Intergroup conflict is a state of friction or antagonism involving two or more social groups. These divisions can form based on a wide array of identities, including nationality, ethnicity, or political beliefs. At its core, this conflict establishes an “us versus them” dynamic, where individuals perceive their interests to be in opposition to those of another. The nature of these groups can be fluid, ranging from large-scale societal factions to smaller affiliations like sports team loyalties.
Psychological and Social Triggers
Realistic Conflict Theory suggests that competition for limited resources is a primary driver of intergroup conflict. When groups must contend for the same scarce items, such as jobs, land, or political power, friction is a likely outcome. This competition is not based on imagined slights but on a tangible struggle over material goods or influence. For example, disputes between different fishing communities over access to the same fishing grounds can create sustained hostility.
Social Identity Theory proposes that conflict can arise even without direct competition. This theory suggests that people derive part of their self-esteem from their group memberships. To maintain a positive self-image, individuals are motivated to see their own group, the in-group, as superior to other groups, or out-groups. This process can lead to in-group favoritism and out-group derogation, as the simple act of categorizing people can be enough to initiate tension.
Groups also form around shared values and traits, which are then followed and defended by their members. These shared norms help to distinguish “us” from “them.” When an outsider is perceived as violating these group ideals, it can provoke a defensive and hostile reaction from the in-group.
Manifestations of Conflict
Intergroup conflict expresses itself through a series of related phenomena, beginning with stereotyping. This involves forming oversimplified and often inaccurate beliefs about the members of an out-group. These mental shortcuts attribute specific traits to an entire category of people, ignoring individual differences and complexities. For instance, a stereotype might hold that all members of a certain profession share the same personality traits.
Building on these cognitive shortcuts, prejudice represents the emotional component of intergroup conflict. It is characterized by negative feelings or attitudes toward an individual based solely on their group membership. While stereotypes are about beliefs, prejudice is about feelings, such as dislike, contempt, or fear. These negative emotions are often fueled by the simplified images created by stereotypes.
The final manifestation is discrimination, which is the behavioral component of conflict. Discrimination involves taking negative or harmful actions against individuals because of their group affiliation. These actions can range from subtle social exclusion to more overt forms of mistreatment, such as denial of housing or employment. Discrimination is the acting out of prejudiced attitudes, reinforcing the divisions between groups.
Conflict Escalation Dynamics
Once a conflict is established, certain dynamics can cause it to intensify over time. One such process is group polarization, where discussions among people who already share similar views can lead their opinions to become more extreme. Within the confines of an in-goup, members may find their initial beliefs reinforced and amplified, as dissenting opinions are absent. This can result in a collective shift toward a more radical stance than any individual member held at the outset.
A severe dynamic in the escalation of conflict is dehumanization. This is the process of perceiving members of an out-group as being less than human, which serves to remove the moral considerations that would normally prevent harmful actions. By framing the other group as subhuman, aggressive behaviors that would otherwise be socially and psychologically unacceptable become permissible. This moral disengagement makes it easier for individuals to participate in or support extreme actions against the out-group.
The interplay of these dynamics can create a reinforcing cycle. As a group becomes more polarized, its members are more likely to adopt dehumanizing views of their opponents. This, in turn, can justify more aggressive actions, which are then likely to provoke a similarly extreme reaction from the other group. This reciprocal escalation can lock groups into a spiral of increasing hostility, making de-escalation more difficult.
Strategies for Conflict Reduction
One of the most well-documented approaches to mitigating intergroup conflict is the Contact Hypothesis. This theory proposes that direct contact between members of different groups can reduce prejudice and hostility, but only under specific conditions. For contact to be effective, it should involve groups of equal status, working toward common goals, and have support from relevant authorities or institutions.
Building on this idea, the concept of superordinate goals offers a powerful tool for conflict resolution. These are shared objectives that are too large or complex for any single group to achieve on its own, requiring cooperation between conflicting parties. By creating a situation of mutual interdependence, superordinate goals can shift the focus from “us versus them” to “we.” This process can help to break down negative stereotypes and foster a new, more inclusive group identity.
A classic illustration of these principles is the Robbers Cave experiment, conducted by Muzafer Sherif. In this study, two groups of boys at a summer camp were first encouraged to form strong, separate identities and then placed in competition with each other, which quickly led to hostility. The researchers then introduced a series of problems that could only be solved through cooperation, such as a breakdown in the camp’s water supply. As the two groups worked together to achieve these superordinate goals, the animosity between them gradually subsided.