, which makes them more likely to be highly identified with the group and behave in group-serving manners.

Question 19

Non-prototypical leaders

Answer 19

Uncertainty can reduce the preference for prototypical leaders, because people are more concerned with leadership and direction. Non-prototypical leaders can then create a simple, unambiguous prototype for the group that effectively reduces uncertainty (often people with machiavellian, narcissist and psychopathic traits).

These new leaders can exaggerated out-group threats and uncertainty to make the group more willing to have a strong leader who can take actions against this.

Question 20

Dehumanisation

Answer 20

Undermining or engaging in the denial of human essence or human characteristics. This can be used to justify violent acts towards the out-group.

Question 21

2 kinds of dehumanisation

Answer 21

1. Animalistic dehumanisation: denial of human characteristics that distinguish them from animals (less civilised, lacking emotions).
2. Mechanic dehumanisation: lacking in human essence and being similar to machines and robots.

Question 22

Delegitimisation

Answer 22

Excluding out-group members from boundaries of justice, fairness and moral community (basic human values and norms). The process of categorization of out-groups into extreme social categories which are ultimately excluded from society.

Question 23

Collective victimhood

Answer 23

The tendency of groups to view themselves as the sole victims in conflict with another group, and the other group as the sole perpetrator. Can be a powerful role to appear to have moral standing, gain sympathy and resources, be protected from criticism and legitimise revenge-seeking behaviour towards the other group.