Intergroup Hostility Research Articles

The identity of ‘the other’ for sexual violence victims: is there anything new in sexual violence prosecutions before the International Criminal Court?

Despite the spectacular development in the field of international criminal law, critical feminism stresses the narrow scope of the sex and gender crimes in the Rome Statute establishing the first permanent International Criminal Court. The current international criminal law discourse, as expressed by recent case law, is geared towards the protection of certain groups targeted on account of their distinctiveness within the framework of a conflict situation, and gender is not recognized as one of these group identities. The question whether international criminal law on sexual violence applies only to inter-group conflicts brings to the fore an uneasy likelihood of exclusion of some recently emergent situations where identities of the conflicting parties transcend a particular ethnicity or nationality, and where victims of sexual violence belong to the same group as their perpetrators. The article argues that, rather than the Rome Statute or newly introduced rules and regulations, a significant obstacle in developing gender justice is the narrow interpretation of sexual violence to inter-group hostilities.

The effects of incidental anger, contempt, and disgust on hostile language and implicit behaviors

AbstractRecent studies have suggested that the combination of the emotions anger‐contempt‐disgust (ANCODI) is associated with intergroup hostility. This study examined if incidental elicitation of this emotion combination causally produces hostile cognitions, language, and behaviors. Members of political groups were primed with either ANCODI, fear + sadness, or no emotion, and then engaged in creativity task in relation to their opponent or a non‐opponent outgroup. The ANCODI mix produced more hostile cognitions, language, and implicit behaviors associated with hostility, in some cases specifically toward their opponent outgroups, than individuals primed with other emotions. Multiple mediation analyses indicated that the three emotions and their interactions mediated many of the effects.

Social (dis)order and psychosocial trauma: Look earlier, look outside, and look beyond the persons.

The most common and extreme suffering humankind has ever experienced comes from interpersonal and collective intentional violence. In dealing with traumatic outcomes psychology must overcome the mutually constitutive interaction between the (dis)order of a given macro or microsocial context and the mental health of the persons living in it. Social psychologist Ignacio Martín-Baró addressed in a preferential way the study of civil war in El Salvador in terms of intergroup hostility and polarization. He also approached the aftereffects of war by means of a theoretical core assumption: that traumatic experience rooted in collective violence (a human-made stressor) should be understood bearing in mind its social roots (pretraumatic situation), its personal and collective harm (collective injury), and the destruction of the social fabric. These are the arguments for his conceptualization of psychosocial trauma. Twenty-six years after the violent murder of Martín-Baró, along with 5 Jesuit priests, a housekeeper, and his teenage daughter, the current authors have adopted his general framework. Based on new theoretical insights and supporting data, the authors propose an expanded 4-dimension theoretical argument on psychosocial trauma: (a) pretrauma conditions based on social distress, (b) shared network of fear leading to breakdown of core social assumptions, (c) the outgroup as a target of negative emotions, and (d) destruction of family ties and community networks.

Steeling Ourselves: Intragroup Communication while Anticipating Intergroup Contact Evokes Defensive Intergroup Perceptions.

Two experiments investigated the role of intragroup communication in intergroup conflict (de-)escalation. Experiment 1 examined the effects of intragroup communication (vs. individual thought) and anticipated face-to-face intergroup contact (vs. no anticipated face-to-face intergroup contact). The group discussions of stigmatized group members who anticipated face-to-face intergroup contact revolved more around intergroup hostility. This boosted ingroup identification and increased social creativity but also led to steeling (a hardening of perceived intergroup relations). In Experiment 2, new participants listened to the taped group discussions. The discussions of groups anticipating face-to-face intergroup contact evoked more intergroup anxiety-related discomfort than discussions of groups not anticipating face-to-face intergroup encounters. Together, these results support the idea that steeling is a defensive reaction to prepare for an anxiety-arousing intergroup confrontation. Although steeling is also associated with positive consequences such as increased ingroup solidarity and social creativity, this hardened stance may be an obstacle to conflict de-escalation.

Different selection pressures give rise to distinct ethnic phenomena : a functionalist framework with illustrations from the Peruvian Altiplano.

Many accounts of ethnic phenomena imply that processes such as stereotyping, essentialism, ethnocentrism, and intergroup hostility stem from a unitary adaptation for reasoning about groups. This is partly justified by the phenomena's co-occurrence in correlational studies. Here we argue that these behaviors are better modeled as functionally independent adaptations that arose in response to different selection pressures throughout human evolution. As such, different mechanisms may be triggered by different group boundaries within a single society. We illustrate this functionalist framework using ethnographic work from the Quechua-Aymara language boundary in the Peruvian Altiplano. We show that different group boundaries motivate different ethnic phenomena. For example, people have strong stereotypes about socioeconomic categories, which are not cooperative units, whereas they hold fewer stereotypes about communities, which are the primary focus of cooperative activity. We also show that, despite the cross-cultural importance of ethnolinguistic boundaries, the Quechua-Aymara linguistic distinction does not strongly motivate any of these intergroup processes.

