Intergroup Hostility Research Articles

Intergroup hostility, perceived democratic legitimacy, and satisfaction with democracy in multi-ethnic societies

ABSTRACT Ongoing conflicts in the world serve as a reminder of the tensions between democratic institutions and unresolved ethnic grievances. While much is known about institutional factors tying ethnopolitics with democratic performance, much less attention has been given to the role of interpersonal interaction in determining the strength of democratic legitimacy. This article contributes to the existing literature by establishing the link between intergroup hostility and satisfaction with democracy (SWD). We argue that interethnic hostility aimed at undermining one’s dignity triggers a psychological response that, in the end, erodes support for a democratic regime expected to ensure equal treatment of all groups. We test our theory in the Western Balkans, using data from the Montenegrin National Election Study (2023). Our findings show that (1) there is a significant negative effect of intergroup hostility on SWD; (2) the effect of intergroup hostility is amplified by the frequency of contact between the victim and members of the alleged perpetrator’s ethnic group; (3) intergroup hostility lowers the victim’s level of SWD both directly and indirectly, through diminishing assessment of the system’s input and output legitimacy.

Bearing the burden of peace: Intergroup attribution bias and public support for peace provisions

AbstractWhat drives public support for peace provisions? Based on intergroup attribution theory, we argue that public support for peace provisions depends on “who bears the burden of peace,” with people wanting to protect their ingroup while holding the outgroup accountable. To examine this claim, we conducted a series of question‐wording experiments with more than 1650 Azerbaijani participants shortly after a deadly resurgence of the Nagorno‐Karabakh war. Our initial findings confirm that support for war crime punishments and monetary reparations decreases when the ingroup stands trial or must pay. Conversely, support increases when these same burdens fall on the outgroup. A follow‐up study shows that these patterns persist for at least 6 months but also reveals a more nuanced perspective. Public support for peace provisions does not automatically decrease when the ingroup bears the cost or increase when the outgroup bears it; rather, it depends on the group‐based implications of the provision under consideration. Taken together, our results underscore the importance of crafting and communicating peace provisions in a tailored manner and the potential of emphasizing burden sharing as an effective strategy for addressing intergroup hostilities and fostering sustainable peace.

The vaccination divide: Exploring moral reasoning associated with intergroup antipathy between vaccinated and unvaccinated people.

There is growing evidence of intergroup hostility between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, a process of polarization that threatens to derail population health efforts. This study explores the moral underpinnings of intergroup antipathy between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. A cross-sectional design was employed to investigate the associations between the view of vaccination as a social contract or individual choice, perceived vulnerability to disease, perceptions of outgroup morality, feelings of warmth, and experiences of schadenfreude. Data were extracted from an online, quantitative survey of 233 vaccinated and 237 unvaccinated participants collected between June and July 2022. Results revealed that vaccinated people had stronger negative attitudes towards unvaccinated people than vice versa. In line with hypotheses, the extent to which vaccinated people saw vaccination as a social contract was significantly associated with perceiving unvaccinated people as immoral. For unvaccinated people, seeing vaccination as an individual choice (the opposite of a social contract) was significantly associated with perceiving vaccinated people as immoral. Among both groups, viewing the other as immoral was associated with feeling significantly less warmth towards the opposing vaccination group, and more schadenfreude in the face of an outgroup member's suffering. Participants' perceived vulnerability to disease played a relatively small role in explaining polarization between vaccinated and unvaccinated people. This research builds on previous studies by identifying moral mechanisms associated with intergroup antipathy in the vaccine debate.

“The Ties that Bind are those that Punish: Network Polarization and Federal Crime Policy Gridlock, 1979–2005”

Abstract Largely overlooked in research on criminal legal expansion is the rise of political polarization and its attendant consequences for crime policy. Drawing on theories of intergroup collaboration and policymaking research, I argue that network polarization—low frequencies of collaborative relations between lawmakers belonging to distinct political groups—negatively affects crime legislation passage by reducing information flows, increasing intergroup hostility, and creating opportunities for political attacks. To evaluate this perspective, I recreate dynamic legislative networks between 1979 and 2005 using data on 1,897,019 cosponsorship relationships between 1537 federal lawmakers and the outcomes of 5950 federal crime bills. Results illustrate that increases in partisan network segregation and the number of densely clustered subgroups both have negative effects on bill passage. These relationships are not moderated by majority party status and peak during the 1990s and early 2000s, a period when prison growth showed its first signs of slowing. These findings provide new insight to the relationship between polarization and policy and suggest that increases in network polarization may be partly responsible for declines in crime policy adoption observed in recent decades.

