By: nashedra Barry
Imagine that you show up for school one day and your teacher comes in to inform you that children with blue eyes are better than children with brown eyes. As a result, your classmates with blue eyes are separated into another group for “smarter” students, are allowed five extra minutes of recess, and can have seconds at lunch! You, as a brown eyed child, cannot play with your friends with blue eyes and cannot use the playground equipment at recess. Sounds ridiculous right? Well this is exactly how Jane Elliot’s students felt one Friday morning in 1968. Ms. Elliot, a 3rd grade teacher at the time, developed this little social experiment after her students had questions about the assassination of civil rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Her point was to demonstrate to the class how it might feel to be discriminated against based on a bias towards an arbitrary physical trait.
Bias is a lack of objectivity or an inclination to favor one thing or person over another (VandenBos, 2007). For example, if a teacher gives Asian students more opportunities to participate in class because “Asian students are smarter”, that teacher would be described as having an academic bias towards Asian students. Bias can also be positive in nature. For example, favoring fruits and vegetables over pizza and burgers can have positive health effects. Usually, unfair or negative biases are associated with a negative stereotype about a particular group (i.e. gender, race, religion, sexuality). Discrimination and bias are the product of conflict between different groups of people, or intergroup conflict.
Intergroup Conflict
Intergroup conflict is the source of many of the world’s most pressing concerns. It results in numerous types of conflict including bullying, prejudice/discrimination, and war. Intergroup threat plays a significant role in causing intergroup conflict. Intergroup threat occurs when one group’s actions, beliefs, or characteristics challenge the goal attainment or well-being of another group (Riek, Mania, & Gaertner, 2006).
Realistic Group Conflict Theory (RGCT) argues that when two groups are in competition for scarce resources, the potential success of one group threatens the well-being of the other, resulting in negative outgroup attitudes (Riek, Mania, & Gaertner, 2006). Researchers tested this theory in the infamous Robbers Cave experiment. A group of young boys in a summer camp program were divided into two groups. The two groups bonded separately and were then pit against each other in a series of competitions. The groups became increasingly hostile towards each other which led to pranks, theft, and eventually physical violence between the two groups (Sherif et al., 1961). The experiment demonstrated that incompatible goals and perceived competition between groups are related to negative outgroup attitudes (Riek, Mania, & Gaertner, 2006).
RGCT may explain conflict when groups are in competition for resources, but what causes conflict when groups are not in direct competition? Symbolic threat is also a source of intergroup conflict. Symbolic racism is the belief that racial bias is no longer the result of the idea that Blacks are biologically inferior to Whites, but instead is due to beliefs that Blacks hold values and beliefs that conflict with values and beliefs held by Whites (Sears & Henry, 2003). The relationship between symbolic threat and intergroup conflict has also been demonstrated in other groups including body-type and sexual orientation groups (Riek, Mania, & Gaertner, 2006). While intergroup conflict may seem like the norm, steps can be taken to inhibit some of the conflict. The question is, what may be the most promising intervention to reduce intergroup conflict?
Since intergroup threat is caused by differences in ideas and opinions, it is likely that changing the attitudes of one or both groups would successfully reduce conflict. Several strategies for changing attitudes have been explored and critically evaluated throughout the literature. Some examples include paradoxical thinking, moral framing, and presenting a message as a “normative belief”. Paradoxical thinking works by presenting an exaggerated or absurd argument that is congruent with a held belief. (Hameiri, Porat, Bar-Tal, & Halperin, 2016). For example, if a heavy smoker argues that “studies about cigarettes and cancer don’t prove anything”, a therapist using amplified rejection might simple respond that “indeed, lung cancer has nothing to do with smoking—it just happens” (Hemeiri et. al., 2016). Framing an argument as a moral issue can be beneficial to changing attitudes, especially when trying to change the attitudes of someone with more conservative viewpoints (Wolsko, Ariceaga, & Seiden, 2016). Because individuals typically use observations about how others think, act, and feel to determine what is “normal” or acceptable in a particular social context, presenting a message as a “normative belief” is an effective way to change an attitude (Schultz, Tabanico, & Rendón, 2008). For example, to change the mind of someone who identifies as a white supremacist, one might choose to emphasize that bias and discrimination are no longer politically correct and are not acceptable in mainstream society.
Conclusion
In general, the best method for improving intergroup relations would be to change the attitudes of the groups involved. There are several methods for attitude change. For example, when working with an extremely conservative group, one might choose to frame an argument as a moral issue. In other cases, paradoxical thinking has shown promise (Hameiri et al., 2014). When considering what method would work best to improve intergroup relations, it is important to consider this question in the context of what groups are in conflict. Once groups are identified, an individual could simply use the characteristics of those groups to determine the most appropriate way to change the groups attitudes about one another and thereby reduce conflict between the groups.
Keywords:
- Intergroup conflict
- Realistic group conflict theory (RGCT)
- Symbolic threat
- Hameiri, B., Porat, R., Bar-Tal, D., Bieler, A., & Halperin, E. (2014). Paradoxical thinking as a new avenue of intervention to promote peace. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(30), 10996-11001.
- Hameiri, B., Porat, R., Bar-Tal, D., & Halperin, E. (2016). Moderating attitudes in times of violence through paradoxical thinking intervention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(43), 12105-12110.
- Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and social psychology review, 10(4), 336-353.
- Schultz, P. W., Tabanico, J., & Rendón, T. (2008). Normative beliefs as agents of influence: Basic processes and real-world applications. Attitudes and attitude change, 385-409.
- Sears, D. O., & Henry, P. J. (2003). The origins of symbolic racism. Journal of personality and social psychology, 85(2), 259.
- University of Oklahoma. Institute of Group Relations, & Sherif, M. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment (Vol. 10, pp. 150-198). Norman, OK: University Book Exchange.
- VandenBos, G. R. (Ed.). (2007). APA Dictionary of Psychology. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
- Wolsko, C., Ariceaga, H., & Seiden, J. (2016). Red, white, and blue enough to be green: Effects of moral framing on climate change attitudes and conservation behaviors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 65, 7-19.