Intergroup Hostility and Gestalt Therapy

Research Article| January 01 2015 Intergroup Hostility and Gestalt Therapy Gaie Houston Gaie Houston Gaie Houston, MA, has written nine books on psychotherapy and group behaviour. Since 1982 she has worked as a trainer and supervisor for The Gestalt Centre London. She has led workshops in countries from Kyrgyzstan and Thailand to North America as well as many in Europe. She likes growing vegetables and can be very idle. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Gestalt Review (2015) 19 (3): 224–232. https://doi.org/10.5325/gestaltreview.19.3.0224 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Gaie Houston; Intergroup Hostility and Gestalt Therapy. Gestalt Review 1 January 2015; 19 (3): 224–232. doi: https://doi.org/10.5325/gestaltreview.19.3.0224 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressGestalt Review Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2015 by The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved.2015The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Another Look at Moral Foundations Theory: Do Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation Explain Liberal-Conservative Differences in “Moral” Intuitions?

Moral foundations theorists propose that the moral domain should include not only “liberal” ethics of justice and care but also ostensibly “conservative” concerns about the virtues of ingroup loyalty, obedience to authority, and enforcement of purity standards. This proposal clashes with decades of research in political psychology connecting the latter set of characteristics to “the authoritarian personality.” We demonstrate that liberal-conservative differences in moral intuitions are statistically mediated by authoritarianism and social dominance orientation, so that conservatives’ greater valuation of ingroup, authority, and purity concerns is attributable to higher levels of authoritarianism, whereas liberals’ greater valuation of fairness and harm avoidance is attributable to lower levels of social dominance. We also find that ingroup, authority, and purity concerns are positively associated with intergroup hostility and support for discrimination, whereas concerns about fairness and harm avoidance are negatively associated with these variables. These findings might lead some to question the wisdom and appropriateness of efforts to “broaden” scientific conceptions of morality in such a way that preferences based on authoritarianism and social dominance are treated as moral—rather than amoral or even immoral—and suggest that the explicit goal of incorporating conservative ideology into the study of moral psychology (in order to increase ideological diversity) may lead researchers astray.

Reflecting on The Francis Report: Inter-group hostility, disgust and the role of the psychologist

Reflecting on The Francis Report: Inter-group hostility, disgust and the role of the psychologist

High outgroup entitativity can inhibit intergroup retribution.

Understanding the psychological processes that are involved in the perpetuation and escalation of intergroup conflict remains an important goal for intergroup relations research. In the present research, we examined perceived outgroup entitativity as a potential determinant of intergroup hostility. In intergroup conflict situations, high-entitative outgroups are perceived as particularly deserving of retribution; however, high-entitative outgroups are also perceived as efficacious and capable of retaliating successfully, suggesting that people may inhibit hostility against high-entitative (vs. low-entitative) outgroups that are in a position to retaliate. We tested this prediction in two studies. In Study 1, we manipulated intergroup provocation and outgroup entitativity, and found that higher negative mood predicted greater aggression against a low-entitative provoker outgroup, but failed to predict aggression against a high-entitative provoker outgroup that was plausibly in a position to retaliate. In Study 2, we held provocation constant while manipulating outgroup entitativity and the possibility of retaliation by the outgroup, and found that people acted in a retributive manner against a high-entitative provoker outgroup only when the outgroup was not in a position to retaliate. Implications for intergroup conflict are discussed.

Intergroup conflict, ostracism, and the evolution of cooperation under free migration

Theoretical investigations and quasi-experimental evidence from modern conflict areas suggest that intergroup conflict and ostracism play a pivotal role in the evolution of cooperation. However, there is little direct evidence about the influence of intergroup conflict on human social behavior in the presence of endogenous group formation and unrestricted migration. This study introduces an experiment to examine the impact of intergroup conflict and ostracism on group formation, and human cooperation in a dynamic environment where group size, the occurrence of intergroup hostility and the threat of ostracism are endogenously determined. Here, we show that intergroup conflict may inhibit merging into single large human coalitions. The threat of ostracism is shown to increase the average group size and cooperation within the society. In addition, we find that competitive pressure between groups decreases the likelihood of social exclusion. Our results suggest that free migration between groups suppresses the impact of between-group competition on within-group cooperation. Moreover, our results stress the role of ostracism as a means to repress competition within groups and enhance group success in competition against other groups.

