INTERGROUP CONFLICT
Henry Tajfel (1984)
Summary:
INTRODUCTION
We live in a world where the processes of unification and diversification are developing rapidly. Large human groups communic ate
and interdepend more than ever, while seeking to preserve and achieve their own diversity and identity.
The fourth part of the book focuses on the tendency towards differentiation between social groups, observable in national, ethnic,
and linguistic movements, as well as in industrial relations. The differentiation and associated conflicts cannot be understo od only
in economic terms; Other analyses are needed to complement them.
The aim is to provide a broad view of intergroup relations, seeing them as a joint function of psychosocial processes and obj ective
structures. Although social psychology only offers part of the analysis, it is vital to combine psychological, sociological, economic,
and historical perspectives to better understand these complex relationships.
In this sense, we can take as an example the statement of the social anthropologist Robert LeVine at a conference on ethnic and
national loyalties: "Describe to me the intergroup economic situation, and I will make a prediction of the content of intergroup
stereotypes." LeVine noted that economic factors have a significant effect on the formation of stereotypes between groups.
Stereotypes are not a primary cause in the development of intergroup relations, but the intertwining of social, economic, and
psychological factors is evident.
The social and economic conditions that lead to rivalry between groups are often associated with the spread of derogatory noti ons
about the outgroup. Although these notions do not originate directly in the struggle for resources, they become an inherent p art
of the intergroup social situation and can influence relations between groups. Thus, social stereotypes, although they do not create
these situations, become important causal factors that must be considered in the analysis of intergroup relations.
Although the fourth part of this book focuses on the social psychology of groups in conflict, it does not attempt to reduce the
analysis to only psychological aspects. We will describe psychological processes in the context of different intergroup relationships
and their effects on those relationships.
Jerome Bruner pointed out that myths offer possible identities for people, which influences how groups differentiate and rela te to
each other. The "script library" of social identities is created and changed with social realities, including visions of the "others."
These scripts are selected and adjusted according to the needs and values of the group, facilitating differentiation from oth er
groups.
The fourth part of the book, influenced by Bruner's ideas, examines how these differentiations are the product of cognitive a nd
social processes. Stereotypes and categorizations are not fixed data, but are socially constructed through myths, images, and
shared values. This construction involves three phases: cultural creation of myths, divergences, and convergences of perspectives
between subgroups, and individual choices between these perspectives.
The ideas presented have been developed by a team of colleagues and have proven useful in field studies and the interpretatio n
of social phenomena in various contexts. Recent examples include research on ethnic identity, the effects of the media on attitudes
towards minorities, and inter-ethnic conflicts in different countries. This research underlines the importance of achieving a
"genuinely social dimension" in social psychology, contributing to its development in Europe.
THE ATTRIBUTES OF INTERGROUP BEHAVIOR
1. WHEN DOES INTERINDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOR BECOME INTERGROUP BEHAVIOR?
The question of intergroup relations is of great interest beyond the academic field. During debates in Britain over the Race Relations
Act, a Conservative MP expressed resentment at the idea of the legislation controlling daily dealings between individuals . This
statement reflects an extreme "individualistic" approach to intergroup relations.
1
Made by MatyBuda
, While it is true that individuals interact with each other, they often do so as members of distinct social categories. In situations of
racial discrimination, difficulties in obtaining accommodation or employment are not due to personal characteristics, bu t to
membership in a social group, such as being black.
This raises important questions for social psychology: Under what conditions are interactions between individuals determined by
their membership in different social groups rather than by their personal characteristics? What are the attributes of intergroup
behavior compared to interindividual behavior?
A) Psychosocial Definition of Group Membership
Sherif's definition of intergroup behavior focuses on the interaction of individuals as members of a group, which is consider ed
intergroup behavior. The key questions are: What is a group? What is group identification? How is intergroup behavior differe nt
from social behavior? We will use the Humpty Dumpty principle to define these concepts, while maintaining consistency with ou r
argumentation. We adopt the concept of "group" similar to Emerson's definition of "nation": a group is a group of people who feel
part of it.
Group identification includes three components: cognitive (knowing that one belongs to a group), evaluative (positive or nega tive
connotation of belonging to a group), and emotional (emotions towards one's own group or towards other groups). Interactions
based on "group identifications" are more likely the stronger the evaluative and emotional components.
This definition does not distinguish between belonging and reference groups, or between small groups and large social categor ies.
Deliberate imprecision is useful for a social psychologist interested in conflict between groups, as it allows for the encomp assment
of both large socio-economic or socio-political conflicts and small groups. The cognitive, evaluative, and emotional aspects of group
membership are applicable to both types of groupings. Although definitions do not explain the social and psychosoci al conditions
that influence group membership and evaluations, nor their effects on social behavior, they provide a useful starting point f or
asking appropriate questions about these conditions and their effects.
