LEC 4 - Group Processes - Intergroup Conflict Flashcards
What is Intergroup Threat Theory
Intergroup threat theory, developed by Walter G. Stephan and Cookie White Stephan, posits that intergroup conflict arises from perceived threats to one’s group. These threats can be either realistic or symbolic.
- Realistic threats are tangible threats to the group’s resources, security, or well-being. For example, economic competition or physical violence between groups can be seen as realistic threats.
- Symbolic threats are perceived threats to the group’s values, beliefs, or culture. For example, differences in language, religion, or customs can be seen as symbolic threats.
The theory also suggests that intergroup anxiety and negative stereotypes can exacerbate intergroup conflict. Intergroup anxiety is the fear or discomfort that people experience when interacting with members of other groups. Negative stereotypes are negative beliefs about members of other groups.
Intergroup threat theory has been used to explain a variety of intergroup conflicts, including ethnic conflict, religious conflict, and political conflict. It has also been used to develop interventions to reduce intergroup conflict.
What is Obaidi et al. 2018 about?
Intergroup Threat Theory
Example: Obaidi et al (2018)
- Intergroup relations between Muslims and ‘Westerners’ in a variety of contexts
- Illustrate how symbolic and realistic threat predict violent intentions towards outgroups
- Methods: quantitative, survey
- Symbolic threat “Muslims are a threat to Norwegian culture”
- Realistic threat: “because of the presence of Muslims, unemployment in Norway will increase”
- Findings (across 5 studies)
- Symbolic, but not realistic threats, predicted
- non-Muslim Norwegians’ intentions to join anti-Islamic movements
- non-Muslim Americans’ willingness to persecute Muslims
- support and behavioral intentions against the West among Swedish and Turkish Muslims
What is Violence as Social Control?
Donald Black’s theory of “Crime as Social Control” is a sociological perspective that challenges traditional criminological thinking. Rather than viewing crime as an aberration or a problem to be eradicated, Black sees it as a form of social control, albeit a negative one.
Black argues that violence, often considered a deviant act, can serve as a means of enforcing social norms and resolving conflicts. It can be used by individuals or groups to assert dominance, maintain power, or retaliate against perceived wrongs. In this context, violence becomes a tool for social control, albeit a dysfunctional one.
Here are some key points of Black’s theory:
- Violence as a Response to Conflict: Black suggests that violence often arises from social conflicts, where individuals or groups feel their interests or values are threatened. In such situations, violence can be used as a means of resolving the conflict, even if it’s a destructive one.
- The Role of Social Inequality: Black emphasizes the role of social inequality in shaping patterns of violence. He argues that individuals and groups with less social power are more likely to resort to violence as a means of social control, as they may lack access to legal or institutional channels for resolving conflicts.
- The Limitations of Formal Social Control: Black acknowledges the role of formal social control mechanisms like the police and the legal system in regulating behavior. However, he argues that these mechanisms are not always effective, particularly in marginalized communities or in situations where formal institutions are absent or compromised.
It’s important to note that Black’s theory does not condone violence or justify its use. Instead, it seeks to understand the social and structural factors that contribute to the use of violence as a form of social control. By examining violence through this lens, we can gain a deeper understanding of its causes and potentially develop more effective strategies for preventing it.
What are the 4 dimensions of conflict in Violence as a Social Control.
Conflict structure: 4 dimensions of conflict
1. Relational distance
2. Cultural distance
3. Functional independence
4. Inequality
How to predict the kind of Collective Violence
Predicting the kind of collective violence: two additional considerations
1. The degree of social polarization → ‘combined degree of 4 previous factors’
- The continuity of the deviant behavior at which the violence is directed
Previous factors
1. Relational distance
2. Cultural distance
3. Functional independence
4. Inequality
How can polarization shape the form of collective violence?
When polarization is greater; perceptions of collective liability → rioting and terrorism
When polarization is lower; perceptions of individual liability → lynching and vigilantism
How does continuity predict the form of violence?
Continuity
When alleged offenses are chronic or enduring
- Violence highly organized
- Vigilantism and terrorism
When alleged offenses are infrequent or transitory
- More informal violence typically arises
- Lynching and rioting
How do collective violence as social control and intergroup threat theory relate?
Why is violence difficult?
Example: Cushman et al (2012) - results
The condition where people had to simulate violent actions (compared to other conditions) led to
- Self-reported stress
- Physiological stress (heart rate, vessel restriction, etc.)
Violence is associated with stress
Why is collective violence difficult?
- Soldiers’ combat exposure (vs. non-combat) correlates with later psychological distress Cesur, Sabia and Tekin (2013); Dohrenwerd et al (2006)
- Having personally killed someone during a war is associated with increased PTSD; alcohol abuse; anger problems
- MacNair (2002); Maguen et al (2009); Maguen et al (2010)
Key concept: Participation in collective violence requires overcoming considerable aversion/hesitance
How to overcome aversion through practice?
- Practical and emotional training
- Many cultural initiation rituals (for boys) are aimed at practicing culturally ‘necessary’ forms of violence to overcome aversion (Aijmer and Abbink, 2000)
- Armies train soldiers specifically to overcome this hesitance
Why does violence need practice and experience?
To overcome aversion
Violence needs practice (Martens et al, 2007)
Task: kill bugs using ‘extermination machine’
- Condition 1: practice killing 1 bug before starting
- Condition 2: practice by killing 5 bugs before starting
Hypothesis: people who have practiced more will kill more bugs during the task
Practice and experience
Important note: many people who end up joining violent groups do already have experience (e.g. witness domestic violence as a child (Holt, 2017))
Many people who end up joining
violent groups DO already have
experience
Other strategies
- Self-medication with alcohol or drugs
- Group processes
“One of the striking features of collective violence is that ordinary people, those without extreme predispositions toward violence […], harm others on behalf of their group.” - Littman and Paluck (2015)
What is Deindividualisation theory
Deindividuation
- Does occur in groups
- BUT this does not always mean violence
- In the domain of collective violence, this theory is now considered old-fashioned
Acting in groups ‘allows’ people to act out violent tendencies they had all along
Groups give: anonymity, diffusion of responsibility, contagion of behavior and ideas
“In the crowd, the ‘collective mind’ takes possession of the individual who as a consequence is reduced to ‘an inferior form of evolution.” - Gustave le Bon (1895)
Deindividuation and violence
Violent intentions ‘break loose’ once restrictions are lifted → violence is natural, violence is easy
Critique: the mechanism (the way in which deindividuation effects are produced) that produces the effects could never be captured/how it really works (Diener, 1976; 1980) → why exactly do these effects occur? With a slightly different set up, researchers find different results (e.g. Postmes and Spears, 1998; meta-analysis) → the specific design of the study have a very big impact on whether you find these deindividuation effects or not, with a slightly different set up you could easily find the opposite results → in the overall picture is not so much the deindividuation as the fact that when people are in a crowd they become more sensitive to social norms (there is a layer of norms and acceptable behavior that is beyond your own individuality and is established by the group; you have to take the group into account)
What are Group Processes?
Modern explanation; there is no ‘natural tendency towards violence, rather, collective violence arises from group processes
What are ‘group processes’? → processes that occur at the level of the group that impact the individuals who are members of those groups