Information, identity, and action: The messages of the Dutch anti-vaccination community on Telegram

The anti-vaccination movement has successfully spread its views on social media. This study examined how community building emerges in the messages of Dutch anti-vaccination Telegram groups. Particularly, we investigated the extent to which these groups provide a platform for sharing information, perpetuating a shared identity, and promoting action. As negative emotions are considered a prime driver of collective action, we examined to what extent the messages had a negative valence. We used a mixed-method approach through a quantitative content analysis of 4654 text messages from five Telegram groups, while also examining the nature of the content through a qualitative analysis. The results suggest that most messages contained a form of shared identity (ingroup favoritism and outgroup hostility) or (mis)information, and, to a lesser extent, encouragements for (online) action. Moreover, most content had a negative valence. These findings illustrate how online groups might be sources of (mis)information, polarization, and intergroup hostility.

High-modernist intervention and the prolonged frontier conflict in Metekel, North-West Ethiopia: the case of the grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam

ABSTRACTThis study explores the interface of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), a high-modernist hydraulic scheme, with the protracted frontier conflict in Metekel Zone of Benishangul Gumuz Regional State. Without downplaying the national technocratic ambitions that it invokes, based on fieldwork conducted in 2022, the study witnessed as the dam’s presence in Metekel has escalated the perennial state-local skirmishes, rekindled inter-group hostilities, and ultimately trans-nationalized the frontier mayhem in the area. Such impacts of the dam were rooted in the state’s long-held frontier imagination and coercive relocation program through which hegemonic high-modernist narratives contested locals’ lived experiences. Differential local impacts of the dam, its role in mounting competing territorialities, and the concomitance of the trans-national feud with local discords were also equally influencing. However, the interface between the GERD and frontier struggles in Metekel was broadly shaped by the frontier’s history and national governance policies. In revealing so, the study provides insights that complement debates about frontier dynamics and struggles in Ethiopia and Africa, which tend to concentrate on tensions related to land transfer for private investors. Indeed, frontier struggles seem too complex: one must interrogate multiple actors, the complex history, and a broader range of issues with local, national, and regional dimensions.

Ingroup Empathy, Help, and Blame After Anti-LGBT+ Hate Crime.

Crimes motivated by hatred toward a person's sexual orientation or gender identity typically cause greater physical and emotional harm than comparative crimes not motivated by hate. Compounding these impacts, hate crime victims receive less empathy, less support, and are blamed more for their victimization both by society in general and by criminal justice agencies. However, as hate crimes are the epitome of intergroup hostility, the crimes are also likely to engender an ingroup empathy bias in which fellow LGBT+ people provide greater empathy to hate crime victims, potentially motivating greater support and reducing victim blaming for these particularly marginalized victims. Across three studies, we examined LGBT+ participants' empathic reactions to hate crime victims, along with their willingness to help victims and blame victims. In the Pilot Study (N = 131) and Study 1 (N = 600), we cross-sectionally showed that indirect experiences of hate crimes predicted a stronger LGBT+ identity which, in turn, was associated with greater empathy that predicted greater willingness to help victims and blame the victim less. In Study 2 (N = 657), we experimentally manipulated the motivation of a crime (hate vs. non-hate) and the group membership of the victim (ingroup-LGBT+ vs. outgroup-heterosexual) and found that crimes that had one or more group elements (i.e., involved an ingroup member and/or was motivated by hate) elicited greater empathy that, in turn, increased the willingness to help the victim and reduced victim blaming. Together, the findings provide cogent evidence that LGBT+ communities respond to anti-LGBT+ hate crimes with overwhelming empathy, and this ingroup empathy bias motivates helping behaviors and reduces victim blame, thereby buffering the marginalizing consequences of hate crimes. Policy implications include acknowledging and harnessing the importance of shared identities when practitioners and criminal justice agencies respond to anti-LGBT+ hate crimes.

Emphasizing Similarities Between Politically Opposed Groups and Their Influence in Perceptions of the Political Opposition: Evidence From Five Experiments.

