Perceived Intergroup Conflict Research Articles

The Effects of Large-Scale Social Movements on Language Attitudes: Cantonese and Mandarin in Hong Kong

Speakers with standard accents are typically judged more favorably than non-standard speakers, but this may shift in response to perceived intergroup conflict with ethnolinguistic outgroups. Three studies were conducted to examine how large-scale social movements may impact language attitudes in Hong Kong. Attitudes toward standard-accented and non-standard-accented Cantonese and Mandarin were collected across four instances in 2013 and 2015 (pre- and post-Umbrella Movement), 2018 and 2019 (pre- and post-Anti-Extradition Bill Movement), respectively. Compared to Study 1 (2013), Hong Kong participants judged standard speakers of Cantonese (the ingroup variety), and ingroup, non-standard speakers of Mandarin (the outgroup variety) significantly more favorably in Study 2 (2015). Study 3 showed that the retrospective endorsement of the Umbrella Movement moderated preferences for standard Cantonese and Mandarin speakers. Comparison of 2018 and 2019 data partially replicated the findings in Studies 1 and 2, though the current endorsement of the Anti-Extradition Bill Movement did not moderate preferences for standard speakers.

Predictors of out‐group empathy among majority and minority children in a conflict‐affected society

AbstractWe examined the predictors of out‐group empathy in children growing up in a city devastated during the fall of the Former Yugoslavia. Children (N = 155; 76 male, 79 female) from both majority (64.5% Croatian) and minority (35.5% Serbian) ethnic groups, ranging from 6 to 11 years old (M = 8.77, SD = 1.15) participated. A multiple‐group path analysis in Mplus found that age, general empathy, quality contact and perceived intergroup conflict related to higher out‐group empathy. There were no significant links from gender, quantity contact or out‐group friends to out‐group empathy. The findings were consistent across majority and minority ethnic groups. Implications are discussed.

Explaining Muslims’ Aggressive Tendencies Towards the West: The Role of Negative Stereotypes, Anger, Perceived Conflict and Islamic Fundamentalism

The current research was to investigate what psychological factors predict Muslims’ negative stereotypes of the West, and the underlying mechanism by which the negative stereotypes can translate into Muslims’ aggressive tendencies towards the West. A correlational survey among a sample of Indonesian Muslims ( N = 360) demonstrated that the more participants negatively stereotyped the West, the more they thought that Muslims should aggress the latter group. We also found as expected that Muslims’ negative stereotypes of the West were positively predicted by the perceived conflict between Islam and the West, and this perceived intergroup conflict in turn mediated the role of Islamic fundamentalism in predicting the negative stereotypes. These findings in sum highlight the role of contextual and individual factors in predicting Muslims’ negative stereotypes of the West, as well as the impact of these stereotypes on Muslims’ aggressive tendencies towards the West. Theoretical implications and research limitations of these empirical findings are discussed.

Rational-experiential thinking style and rational intergroup cooperation: the moderating role of intergroup conflict / Estilos de pensamiento racional-experiencial y la cooperación intergrupal racional: el rol modulador del conflicto intergrupal

Cooperative relationships between groups are difficult because of the high human capability to differentiate between in-group vs. out-group members. This obstacle exists even when the groups can obtain benefits for themselves from cooperation with other groups (rational cooperation). Based on an interactionist approach, the authors propose that personal (individual differences) and situational (conflicts) factors contribute to rational intergroup cooperation. The authors conducted a preliminary correlational study (Study 1) and an experimental investigation (Study 2). In Study 1, the authors examined, with 105 participants, the psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Rational–Experiential Inventory (REI), measuring individual differences in information processing. In Study 2, the authors conducted an experimental investigation with 141 participants, testing the role of individual differences and conflict in intergroup rational cooperation. Findings of Study 1 showed that the scale has adequate psychometric properties. Results of Study 2 confirmed that the existence of both manipulated and perceived intergroup conflict reduces the magnitudes of the relationships between rational ability and rational cooperation. In addition, perceived intergroup conflict increased the magnitude of the links from experiential ability and experimental engagement to rational cooperation. Both individual differences and previous conflict have a role in predicting rational intergroup cooperation. According to the interactionist approach, personal and situational factors should be considered in the understanding of intergroup relationships.

Intergroup Conflict Escalation Leads to More Extremism

Empirical findings in intergroup conflict literature show that individuals that hold beliefs that include differentiation from out-groups become radicalized as intergroup tensions escalate. They also show that this differentiation is proportional to tension escalation. In this paper, we present and demonstrate an agent-based model that captures these findings to better understand the effect of perceived intergroup conflict escalation on the average number of emergent extremists and opinion clusters in the population. The proposed model builds on the 2-dimensional Bounded Confidence Model proposed by Huet et al (2008). Results show that the average number of extremists is negatively correlated with intolerance threshold and positively correlated with changes in opinion movement when two agents reject each other's belief. In other words, the number of extremists grows with increasing conflict between groups. We also found that intergroup conflict leads to lower opinion diversity in the population when compared to less conflictual situations.

Predictors of intergroup concern for disaster victims of the Japan earthquake

The study examined the relationships between out‐group perception, perceived intergroup conflict, emotions, and concern for out‐group victims in the context of the Japanese earthquake of 2011. Six hundred and eighty‐six participants in China completed a questionnaire immediately after the earthquake. Results showed that the image of Japan and historical conflicts between the two nations significantly predicted intergroup emotions. A positive image of Japan enhanced Chinese respondents' perceived competence of the Japanese people, which, however, appeared to mitigate concern for the victims. Positive emotions increased participants' concern for Japanese victims. Implications of the research findings are discussed with reference to research on intergroup relations and help following disasters.

