Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation - Assignment Example

Social Psychology, Qualitative Thematic Essay Introduction Social psychology is the branch of psychology, which applies empirical methods in investigating how human thoughts, behaviors, and feelings are influenced by an implied, imagined or actual presence of other people. In defining these three aspects of human existence, social psychology applies theories which show the interconnection between a person’s behavior, feeling, or thought and the social context they are present in. The three main perspectives applied in social psychology include one, the perception that different people may react differently to the same situations since everyone thinks differently from the other, two, that personal intuitions can act as a guide to how one responds or relates to the social, and finally that one’s behavior, thought, or feeling can be influenced externally by the social factors surrounding them. To elaborate of the said qualities of social psychology, the following qualitative essay will draw three major social psychology theories: social identity, realistic conflict, and self-categorization theories and expound on them as they apply in constructing a person’s thinking, feeling, and behavior in a social context. Overview Social psychology is the analysis of the self-concept, intergroup relations, and group process which adds up to the knowledge that humans derive their self-conceptions from the social categories they associate themselves with. In defining social identities, there exist several theories such as the Social identity theory which highlights intergroup behaviors, the self-categorization theory which focuses on a group’s theories of influence, and the realistic conflict theory which justifies conflicts as arising from competition over resource scarcities. Social identity is made up of discrimination, prejudice and other dimensions which promote differences in intergroup behaviors which include change, conflict, or cooperation. Conflicts are highlighted in social identity in that the groups which result from the coming together of several people are constantly struggling over prestige, status, and recognition (Hogg & Reid, 2006). They devise means of outdoing each other while remaining on top of the game. The following section furthers the said theories and their application in the social identity context of social psychology. Social identity theory- Henri Tajfel Tajfel (1974) defined social identity as a person’s sense of recognition according to their membership in a certain group. In the theory, Tajfel stated that the collective group such as families in which someone belongs to is a major determinant of their self-esteem and/or pride. This can be better put that a group gives one a sense of social recognition (identity), thus their feeling of belonging to the social world. As human beings, psychology has proven that we all want to be associated with groups that are of high social status, and to attain this because it boosts one’s self-image. To attain these attitudes, people strive to promote the status of their groups such as saying “our school is the best nationally!” This is one way of boosting self-image. The other method of boosting self-image is by prejudicing or discriminating against other people or groups who are not in the same group with one. This is to say that one tries to belittle other groups so that their group stands out as being better or superior. For instance, one may state, “Indians are wiser than Chinese”. Observing these two definitions clearly, there appears a clear pattern in that to gain better self-esteem or image, people can group themselves collectively as “us” while pointing at others as “them”. In social psychology, this is called social categorization. In this categorization, the “us” category is called the in-group, and the “them” category is called the out-group. The relationship between the two groups is that each will try to find faults in the out-group in fostering their in-group’s self-image which is transferred to the individual group members. Social categorizing can result in conflict, such as the standoff between Muslims and Christians in some parts of the world today. In a psychological context, prejudicing and discriminating against others is a normal cognitive process (Meyer, 2003). In explaining the social identity theory, Tajfel segregated the theory into three social orders; categorization, identification, and comparison. Categorization Categorization is a means of identifying things by attributing some qualities to them. Categorizing is applied when one is trying to understand and identify things. In social psychology, categorization happens in that people understand the social environment by categorizing others and themselves. Some categories can be Asian, Black, thief, or Christian. Categorizing people helps in telling us about them or their groups, and also assists us to know into which groups we belong. Important to note is that a person can belong in more than one group (Crisp & Hewstone, 2006). Identification Identification is the process of adopting the recognition (identity) of the group that one categorizes themselves as belonging to. This is to say that if one categorizes themselves as Christians, then they are likely to start behaving and doing the things that Christians do. Concisely, one conforms to the group’s norms or cultures. Finally, one’s self-esteem and image become bound to their groups of membership (Stapel & Blanton, 2006)). Comparison After one has identified themselves with a particular group and adopted its norms, then they are likely to start comparing their in-group to out-groups. As Lange, Kruglanski, & Higgins (2011) reveal, groups need to acquire superior status in order for their members to achieve high levels of esteem and self-image, and they do this by either praising their groups or demeaning out-groups. When this happens, there arises a competition between the rival groups, and which may escalate into conflict or hostility. This observation, therefore concludes that conflicts are not merely struggles for resources, but for seeking superior identities as well. Realistic Conflict Theory- Muzafer Sherif Sherif’s realistic conflict theory tries to explain group conflicts, stereotyping, and prejudice as arising from inter-group competition for limited resources. In elaborating on his theory, Sherif conducted the famous “Robber’s Cave” experiment. The experiment was constructed by 22 boys with almost similar qualities in terms of age, background and skill who were split into two groups and kept separate at Oklahoma’s Robbers Cave State Park Scouting Camp. They were allowed time to bond between themselves and after they were closely-knit packs, they were introduced to the other out-group and were expected to compete for some trophies. The observation was that each group’s members became tighter and applied scare tactics to scare the other into giving in. Upon being subjected to rather provoking conditions, the two groups began going after each other’s throat, stealing from each other’s camp, calling names when they met, and even taking away the other’s food to victimize them. In the end, the conflict was going overboard to force the research to be concluded lest the boys hurt each other (Green, n.d.). Explanation The overall or dominant observation is that the two groups categorized themselves as in-group and perceived by the other as an out-group. The in-group’s trends were caring and protecting one another while devising means of subjecting the out-group to hard survival. Although the boys were drawn from stable backgrounds and were assumed to be disciplined, the situation, which is competing