Reframing Polarization: Social Groups and “Culture Wars”

ABSTRACTRecent analyses of American politics often invoke the term “culture war” depicting sharp and increasing divisions within the American polity. Most of this research defines culture in terms of values and beliefs about social issues and defines polarization in terms of partisan and issue divisions. I evaluate the claim of worsening “culture wars” by using a conceptualization of political culture that focuses on social groups and measuring polarization as both social group members’ attitudes toward their own social in-groups and out-groups, and the effects of group attitudes on partisanship. Analyzing inter-group attitudes from 1964 to 2012 for social group cleavages defined by race, class, age, sex, and religion shows that polarization in attitudes toward social groups is minimal and generally stable, and most group members feel positively toward out-groups. Partisan and issue polarization seen in prior research do not extend to deep or increasing inter-group hostility that could reinforce issue-based and partisan polarization.

More Diverse Yet Less Tolerant? How the Increasingly Diverse Racial Landscape Affects White Americans’ Racial Attitudes

Recent Census Bureau projections indicate that racial/ethnic minorities will comprise over 50% of the U.S. population by 2042, effectively creating a so-called "majority-minority" nation. Across four experiments, we explore how presenting information about these changing racial demographics influences White Americans' racial attitudes. Results reveal that exposure to the changing demographics evokes the expression of greater explicit and implicit racial bias. Specifically, Whites exposed to the racial demographic shift information preferred interactions/settings with their own ethnic group over minority ethnic groups; expressed more negative attitudes toward Latinos, Blacks, and Asian Americans; and expressed more automatic pro-White/anti-minority bias. Perceived threat to Whites' societal status mediated the effects of the racial shift information on explicit racial attitudes. These results suggest that rather than ushering in a more tolerant future, the increasing diversity of the nation may instead yield intergroup hostility. Implications for intergroup relations and media framing of the racial shift are discussed.

Adolescents and prejudice: A comparative study of the attitudes of two European adolescent populations regarding the issues that are raised by increasing cultural and religious pluralism

This study illustrates the reaction toward the cultural and religious pluralism of two adolescent populations, from two different European countries. The goal in this study is to relate prejudices regarding immigration to the socio-cultural features that in a given context shape the issues surrounding this subject. The hypotheses proposed indicate that the socio-cultural factors represent interesting examples of variation of the stereotypes and attitudes toward the phenomenon of immigration. A survey has been conducted in Italy and France on 1277 high school students (mean age 17.2) to examine two different contexts concerning the issues that are raised by immigration phenomena. Consideration of the contextual factors will enable us to understand why young Italians express prejudices focused on economical and social issues, whereas young French people have a prejudice driven by identity issues. In order to explain such a typology of prejudice we have turned to the social and cultural characteristics that the question of immigration takes on in these two countries. Let us remember that for a more in-depth explanation of the factors that shape intergroup hostility, variables at the individual level need to be put alongside those at the contextual level. This way of working will lead to a better understanding of the social genesis of prejudices.

Collective narcissism moderates the effect of in-group image threat on intergroup hostility.

Results of 4 experiments demonstrated that under in-group image threat collective narcissism predicts retaliatory intergroup hostility. Under in-group criticism (vs. praise) collective narcissists expressed intention to harm the offending out-group but not other, nonoffending out-groups. This effect was specific to collective narcissism and was replicated in studies that accounted for the overlap between collective narcissism and individual narcissism, in-group positivity (in-group identification, blind and constructive patriotism), social dominance orientation, and right wing authoritarianism. The link between collective narcissism and retaliatory intergroup hostility under in-group image threat was found in the context of national identity and international relations and in the context of a social identity defined by university affiliation. Study 4 demonstrated that the relationship between collective narcissism and intergroup hostility was mediated by the perception of in-group criticism as personally threatening. The results advance our understanding of the mechanism driving the link between collective narcissism and intergroup hostility. They indicate that threatened egotism theory can be extended into the intergroup domain.

Beyond prejudice: Relational inequality, collective action, and social change revisited

This response clarifies, qualifies, and develops our critique of the limits of intergroup liking as a means of challenging intergroup inequality. It does not dispute that dominant groups may espouse negative attitudes towards subordinate groups. Nor does it dispute that prejudice reduction can be an effective way of tackling resulting forms of intergroup hostility. What it does dispute is the assumption that getting dominant group members and subordinate group members to like each other more is the best way of improving intergroup relations that are characterized by relatively stable, institutionally embedded, relations of inequality. In other words, the main target of our critique is the model of change that underlies prejudice reduction interventions and the mainstream concept of “prejudice” on which they are based.