Across five experiments (four pre-registered, N = 4,431), we investigate whether emphasizing similarities between Republicans and Democrats can improve intergroup relations between the two groups. Members of both groups who were presented with evidence emphasizing similarities rather than differences in the psychological attitudes of both parties reported greater inclusion of the political opposition in the self, greater belief that common ground can be reached for major social issues, and warmer feelings toward the opposition. Inclusion of the political outgroup in the self mediated the effect of the similarities condition on additional outcomes, relating to more positive and less threatening perceptions of political opposition members. These findings held even when compared with a baseline condition with no information presented to participants. We conclude that by emphasizing the study of group similarities and by disseminating research in a way that highlights similarities, researchers could reduce intergroup hostilities in the political domain.

Overperception of moral outrage in online social networks inflates beliefs about intergroup hostility.

As individuals and political leaders increasingly interact in online social networks, it is important to understand the dynamics of emotion perception online. Here, we propose that social media users overperceive levels of moral outrage felt by individuals and groups, inflating beliefs about intergroup hostility. Using a Twitter field survey, we measured authors' moral outrage in real time and compared authors' reports to observers' judgements of the authors' moral outrage. We find that observers systematically overperceive moral outrage in authors, inferring more intense moral outrage experiences from messages than the authors of those messages actually reported. This effect was stronger in participants who spent more time on social media to learn about politics. Preregistered confirmatory behavioural experiments found that overperception of individuals' moral outrage causes overperception of collective moral outrage and inflates beliefs about hostile communication norms, group affective polarization and ideological extremity. Together, these results highlight how individual-level overperceptions of online moral outrage produce collective overperceptions that have the potential to warp our social knowledge of moral and political attitudes.

Conflict, violence, and warfare among early farmers in Northwestern Europe

Bioarchaeological evidence of interpersonal violence and early warfare presents important insights into conflict in past societies. This evidence is critical for understanding the motivations for violence and its effects on opposing and competing individuals and groups across time and space. Selecting the Neolithic of northwestern Europe as an area for study, the present paper examines the variation and societal context for the violence recorded in the human skeletal remains from this region as one of the most important elements of human welfare. Compiling data from various sources, it becomes apparent that violence was endemic in Neolithic Europe, sometimes reaching levels of intergroup hostilities that ended in the utter destruction of entire communities. While the precise comparative quantification of healed and unhealed trauma remains a fundamental problem, patterns emerge that see conflict likely fostered by increasing competition between settled and growing communities, e.g., for access to arable land for food production. The further development of contextual information is paramount in order to address hypotheses on the motivations, origins, and evolution of violence as based on the study of human remains, the most direct indicator for actual small- and large-scale violence.

Normative dehumanization and the ordinary concept of a true human

Recently, I presented evidence that there are two broad kinds of dehumanization: descriptive dehumanization and normative dehumanization. An individual is descriptively dehumanized when they are perceived as less than fully human in the biological-species sense; whereas an individual is normatively dehumanized when they are perceived as lacking a deep-seated commitment to good moral values. Here, I develop the concept of normative dehumanization by addressing skepticism about two hypotheses that are widely held by dehumanization researchers. The first hypothesis is that dehumanization is distinct from mere dislike and other non-dehumanizing attitudes. The second hypothesis is that dehumanization is an important predictor of intergroup hostility. Across four studies, I found evidence that normative dehumanization is distinct from mere dislike, and denials of ideal humanness. I also found that it is a unique predictor of intergroup hostility. These findings suggest that research into dehumanization and intergroup hostility will benefit from recognizing the distinction between descriptive and normative dehumanization.

“They Keep an Eye on You”: Minority Pressure and its Implications for Dual Identity Among Six Immigrant Groups in the Netherlands

The present study analyses perceived pressure to conform to minority group norms and examines its implications for identity (in-)compatibility among six immigrant groups in the Netherlands ( N = 5,783). We analyzed whether orientation toward the majority and minority and the perceived diversity climate explained individual and group differences in perceived minority pressure. Subsequently, we estimated multigroup models to examine whether perceived pressure moderated the association between minority and majority identifications. We found substantial group differences in perceived pressure that were not well explained by orientation toward the majority and minority groups, or the perceived diversity climate. Immigrants who had spent a larger proportion of their life in the receiving society experienced more, but those who had more work experience in the Netherlands experienced less pressure. Perceived pressure was higher the more the Netherlands was perceived as hospitable for immigrants, but also at higher levels of perceived intergroup hostility. Minority and majority group identifications were negatively associated across all six immigrant groups, but only among the Moroccan-Dutch did perceived pressure significantly moderate this association. Specifically, identifications became more compatible (i.e., more positively associated) at lower levels of pressure, a trend that we also observed among all other groups except the Turkish-Dutch; yet in these groups the interaction, though similar in magnitude and direction, was not statistically significant. We concluded that minority group dynamics may contribute to the (in-)compatibility of multiple group identifications, but more research is needed to understand the group characteristics that explain perceived minority pressure and its implications for minority members’ identification patterns.

