Search Results

This chapter examines the potential roles of intergroup representations, threat, and trust in the dynamics of intergroup relations between Whites and Blacks. It first explores the psychological processes that promote intergroup bias, threat, and distrust and may lead to intergroup conflict. Second, it examines ways of reducing intergroup bias. Third, it emphasizes the importance of understanding the differing perspectives of majority- and minority-group members on intergroup relations, and illustrates the different dynamics empirically, focusing on Black-White relations within the United States as a case study. The chapter concludes by considering the implications that this conceptualization of the nature and dynamics of intergroup bias has for interventions designed to reduce bias and promote reconciliation.

This chapter describes the Intergroup Relations Model, which asserts that the move to peaceful intergroup relations hinges on ensuring that the adversarial groups perceive equality of opportunities to procure material and social resources.

This chapter highlights three stepping stones for success in interventions for violent intergroup conflicts: investigating when and how intergroup contact results in reduced prejudice and improved intergroup relations; promoting intergroup forgiveness to replace bitterness and vengeance; and building trust across the sectarian divide. It highlights some of the contributions of social psychology to building the postconflict society envisaged by the Belfast Agreement. The chapter begins by reviewing the historical and social background to the political violence in Northern Ireland. It considers the segregated nature of society in Northern Ireland, and highlights intergroup contact as a means to overcome the problems of segregation. It then considers the neglected topic of forgiveness, arguing that a distinct form of intergroup forgiveness is relevant in cases of intergroup conflict.

This chapter discusses how social- psychological processes influence intergroup conflict and how these processes can be used in interventions aimed at improving relations between former adversaries. It reviews psychological theory and research that offers insights into these processes and suggest ways that this information can guide diplomatic interventions.

This chapter examines the thesis that intergroup conflict may incite needs that can be met through intergroup reconciliation. In particular, it reviews research that suggests three needs that are particularly salient during intergroup conflict — the need for self-esteem, the need to belong, and the need for self-integrity — can also be fulfilled through intergroup reconciliation. In other words, intergroup conflict may motivate social-psychological needs that can be conducive to intergroup reconciliation.

This chapter discusses the goals of reconciliation at the societal and individual level and the antecedent conditions that make reconciliation so difficult. It describes the intervention techniques currently available to address reconciliation and some of the processes by which these techniques work. The societal context variables that can affect the success of reconciliation interventions, and the roles that psychologists can play in this process are considered.

This chapter presents a framework for thinking about intergroup relations that can be immediately useful to people who are confronted with these issues in their daily lives. It suggests that downward spirals in intergroup relations are a product of egosystem motivational dynamics, and that ecosystem dynamics can create upward spirals in intergroup relations. In doing so, the chapter does not advocate abandoning attempts to change stereotypes and prejudice, or alter power and status relations; rather, it seeks to explore where individuals caught in these processes have leverage to create positive dynamics in their intergroup relations.

This chapter presents a brief and generalized overview of red colobus social organization. Most populations and taxa of red colobus live in large, multimale groups. Adult females typically outnumber males. However, both group size and adult sex ratios are highly variable. Social groups are generally tolerant of one another and there is typically extensive overlap in home ranges. The extent of this overlap seems to depend on population density. Social interactions between groups can, however, involve aggression, ranging from spatial supplantations to fights where adult males inflict wounds on one another. Intergroup aggression is typically restricted to adult males. In some taxa, dispersal is female-biased, whereas in others both sexes disperse.

This chapter argues that legitimacy is a double-edged sword, providing a constraint not only on discrimination, but also on resistance that might lead injustice to be challenged. The chapter is structured as follows. First, it outlines accounts that see discrimination between groups as almost inevitable products of our group nature, and then challenge this view. This leads into a discussion of how legitimacy and the content of group identity (norms and stereotypes) form bases by which discrimination may be constrained. It considers evidence from four domains to provide empirical support for the legitimacy constraint argument: (1) social stereotyping, (2) in-group bias and discrimination, (3) emotion-based forms of prejudice (specifically intergroup schadenfreude), and (4) perceptions of group (in)justice. Finally, the chapter considers how reconciliation fits into this social identity analysis of intergroup conflict tempered by legitimacy constraints, and indeed how it can add to it.

This chapter argues that social emotions derived from power and perceived social status generate a skewed perception of the out-group, resulting in residual negative affect and the creation of a vertical distance, which in turn hinders intergroup reconciliation. Literature within social psychology that describes intergroup power as outcome control, as well as models of intergroup emotions that establish residual negative affect, are reviewed. The literature on perceptions of out-groups that create an immutable vertical distance are then considered. Finally, some possible solutions and policy implications are discussed.

This chapter explores the factors that cause and nurture intractable conflict between enduring groups, examines the implications of a focus on peaceful coexistence, and relates this perspective to theories of conflict resolution and reconciliation. The ultimate aim is to address the question about why ethnic and cultural conflict is so prevalent and persistent and suggest approaches to improve intergroup relations. To support its position, the chapter draws on observations and research on peace programs involving ethnic groups consumed by intractable conflict, groups involving immigrants and hosts, and ethnic groups living on the island of Hawaii.