When we talk about the effects of belonging to a group on social behavior, it may seem tautological to ask how this belonging is
verified if not by its behavioral effects. However, the methodological problem is not insoluble. In natural situations, we can use
objective criteria to identify belonging to a group and verify its psychological reality by asking the members of the group. For
example, before the hijacking of the train by the South Molukans in Holland, their sense of belonging could have been identifi ed
with questions or methodological tools.
Knowing the cognitive, evaluative, and emotional components of belonging does not allow predictions to be made without a
theoretical structure. The intense affiliation to the ingroup among the Surmoluqueños did not require face-to-face interaction
among all its members, showing a correspondence between objective criteria of belonging and the definition of group adopted.
Cases without correspondence are also important to avoid tautologies. For example, a person who moves from a country where
color distinctions are important to one where they are not, would change their social categorization criteria over time.
It is crucial to distinguish between erroneous external criteria, used by observers without sufficient cultural knowledge, an d criteria
used consistently by other groups in a multigroup organization. The sociocognitive component of group membership is based on
social agreement on "who's who." This arrangement may be shared by the categorized group and surrounding groups and may
sometimes originate from other groups and determine internal criteria of membership within the group. For example, the identity
of the Jewish group has endured thanks to the agreement of both the outgroups and the ingroup about its existence.
To avoid tautology in our psychosocial definition of groups, we must consider both external and internal criteria of belongin g in
experimental studies of intergroup behavior. External are the criteria that the experimenter supposes or imposes, while inter nal
criteria are those that the subjects use and that guide their behavior.
There are four types of experimental situations. In the first, natural groups are used, and manipulations are introduced, without
significant differences with respect to naturalistic situations. In the second type, represented by Sherif, strong group divi sions are
imposed to study the effects of intergroup conflicts. Here, the problems of correspondence between internal and external criteria
are similar to those of naturalism. Sherif used pre- and post-conflict measures to show that subjects considered themselves
members of distinct groups.
The third type is a variant of the second, with a less intense imposition of intergroup division. Examples include experiments by
Rabbie, Wilkens, and Tajfel, where divisions are less obvious, but still reflect group membership.
2
Made by MatyBuda
Henry Tajfel (1984)
Summary:
INTRODUCTION
We live in a world where the processes of unification and diversification are developing rapidly. Large human groups communic ate
and interdepend more than ever, while seeking to preserve and achieve their own diversity and identity.
The fourth part of the book focuses on the tendency towards differentiation between social groups, observable in national, ethnic,
and linguistic movements, as well as in industrial relations. The differentiation and associated conflicts cannot be understo od only
in economic terms; Other analyses are needed to complement them.
The aim is to provide a broad view of intergroup relations, seeing them as a joint function of psychosocial processes and obj ective
structures. Although social psychology only offers part of the analysis, it is vital to combine psychological, sociological, economic,
and historical perspectives to better understand these complex relationships.
In this sense, we can take as an example the statement of the social anthropologist Robert LeVine at a conference on ethnic and
national loyalties: "Describe to me the intergroup economic situation, and I will make a prediction of the content of intergroup
stereotypes." LeVine noted that economic factors have a significant effect on the formation of stereotypes between groups.
Stereotypes are not a primary cause in the development of intergroup relations, but the intertwining of social, economic, and
psychological factors is evident.
The social and economic conditions that lead to rivalry between groups are often associated with the spread of derogatory noti ons
about the outgroup. Although these notions do not originate directly in the struggle for resources, they become an inherent p art
of the intergroup social situation and can influence relations between groups. Thus, social stereotypes, although they do not create
these situations, become important causal factors that must be considered in the analysis of intergroup relations.
Although the fourth part of this book focuses on the social psychology of groups in conflict, it does not attempt to reduce the
analysis to only psychological aspects. We will describe psychological processes in the context of different intergroup relationships
and their effects on those relationships.
Jerome Bruner pointed out that myths offer possible identities for people, which influences how groups differentiate and rela te to
each other. The "script library" of social identities is created and changed with social realities, including visions of the "others."
These scripts are selected and adjusted according to the needs and values of the group, facilitating differentiation from oth er
groups.
The fourth part of the book, influenced by Bruner's ideas, examines how these differentiations are the product of cognitive a nd
social processes. Stereotypes and categorizations are not fixed data, but are socially constructed through myths, images, and
shared values. This construction involves three phases: cultural creation of myths, divergences, and convergences of perspectives
between subgroups, and individual choices between these perspectives.