Bigotry and the human-animal divide: (Dis)belief in human evolution and bigoted attitudes across different cultures.

The current investigation tested if people's basic belief in the notion that human beings have developed from other animals (i.e., belief in evolution) can predict human-to-human prejudice and intergroup hostility. Using data from the American General Social Survey and Pew Research Center (Studies 1-4), and from three online samples (Studies 5, 7, 8) we tested this hypothesis across 45 countries, in diverse populations and religious settings, across time, in nationally representative data (N = 60,703), and with more comprehensive measures in online crowdsourced data (N = 2,846). Supporting the hypothesis, low belief in human evolution was associated with higher levels of prejudice, racist attitudes, and support for discriminatory behaviors against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ), Blacks, and immigrants in the United States (Study 1), with higher ingroup biases, prejudicial attitudes toward outgroups, and less support for conflict resolution in samples collected from 19 Eastern European countries (Study 2), 25 Muslim countries (Study 3), and Israel (Study 4). Further, among Americans, lower belief in evolution was associated with greater prejudice and militaristic attitudes toward political outgroups (Study 5). Finally, perceived similarity to animals (a construct distinct from belief in evolution, Study 6) partially mediated the link between belief in evolution and prejudice (Studies 7 and 8), even when controlling for religious beliefs, political views, and other demographic variables, and were also observed for nondominant groups (i.e., religious and racial minorities). Overall, these findings highlight the importance of belief in human evolution as a potentially key individual-difference variable predicting racism and prejudice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

When Groups of Different Sizes Collide: Effects of Targeted Verbal Aggression on Intragroup Functioning

When competing for scarce resources, groups can behave aggressively toward one another. Realistic conflict theory suggests that intergroup hostility internally ties groups together, thus improving intragroup functioning. In contrast, conflict spillover theory suggests that aggressive behaviors between groups can permeate to the intragroup level and thus worsen intragroup functioning. We reconcile these two opposite perspectives by introducing the relative group size as a moderator that determines when and how targeted verbal aggression from one group harms or improves intragroup functioning in the targeted group. We tested our hypotheses using a sample of in-situ observations of transcribed plenary discussions in the German national parliament and compared intergroup targeted verbal aggression by distinguishing targeted verbal aggression from two social groups (i.e., a new populist smaller party vs. a larger group of veteran parliament members). We measured targeted verbal aggression as a form of hostile intergroup behavior from each social group using computerized text analyses. We analyzed intragroup functioning using a measure of verbal mimicry. Our results show support for our hypotheses. We discuss theoretical and practical implications for the verbal aggression and intergroup relations literature.

I hate you when I am anxious: Anxiety during the COVID-19 epidemic and ideological hostility.

Most previous studies that examined the effect of anxiety on hostility towards a distinct group have focused on cases in which we hate those we are afraid of. The current study, on the other hand, examines the relationship between anxiety in one domain and hostility towards a distinct group that is not the source of that anxiety. We focus here on symptoms of anxiety during the COVID‐19 pandemic, which have become increasingly frequent, and show that the implications of such mental difficulties are far‐reaching, posing a threat to relationships between ideological groups. In two studies conducted in both Israel and the United States, we found that high levels of anxiety during the COVID‐19 epidemic are associated with higher levels of hatred towards ordinary people from the respective political outgroups, lower levels of willingness to sustain interpersonal relations with these people (i.e., greater social distancing), and greater willingness to socially exclude them. This relationship was mediated by the perception of threat posed by the political outgroup. This study is the first to show that mental difficulty driven by an external threat can be a fundamental factor that explains levels of intergroup hostility.