This chapter examines how the provision of medical assistance across borders during times of medical emergency (i.e., the AIDS epidemic in Sub-Saharan Africa) can improve relations between donor and recipient nations. On the basis of extant knowledge on intergroup helping and health psychology, the chapter suggests a set of conditions that will make such helping interactions a vehicle that promotes better relations and reconciliation.

This chapter argues that intergroup reconciliation depends on the links between intragroup and intergroup processes. It considers the relationship between willingness to cooperate with the out-group on the intragroup and intergroup levels. The analysis uses Kelman's dialogue groups between Israelis and Palestinians to highlight its insights and conclusions.

This chapter outlines a model describing when and how one particular intergroup emotion — collective guilt — will be experienced depending on the standard employed for judging the social injustice perpetrated by the in-group against an out-group. In line with the common in-group identity model and self-categorization theory, it is argued that perpetrators or advantaged group members can categorize victims along a continuum of increasing inclusiveness — with the most inclusive category being humans. Under certain conditions, out-group members (they) can be seen as members of a more inclusive group (us) that also includes the in-group (we); shifting to such inclusive categorization of out-group members can have beneficial effects for the in-group's relationship with that out-group. It is argued that the extent to which victims of harm doing are included in a salient social category will affect the harshness of the standards used to evaluate the in-group's harmful actions toward them. That is, when out-group members are included in a common in-group, harsher judgments should be made about in-group members who perpetrated harm against the former out-group members who are now seen as part of a larger, superordinate in-group. The severity of the standard used, will, in turn, affect the appraisal of injustice and the extent to which collective guilt is experienced.

This chapter distinguishes between destructive conflicts that have the characteristic of a competitive struggle and constructive conflicts that are more similar to cooperative problem solving. It views reconciliation as predicated on constructive dialogue about the past, present, and future, and enumerates the principles that need to exist for such a dialogue to occur.

The election of Barack Obama as President of the United States can have profound impact, currently and into the future, on Whites’ racial attitudes by providing unprecedented virtual intergroup contact. The present chapter considers the extent and nature of contemporary racial attitudes and discusses how, drawing on fundamental psychological principles related to intergroup contact, Obama’s election can transform the internalized racial attitudes of Whites. We examine not only how, by virtue of his role as president, Obama can change the way Blacks are perceived but also how his rhetoric can shape the perceptions of race relations. We also explore the circumstances that can promote or limit President Obama’s effectiveness and positive impact on race relations.

This chapter describes an approach developed to promote reconciliation between Tutsis and Hutus in the aftermath of the horrific genocide in Rwanda. The approach, the research conducted to evaluate it, and the varied uses of it, or of aspects of it in the course of work in Rwanda are discussed. The use of the approach in seminars/workshops/trainings with people in the community, with journalists, with national leaders, with community leaders, and in weekly and monthly radio programs are described. It emphasizes the importance of both healing after group violence, and understanding the roots of violence as avenues to the prevention of new violence and to reconciliation. As a background, the general principles of reconciliation are briefly discussed.

This chapter is the first of four on the question of legitimacy in the EU, and deals with the core question of whether and to what extent the citizens of the EU have grown together into a political community. The first section discusses the common European heritage, and sources of conflicts and diversity, and then introduces the concept of sense of political community, in which two dimensions are distinguished: identification (which refers to the citizens themselves) and ‘we‐feeling’ (which refers to fellow citizens). These two dimensions are compatible with modern theories of intergroup relations, and are discussed further in the next two sections of the chapter. The first of these monitors the evolution of European identifications from 1982 to 1995, and compares the pride of EU citizens and political elites in being European. The second investigates whether EU citizens trust their fellow Europeans, and where the geographical borderline is drawn between ingroup and outgroup.

Chapter 5 considers intergroup relations between Mexicans and African Americans in Winston-Salem. Contrary to previous studies, this chapter shows that a sense of shared minority status coupled with an absence of resource competition facilitated a high level of positive intergroup relations and social support between these racial minorities and increased the social distance between both groups and whites. This chapter describes the on-the-ground interactions and institutional efforts that shaped intergroup relations and make the case that status is key in formulating relationships among blacks, whites, and Latinos, producing what I call minority linked fate.

This chapter deals with cross-cultural differences in psychological processes that operate in group contexts. It first briefly reviews the well-known construct of individualism and collectivism, which was built on an assumption that Western and Eastern culture differ on a simple dimension between independence and group-centeredness. This assumption was later faced with an empirical challenge suggesting that people in individualistic cultures are actually highly group-oriented. Second, the chapter describes an attempt to overcome this problem by proposing a new theory of qualitative differences in the types of group processes common in individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Specifically, the theory makes a distinction between intergroup comparison orientation vs. intragroup relationship orientation, and empirical evidence in support of the theory is reviewed. Finally, a new hypothesis is proposed that the two group orientations may emerge under socio-ecological contexts with different degrees of relational mobility.