Exclusion, intergroup hostility, and religious fundamentalism

The goal of the present study was to examine whether exclusion leads to increased intergroup hostility and stronger fundamentalist religious beliefs. Using Cyberball, we examined how adolescents from different ethnic groups in the Netherlands (of Moroccan, Turkish, and Dutch descent with either Muslim, Christian, or secular beliefs) responded to being included or excluded by ethnic in- and outgroup members. We expected that exclusion by ethnic outgroup members would represent a categorization threat and would result in greater hostility. We hypothesized that exclusion by ethnic ingroup members would represent an acceptance threat and would result in responses that reduce uncertainty and increase one's chances of being accepted by others (e.g., a stronger endorsement of fundamentalist religious beliefs). The results revealed that among all ethnic groups, exclusion by ethnic outgroup members led to more hostility toward the co-players and the co-players' ethnic group than exclusion by ethnic ingroup members. This was mediated by the extent to which people attributed their exclusion to the racist attitudes of their co-players. Among Muslims and Christians, exclusion by ethnic ingroup members led to more support for fundamentalist beliefs. We discuss the theoretical extension that these results provide, and practical issues raised regarding the consequences that may occur through the marginalization of religious and ethnic groups.

Intrinsic religiosity reduces intergroup hostility under mortality salience

AbstractResults of three studies indicate that intrinsic religiosity and mortality salience interact to predict intergroup hostility. Study 1, conducted among 200 American Christians and Jews, reveals that under mortality salience, intrinsic (but not extrinsic or quest) religiosity is related to decreased support for aggressive counterterrorism. Study 2, conducted among 148 Muslims in Iran, demonstrates that intrinsic religiosity predicts decreased out‐group derogation under mortality salience. Study 3, conducted among 131 Polish Christians, shows that under mortality salience, priming of intrinsic religious concepts decreases support for aggressive counterterrorism. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Are separate schools divisive? A case study from Northern Ireland

In Northern Ireland, where the majority of children are educated at schools attended mainly by coreligionists, the debate concerning the role of schools in perpetuating intergroup hostilities has recently been reignited. Against questions regarding the efficacy of community relations policy in education, the research reported in this paper employs qualitative methods to examine social identity and intergroup attitudes amongst children attending a state controlled Protestant school and the school’s response to dealing with issues of diversity and difference. Findings suggest a relationship between ethnic isolation experienced by children and negative intergroup social attitudes and the discussion focuses on issues germane to the separateness of the school that are likely to contribute to strong ‘own’ group bias, stereotyping and prejudice. The implication of the school’s separate status for its engagement with a policy framework for relationship building is also considered. The paper concludes with some po...

The Social Psychology of Identity and Inter-group Conflict: From Theory to Practice

This paper reviews the seminal theories of social psychology which have guided scholarship on inter-group conflicts and describes how these theories have been used by conflict resolution practitioners to design Track Two diplomacy initiatives among citizens in conflict zones. The authors hope that such a review will provide scholars of conflict resolution and international politics with a better understanding of how complex social theories are adapted for use in the applied world, and how gaps between theory and practice can be identified and addressed. The paper begins with an overview of three of the main theoretical contributions of social psychology to the problem of inter-group conflict: social identity theory, stereotyping and prejudice, and contact theory. We then review how these theories have been applied by conflict resolution specialists in international and ethnic conflicts as they have sought to moderate intergroup hostilities in conflict zones. The paper concludes with an analysis of the gaps between theory and practice, namely: theory of change gap, transfer strategies gap, and unit of analysis gap. Finally, based on the reviewed social psychology research, the article makes policy recommendations about how these gaps between theory and practice can be narrowed.

Societal security, the security dilemma, and extreme anti-migrant hostility in Russia

The societal security theory posits that extreme anti-migrant hostility – such as demands to deport all migrants unconditionally – emerges when host communities see migration as a threat to the survival of their group identity. An alternative interpretation – the immigration security dilemma – attributes extreme hostility to the human tendency to prepare for the worst under uncertainty when central authority weakens. Does extreme intergroup hostility relate more to threats framed in terms of group survival or to those framed in terms of uncertainty about government capacity and migration effects? I investigate this question empirically with the Russian national survey data (2005, N = 680) asking who in Russia supports the deportation of all internal and external migrants, legal and illegal, and their children to their places of origin – an extreme and widespread view that would require forced population movements not seen in the region since Stalin’s Great Terror. In multivariate tests, agreement with the societal security (survival) rhetoric explained about five percent of variation in support for unconditional, wholesale deportation of migrants; agreement with the security dilemma (uncertainty) rhetoric – about 20%. A comparison of attitudes in the same survey to Armenian, Uzbek, Chechen, and Chinese migrants and the association of each ethnic group with different types of security threat further support this finding. Hostility toward ethnic groups viewed as a weak security threat was more diagnostic of public support for wholesale deportation of migrants than hostility toward groups viewed as a strong security threat.