for limited resources, pushed them into acting as rogues. In Sherif’s theory, this is supportive in that it is seen that conflict between the two triggered discrimination and overly negative attitudes towards the rival group. In application to real life, competing for scarce resources is likely, and in most times throws people into conflict. Conflict develops into hostility between different groups. An application case is evident in the recent Egypt conflict. When the military ousted [Muslim] president Mubarak, the Muslim Brotherhood believed it was the Christians who had orchestrated the coup and went about damaging their property and killing them. In defense, the Coptic Christians fought back. In a psychological context, either group felt it needed to rule, in addition to preserving its dignity and superiority above its rival. At some point in the Robbers Cave experiment, the two groups lacked water after their conflict which pushed them into vandalizing the other’s resources had cut off their water supply. Faced with this problem, the two groups were seen working together to resolve the water problem since they noticed that they could not do it in their context of conflict. This bit of the experimental furthered the observation that group members favor their own constituent members and together unite to fight off the other. This is called in-group bias. The other important observation, according to Taylor & Moghaddam (1994) is that when they were faced with a common problem, both groups ceased the battle and cooperated in resolving the problem. The derivation from this is that when conflicting groups encounter a challenge they cannot resolve alone, they are forced to merge. In short, the experiment found out that sharing a common task such as socializing can resolve intergroup conflicts by reducing discrimination and negative out-group prejudice. Self-categorization theory- John Turner Hornsey (2008) states that John Turner’s perspectives of social identity were based on his self-categorization theory which defines the conditions under which someone can perceive people, including themselves, as a collective group, in addition to the consequences arising from this perception. In his theory, Tuner focused on categorizing, particularly the social cognitive processes which contribute to people’s identification with some groups, identifying themselves using group terminologies, and why they manifest group attributes. In short, the theory is about the relationship between social and personal identity. Turner explains that an individual can brand themselves as “me” or “I”, whereas groups can define themselves as “us” or “we”. Personal identity applies in defining scenarios where someone perceives of themselves to be different and distinct from the rest. Social identity in this context defines a person’s notion of being a member of a particular group, and one that holds some psychological meaning to them. As such, Turner’s theory is supported in its notion that sharing a social identity can alter the nature of the way people relate, resulting in a distinct psychology, which creates optimum conditions for new group contexts such as influence or cooperation to emerge. The self-categorization theory states that when one categorizes themselves as constituting members of a particular group, in-group and out-group differences and/or similarities become more prominent. The level of prominence depends on the relative ability of personal identity compared to social identity. In the event that saliency in social identity is significant, the individual and the group are defined in contexts of prototypes or stereotypes. When it comes to depersonalization, the personal self is redefined, and this means that one apes or assumes the overall qualities of the group they are covered by. As such, it is sufficient to state that the self-categorization theory relies on motivated self-esteem to gain or retain a social identity which is positive. The correlation between the two, for instance, is that a person may acquire motivation from a group which boosts their self-esteem which in turn motivates them to pursue their goals in life. This is not the case in a depersonalized scenario involving a self-centered individual without any specific social identity wherein such a person in unlikely to achieve any motivation since motivation is in most cases acquired externally (Klein, Spears & Reicher, 2007). For instance, in an organization, if a worker perceives of their employing organization as important and positive in their life, then they become motivated to participate in the organization’s struggle towards success. Conclusion In summing up, it is sufficient to state that an individual’s response or perception to life’s situations is far-fetched as the above essay supports. Contrary to what many might assume, that the responses are natural, these responses are actually motivated by larger groupings in society. Better put, people exist in groups which they consciously or unconsciously choose membership to, and it is these groups which influence their reactions to situations. The main responses of an individual are either defense of their group, called an in-group or demeaning of a different group, called an out-group. These two actions are aimed at creating a feel of “superiority” above the out-group, which the theorists state boosts the members’ self-image and esteem. The in-group out-group competition for recognition or general for scarce resources is what amounts to rivalry and finally conflicts in real life. This is because none of the two would agree to be inferior to the other, and in the process of tugging at one another, conflict ensues. However, the same situation, according to the Robbers Cave experiment provides the solution. The solution is in that when rival groups encounter a common problem that they cannot resolve on their own, they tend to cooperate as they strive to solve it; as such, socialization is highlighted as a potential solution to ending prejudice and discrimination in group standoffs. References Crisp, R. J., & Hewstone, M. (2006). Multiple social categorization: Processes, models, and applications. Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press. Green, C. (n.d.). “Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment”. Psyclassics. Accessed on 13th April, 2014 from http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Sherif/ Hogg, M. & Reid, S. (2006). “Social Identity, Self-Categorization, and the Communication of Group Norms.” Communication Theory: International Communication Association, (16). 7-30. Hornsey, M. (2008). “Social Identity and Self-categorization Theory: A Historical Review”. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 204-222. Klein, O., Spears, R. & reicher, S. (2007). “Social Identity Perfomance: Extending the strategic Side of SIDE”. Society for Personality and Social Psychology. 11 (1) 1-8. Lange, P., Kruglanski, A. & Higgins, E. (2011). Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology. SAGE. Meyer, I. (2003). “Prejudice, Social Stress, and Mental Health in Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Populations: Conceptual Issues and Research Evidence”. NCBI. 5 (129). Accessed on 13th April, 2014 from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2072932/ Stapel, D. A., & Blanton, H. (2006). Social comparison theories: Key readings. Hove: Psychology. Tajfel, H. (1974). “Social Identity and Intergroup Behavior”. Social Science Information. (13) 2. Accessed on 13th April, 2014 from http://ssi.sagepub.com/content/13/2/65.full.pdf+html Taylor, D. M., & Moghaddam, F. M. (1994). Theories of intergroup relations: International social psychological perspectives. Westport, Conn: Praeger. Read More