Intergroup Relations

Definitions

The term intergroup relations refers to conflicts and connections between two groups, whereas intragroup relations refers to conflicts and connections among people of the same social identity group. A person is considered part of an in-group when he or she is a member of a social identity group composed of people with similar characteristics and experiences. An outgroup is a social group that is outside one's in-group and generally assumed to possess characteristics and experiences that are different from those of the in-group.

History of the Study of Intergroup Relations

The psychological study of intergroup relations flourished during the decades following World War II, when social scientists sought to advance the understanding of racism and segregation. This period was exceptionally rife with social discord, evidenced by anticommunist invectives in the United States (the Red Scare), anti-Japanese sentiment and Japanese American internment, Nazism and the Holocaust, and stifled race relations. Social psychologists in particular were interested in why ethnic group conflicts incite individuals to perform hostile and cruel acts toward members of out-groups; their efforts focused on understanding how in-group biases and negative attitudes toward out-groups are formed. Early studies on group dynamics considered the size and structure of groups, characteristics of group leaders, and the amount and quality of interaction among group members.

One significant theory to emerge from these attempts to understand intergroup conflicts was Gordon W. Allport's contact hypothesis, which posited that intergroup relations could be improved by increasing intergroup contact, encouraging cooperation and equal status of group members, and reducing the support of authority figures. Allport argued that all people have stereotypes about other groups, but people who maintain their prejudices tend to blame out-groups for social problems, use group differences to reject members of the out-group, and do not tolerate ambiguity.

Intergroup relations are often strained by the realities or perceptions of sociohistorical problems–for example, conflict over rights to existing resources, as in the case of the Arabs' and Jews' perspectives on Israel. Research has shown, however, that even in the absence of an external threat to resources, the mere inclusion and identification with a group can foster hostility and bias toward an out-group. The landmark Robber's Cave study by Muzafer Sherif and others examined in-group formation and attitudes toward out-groups. In the experiment, boys from similar backgrounds were brought to a campsite and randomly assigned to two separate groups. As each group bonded and became aware of the other, in-group cohesion developed, which led to competitive feelings toward the out-group. The researchers noted an escalation in intergroup hostilities, such as name-calling, derogatory songs, and discriminative taunts and threats, as well as increased feelings of in-group favoritism, pride, and superiority. Later, the groups were told that vandals had prevented the camp water supply from being distributed properly. When this superordinate goal was presented, members from both groups cooperated to solve the problem, thus reducing intergroup conflict. Positive behaviors resulted, such as sharing the water supply and rejoicing over a deed well done. This experiment showed that group identity and cohesion can foster biased feelings toward one's in-group and negative attitudes and reactions toward members of the out-group; however, intergroup relations can be improved by facilitating goals and connectivity between members of different groups.

...