Intergroup Conflict in Russia

The group position model ( Blumer 1958 ; Bobo and Tuan 2006 ) assumes that attempting to secure a privileged position for the ingroup is a main determinant of perceived intergroup conflict. This assumption is tested with survey data collected in 1999 and 2000 among eight titular groups in autonomous republics of the Russian Federation. The survey included an experiment that was aimed at disentangling the effects of perceived threat and the fear of outgroup encroachment (growing outgroup influence). The findings indicate that more conflict was perceived when the ingroup was larger (corresponding to stronger entitlement claims to privilege), especially among those who felt more threatened. This association was further strengthened among those whose fear of outgroup encroachment was made salient. This study shows the relevance of the group position model in understanding perceived intergroup conflict among national minority groups with a local privileged status.

Cognitive differentiation between self, ingroup, and outgroup: The roles of identification and perceived intergroup conflict

Several models predict that persons ascribe opposite characteristics to self and ingroups on the one hand and outgroups on the other (outgroup contrast). However, only few studies have found this effect. This study explored its boundary conditions. Sixty-two students rated (a) characteristics of themselves, an ingroup (own study major), and an outgroup (other study major), (b) ingroup identification, and (c) perceived intergroup conflict. Participants who were relatively high in ingroup identification and who perceived relatively high levels of intergroup conflict displayed outgroup contrast, as indicated by negative correlations between trait ratings for self and ingroup and between trait ratings for ingroup and outgroup. The other participants showed weaker or no outgroup contrast. Thus, this study is one of the few empirical demonstrations of outgroup contrast and points to moderators that should be considered in future research on this effect. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

What We Know Now About Bias and Intergroup Conflict, the Problem of the Century

After nearly a century's study, what do psychologists now know about intergroup bias and conflict? Most people reveal unconscious, subtle biases, which are relatively automatic, cool, indirect, ambiguous, and ambivalent. Subtle biases underlie ordinary discrimination: comfort with one's own in–group, plus exclusion and avoidance of out–groups. Such biases result from internal conflict between cultural ideals and cultural biases. A small minority of people, extremists, do harbor blatant biases that are more conscious, hot, direct, and unambiguous. Blatant biases underlie aggression, including hate crimes. Such biases result from perceived intergroup conflict over economics and values, in a world perceived to be hierarchical and dangerous. Reduction of both subtle and blatant bias results from education, economic opportunity, and constructive intergroup contact.

The Relationship Between Group Identity and Intergroup Prejudice Is Moderated by Sociostructural Variation1

A theoretical model is developed that predicts a stronger relationship between group identity and intergroup prejudice for majority‐group members compared to minority‐group members. This model takes into consideration the sociostructural characteristics of the groups, the differential functions of group identity for majority versus minority‐group members, and the role of perceived intergroup conflict. The model is tested by examining the magnitude of group identity, perceived conflict, and ethnic prejudice expressed by White Americans, African Americans, and Asian Americans. Predictions derived from the model were largely supported. Theoretical implications are discussed and directions for future research are offered.

Intergroup Attitudes as a Function of Different Dimensions of Group Identification and Perceived Intergroup Conflict

This study investigates the multidimensional nature of group identity and how different dimensions are uniquely related to ingroup and outgroup evaluations, intergroup bias, and perceived intergroup conflict. A three-dimensional model of group identity—consisting of a cognitive, evaluative, and affective-ties component—was supported across ascribed, achieved, and face-to-face groups. As predicted, of the three dimensions, affective ties to the ingroup was the best overall predictor of intergroup bias. In support of social identity theory, the impact of the evaluative and cognitive dimensions on group attitudes was significantly moderated by perceptions of conflict. Additionally, as predicted, group identification led to exaggerated positive evaluations of the ingroup, while perceived conflict led to exaggerated negative evaluations of the outgroup. Theoretical implications and future research avenues are discussed.

Who Gets Involved in Collective Action?: Social Psychological Determinants of Individual Participation in Trade Unions

This study examined social psychological factors associated with willingness to participate in collective action. These factors were group identification, collectivist orientation, outgroup stereotyping, perceived intergroup conflict, egoistic and collective relative deprivation, and political efficacy. Three hundred and fifty members of a trade union completed questionnaires where items measured these factors along with their prospective participation in a range of union activities. Regression analyses indicated that the most significant correlate of participation was the strength of the respondent's sense of group identification. Other significant correlates were collectivist orientation and the degree to which the outgroup (management) was perceived in a stereotypical fashion. Further analyses were undertaken to examine the possible moderating effect of group identification on the relationships between independent and dependent variables. These indicated a broadly similar pattern of results for both strong and weak group identifiers though collective relative deprivation appeared to be somewhat more important for strong identifiers and political efficacy somewhat more important for weak identifiers. These findings are discussed in the context of research into social identity and collective action in other settings.

Explaining intergroup differentiation in an industrial organization

We report a study of intergroup relations in a paper factory in which we examine the utility of three social‐psychological approaches: realistic conflict theory, the contact hypothesis and social identity theory. A sample of 177 shop floor workers from five different departments was interviewed. From them, measures of intergroup differentiation, perceived intergroup conflict, amount of intergroup contact, and strength of workgroup identification were obtained. The latter was assessed using a new scale of group identification developed for this study. Reliability and validity data for this scale are reported. Using multiple regression analyses we attempt to explain variance in respondents' intergroup differentiation using the other measures as predictor variables. The most powerful and reliable predictor was perceived conflict which, as expected, was positively correlated with differentiation. Less consistent was amount of contact which was negatively but only weakly associated with differentiation. Strength of group identification, while generally showing a positive correlation with differentiation as predicted, was also only a weak and inconsistent predictor variable. Noting that these results confirm findings from other studies we discuss their theoretical implications.