Superordinate Goals versus Superordinate Identity as Bases of Intergroup Cooperation

Superordinate Goals versus Superordinate Identity as Bases of Intergroup Cooperation

When the initial experiments with the minimal intergroup situation (Tajfel et al., 1971) gave rise to the formulation of social identity theory, prevailing theories of intergroup relations were, in effect, stood on their heads. The then current structuralist view (e.g., Sherif, 1966a) assumed that the structure of interdependence within and between social groups accounted for differentiation of individuals into competing social groups. From this perspective, the presence of cooperative interdependence and common goals gave rise to ingroup formation, while competitive interdependence (such as resource competition) gave rise to intergroup conflict and hostility. Interdependence, then, was both necessary and sufficient to produce ingroup-outgroup distinctions and hostility. By extension, when the structure of interdependence between groups is changed from competitive to common goals, intergroup conflict and differentiation should be reduced and intergroup attitudes improved (Sherif, 1966a, 1966b).

The minimal intergroup experiments demonstrated clearly that [Page 118]realistic competition was not a necessary condition for intergroup differentiation or discrimination.1 Further, the concept of ‘social competition’ (Turner, 1975) reversed the hypothesized causal relationship between competition and intergroup differentiation. Instead of competition causing group formation and intergroup conflict, social identity theory postulated that social categorization and intergroup differentiation itself causes cooperative orientation toward ingroup members and competition between ingroups and outgroups.

A corollary to the social competition hypothesis questions whether cooperative interdependence between differentiated groups is sufficient to reduce ingroup favouritism and intergroup discrimination and conflict. If salient category distinctions can create intergroup discrimination in the absence of a competitive reward structure, there is little reason to believe that the presence of objective superordinate goals or positive interdependence would be sufficient to overcome the subjective social competition associated with salient ingroup-outgroup distinctions. However, research has rarely addressed the almost heretical idea that in an intergroup context, cooperative interdependence may actually exacerbate rather than reduce ingroup-outgroup discrimination and hostility (see Brown, 1984a, for one exception). Indeed, the concepts of ‘superordinate goals’ and ‘superordinate identity’ are often treated interchangeably as prescriptions for reducing intergroup conflict. The purpose of this chapter is to challenge this confusion of terms and to examine more carefully the implications of social identity theory for understanding the effects of intergroup interdependence.