The ideas presented have been developed by a team of colleagues and have proven useful in field studies and the interpretatio n
of social phenomena in various contexts. Recent examples include research on ethnic identity, the effects of the media on attitudes
towards minorities, and inter-ethnic conflicts in different countries. This research underlines the importance of achieving a
"genuinely social dimension" in social psychology, contributing to its development in Europe.
THE ATTRIBUTES OF INTERGROUP BEHAVIOR
1. WHEN DOES INTERINDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOR BECOME INTERGROUP BEHAVIOR?
The question of intergroup relations is of great interest beyond the academic field. During debates in Britain over the Race Relations
Act, a Conservative MP expressed resentment at the idea of the legislation controlling daily dealings between individuals . This
statement reflects an extreme "individualistic" approach to intergroup relations.
1
Made by MatyBuda
, While it is true that individuals interact with each other, they often do so as members of distinct social categories. In situations of
racial discrimination, difficulties in obtaining accommodation or employment are not due to personal characteristics, bu t to
membership in a social group, such as being black.
This raises important questions for social psychology: Under what conditions are interactions between individuals determined by
their membership in different social groups rather than by their personal characteristics? What are the attributes of intergroup
behavior compared to interindividual behavior?
A) Psychosocial Definition of Group Membership
Sherif's definition of intergroup behavior focuses on the interaction of individuals as members of a group, which is consider ed
intergroup behavior. The key questions are: What is a group? What is group identification? How is intergroup behavior differe nt
from social behavior? We will use the Humpty Dumpty principle to define these concepts, while maintaining consistency with ou r
argumentation. We adopt the concept of "group" similar to Emerson's definition of "nation": a group is a group of people who feel
part of it.
Group identification includes three components: cognitive (knowing that one belongs to a group), evaluative (positive or nega tive
connotation of belonging to a group), and emotional (emotions towards one's own group or towards other groups). Interactions
based on "group identifications" are more likely the stronger the evaluative and emotional components.
This definition does not distinguish between belonging and reference groups, or between small groups and large social categor ies.
Deliberate imprecision is useful for a social psychologist interested in conflict between groups, as it allows for the encomp assment
of both large socio-economic or socio-political conflicts and small groups. The cognitive, evaluative, and emotional aspects of group
membership are applicable to both types of groupings. Although definitions do not explain the social and psychosoci al conditions
that influence group membership and evaluations, nor their effects on social behavior, they provide a useful starting point f or
asking appropriate questions about these conditions and their effects.
When we talk about the effects of belonging to a group on social behavior, it may seem tautological to ask how this belonging is
verified if not by its behavioral effects. However, the methodological problem is not insoluble. In natural situations, we can use
objective criteria to identify belonging to a group and verify its psychological reality by asking the members of the group. For
example, before the hijacking of the train by the South Molukans in Holland, their sense of belonging could have been identifi ed
with questions or methodological tools.
Knowing the cognitive, evaluative, and emotional components of belonging does not allow predictions to be made without a
theoretical structure. The intense affiliation to the ingroup among the Surmoluqueños did not require face-to-face interaction
among all its members, showing a correspondence between objective criteria of belonging and the definition of group adopted.
Cases without correspondence are also important to avoid tautologies. For example, a person who moves from a country where
color distinctions are important to one where they are not, would change their social categorization criteria over time.
It is crucial to distinguish between erroneous external criteria, used by observers without sufficient cultural knowledge, an d criteria
used consistently by other groups in a multigroup organization. The sociocognitive component of group membership is based on
social agreement on "who's who." This arrangement may be shared by the categorized group and surrounding groups and may
sometimes originate from other groups and determine internal criteria of membership within the group. For example, the identity
of the Jewish group has endured thanks to the agreement of both the outgroups and the ingroup about its existence.
To avoid tautology in our psychosocial definition of groups, we must consider both external and internal criteria of belongin g in
experimental studies of intergroup behavior. External are the criteria that the experimenter supposes or imposes, while inter nal
criteria are those that the subjects use and that guide their behavior.
There are four types of experimental situations. In the first, natural groups are used, and manipulations are introduced, without
significant differences with respect to naturalistic situations. In the second type, represented by Sherif, strong group divi sions are
imposed to study the effects of intergroup conflicts. Here, the problems of correspondence between internal and external criteria
are similar to those of naturalism. Sherif used pre- and post-conflict measures to show that subjects considered themselves
members of distinct groups.
The third type is a variant of the second, with a less intense imposition of intergroup division. Examples include experiments by
Rabbie, Wilkens, and Tajfel, where divisions are less obvious, but still reflect group membership.
2
Made by MatyBuda
