Intergroup conflict
Intergroup conflict (from Latin inter “between” and confligere “to fight”) is the name given to a conflict that occurs between different social groups .
Types of conflict
In the Conflict Studies several types can be distinguished:
- Distribution conflict: The goals of the parties are the same, but are incompatible
- Conflicting goals: Different goals result from different evaluations
- Assessment conflict: The ways to achieve goals differ
- Role conflict: roles perceived as contradicting
- Power conflict: perceived as an unequal distribution of power
- Information conflict: Different information
- Conflict of values : Different values and attitudes towards values
The intergroup conflicts can have different causes:
- Scarcity of resources - finance, information
- Interdependence imbalance - one group is too dependent on the other group
- High dominance of a group - superiors / subordinates
- Competing goals, interests - management / works council
- Differences in perception
- Neighboring groups work according to different rules - different working hours, quality control
- Overlapping competencies - matrix organizations
- Reorganization measures - merger , downsizing
Factors
Prejudice as a personality trait
Prejudices are usually negative attitudes towards all or most of the members of another group. One possible consequence could be hostility towards other groups.
Scapegoat theory
Carl I. Hovland and Sears observed the strong link between the worsening economy and the cases of lynching . Based on this observation, they developed the frustration-aggression hypothesis . This means that the aggressions are usually not directed against the real starting point, but are redirected to easily accessible goals. They can often be members of another group. This in turn can lead to intergroup conflicts. This connection could never be proven empirically. In addition, the frustration does not necessarily have to lead to the outbreak of aggression. The assumption that intergroup behavior is mainly determined by emotions is also not plausible.
Conflicting goals
If a goal is to the detriment of another person or group, the group will try to achieve this goal on its own, independently of the other group. Negotiations between employers and employees can be taken as an example when it comes to raising salaries or wages.
Serif's theory (1966)
Muzaffer Serif (1966), a social psychologist , proposed a theory for intergroup behavior. It states that intergroup attitudes and behavior of group members reflect an objective interest of one group towards the other group. If a conflict arises as a result of the objective interest and interests intersect as a result, a competition arises that leads from prejudice to hostile behavior. The ingroup, however, is always seen as dominant and better compared to the other group.
Distorted perception
The (self-) perception of a group is subject to various influences that everyone can hardly oppose. In particular in intergroup conflicts, i.e. in already existing conflict situations, there is a distorted perception. According to Forsyth, various core prejudices can be identified here:
- Ingroup heterogeneity - self-perception takes place as individuals. The whole group appears diversified and complex.
- Outgroup homogeneity - the rival or competing group appears homogeneous from the subjective competitive group perspective - e.g. B. in behavior and appearance.
- Linguistics - The behavior of the competing group is communicated differently than your own. The same actions can in this case, for. B. be presented more negatively.
- Law of smaller numbers - The behavior and certain characteristics of individual members are transferred to the whole group.
- Image of prejudices - Prejudices and wrong conclusions contribute to a wrong image of the outgroup.
- Group opinion - The opinion of the group is transferred to the individual members, regardless of how they came about. If these prejudices are addressed and the subject of professional conflict reduction, conflicts can be understood more easily and triggers and reinforcers can be identified.
conflict management
Contact hypothesis (after Gordon Allport )
Definition: Reduction of prejudices and hostilities between groups through contact between different group members. This also means that contact leads to the goal only with the connection of cooperation . So far, particularly good observations of conflict reduction have been made when there are more positive intergroup attitudes and contact is made with typical outgroup members. In addition, scientists have found that the contact hypothesis leads to more positive intergroup attitudes when contact occurs between members of different groups who are considered typical of their group. However, R. Brown points out that contact between groups alone does not lead to the goal, but that a certain willingness to cooperate with regard to common goals is important.
The criticism of the contact hypothesis follows from the same argument of the basic idea of the hypothesis: If intergroup contacts allow an attitude change, then in principle both positive and negative attitudes can be generalized, which means that contact could also worsen the situation if the cooperative encounter fails .
Extended contact effect
A new development of the contact hypothesis with the name "extended contact effect" states that if a group member knows that the other group members maintain a friendship with the outgroup members, this can help to reduce prejudice against the outgroup. One explanation for this behavior is that group members are seen as role models and provide normative information about how they should behave. Examples of the contact hypothesis:
- round table
- Workshops
- Integrative teaching
- social housing projects
The contact hypothesis is successful under suitable conditions. A distinction is made between 5 criteria. On the one hand, it makes sense that members of the various groups allow cooperation and are ready to work together towards a goal. Furthermore, it is seen as fundamental that the individuals belong to the same status and for this reason are approximately equally empowered and equal in order to jointly reduce conflicts in this way. In addition, the contact situation should be designed in such a way that not only superficial contacts are encouraged, but also that they are in-depth. Overall, the atmosphere should be friendly and helpful. In addition, conflicts can best be settled through contacts, if the contact or the joint activity leads to success.
Conflict reduction through overarching goals
One strategy for conflict reduction is to create a situation in which the conflicting groups have to cooperate by both working towards a common overall goal. Studies have shown that until then, hostile relationships can be altered so that they continue to approach and tolerate each other.
However, it also turned out that there can be a decline in affection if the common goal is missed and a competitive phase preceded it.
Conflict reduction through revision of the category boundaries
The social categorization contributes to the fact that discriminatory behavior and judgments are triggered. On the basis of this, conflicts should be reduced by redefining members of different groups in such a way that they belong to a single, superordinate category and thus the previous outgroup members are viewed as members of their own group. It turned out that the assessment of a single group was better than the assessment of the previous outgroup. Another way to reduce conflict in this conflict is to arrange social categories so that they overlap. The basic rule of categorization is that the discrimination in such crossed situations decreases compared to the original categories.
In this way new groups can form and these can lead to conflicts.
literature
- Charles Stangor: Social Groups in Action and Interaction. Chapter 13: Cooperation and Con-flict Between Groups. Year ?, pp. 311–334.
- Muzafer Sherif , B. White, HOJ Jack: Status in experimentally produced groups. In: American Journal of Sociology. 60, 1955, pp. 370-379.
- Erika Regnet: Conflicts in Organizations. Forms, function and coping. Göttingen / Stuttgart 1992.
- Heinrich Wottawa, Iris Gluminski: Psychological theories for companies. Goettingen 1995.
- Wolfgang H. Staehle: Management. 8th edition. Munich 1999.
Web links
Individual evidence
- ↑ Intergroup Relations. In: Donelson R. Forsyth: Group Dynamics. Brooks / Cole, Belmont 1999, pp. 375-408, chapter 13.
- ^ Gordon Allport: The Nature of Prejudice . 1971 (Original title: The Nature of Prejudice . 1954.).
- ^ R. Brown: Relations between groups. In: W. Stroebe, K. Jonas, M. Hewstone (Eds.): Social Psychology. 4th edition. Springer, Berlin 2002, ISBN 3-540-42063-0 , pp. 537-576.