Does loving a group mean hating its rivals? Exploring the relationship between ingroup cohesion and outgroup hostility among soccer fans

ABSTRACT Why does group loyalty sometimes take the form of cooperation or peaceful competition with rival groups and, at other times, violent outgroup hostility? We approached this question using online surveys and an experimental manipulation with British soccer fans. Identity fusion (a visceral sense of “oneness” with the group) is known to motivate strong forms of pro-group action, both peaceful and violent. We identified three crucial factors that influence fused supporters’ intergroup behaviours: age, gender, and exposure to out-group threat. Intergroup behaviours included ingroup altruism (e.g., giving one’s time, or emotional/financial support), barrier-crossing altruism (altruistic acts toward rival fan groups), and outgroup hostility (e.g., insulting, spitting at, or physically attacking). Overall, fused fans were more hostile towards outgroups than were weakly fused fans, but they prioritised ingroup altruism over outgroup hostility, and were most likely to report high levels of barrier-crossing altruism. Older fused fans desired future outgroup hostility only under high threat conditions. A clearer understanding of the factors that modulate these different behaviours is a crucial first step in devising more effective ways of reducing intergroup hostility and, crucially, of channelling extreme forms of group alignment into peaceful forms of prosocial action.

Art for Reconstruction: A creative and art‐based intervention for peacebuilding and reconciliation to reduce intergroup hostility and stigma after a protracted armed conflict

AbstractThis work explores the results of a creative and art‐based intervention to foster reconciliation in Colombia. The paper presents a novel methodology defined as ‘Art for Reconstruction’, piloted with victims of violence, veterans from armed forces and former members of illegal groups between 2018 and 2019 in Medellín, Colombia. The initiative encouraged trauma healing, reduced intergroup hostility, fostered cooperation and willingness to reconcile among previous enemies. Results show that creative and art‐based approaches, like Kintsugi, are promising to transform citizens' interactions at the micro level. This project presents how art and social engagement facilitate transitions from war to peace and reconciliation.

Dehumanization: trends, insights, and challenges.

Despite our many differences, one superordinate category we all belong to is 'humans'. To strip away or overlook others' humanity, then, is to mark them as 'other' and, typically, 'less than'. We review growing evidence revealing how and why we subtly disregard the humanity of those around us. We then highlight new research suggesting that we continue to blatantly dehumanize certain groups, overtly likening them to animals, with important implications for intergroup hostility. We discuss advances in understanding the experience of being dehumanized and novel interventions to mitigate dehumanization, address the conceptual boundaries of dehumanization, and consider recent accounts challenging the importance of dehumanization and its role in intergroup violence. Finally, we present an agenda of outstanding questions to propel dehumanization research forward.

Cultural Inertia: Framework of Change and Intergroup Relations.

Cultural change is theorized to generate intergroup hostility. Three experiments apply the Cultural Inertia Model to test the effects of change on intergroup relations. Two predictions of cultural inertia were tested: (a) cultures at rest tend to stay at rest and (b) individual difference variables function as psychological anchors. In static societies, perceived change leads to greater threat (Experiment 1), endorsement of anti-immigration legislation (Experiment 1), and collective angst (Experiments 1 and 2). Perceptions of change in static societies lead to more fear-related emotional reactions (Experiment 3). Framing cultural change as continuous rather than abrupt may be a solution for reducing negative reactions caused by cultural change (Experiments 2 and 3). Individual difference factors function as anchors that cement individuals in a state of uniformity (Experiment 2). The findings demonstrate that social interactions rely on perceptions toward change and individual difference factors that anchor one's willingness to accept change.

Consequences of Economic Inequality for the Social and Political Vitality of Society: A Social Identity Analysis

Economic inequality has been found to have pernicious effects, reducing mental and physical health, decreasing societal cohesion, and fueling support for nativist parties and illiberal autocratic leaders. We start this review with an outline of what social identity theorizing offers to the study of inequality. We then articulate four hypotheses that can be derived from the social identity approach: the fit hypothesis, the wealth‐categorization hypothesis, the wealth‐stereotype hypothesis, and the sociostructural hypothesis. We review the empirical literature that tests these hypotheses by exploring the effect of economic inequality, measured objectively by metrics such as the Gini coefficient as well as subjectively in terms of perceptions of economic inequality, on wealth categorization (of others and the self), the desire for more wealth and status, intergroup hostility, attitudes towards immigrants, prosocial behavior, stereotyping, the wish for a strong leader, the endorsement of conspiracy theories, and collective action intentions. As we will show, this research suggests that economic inequality may have even more far‐reaching consequences than commonly believed. Indeed, investigating the effects of economic inequality on citizens' sociopolitical behaviors may be increasingly important in today's turbulent political and social landscape.