Intergroup Harmony

Last updated

Intergroup harmony is a branch of social psychology which is often studied within the framework of Social Identity Theory [1] It is important for many reasons including reduced prejudice, [2] increased psychological well-being, [3] increased economic status, [4] and increased identity security for members of both groups. [1] Two main theories have been put forward for the achievement of intergroup harmony. The contact hypothesis suggests that increased contact leads to higher levels of harmony, and the presence of subordinate goals can help groups in conflict to overcome their differences. Intergroup harmony can be applied in many real world applications including in education, the workplace and family dynamics; however there have also been criticisms for this theory, as not all situations of intergroup harmony will lead to a positive outcome.

Contents

Definition and importance

Intergroup harmony can be defined as the state of peaceful coexistence between the members of different societal, cultural, political, ethnic or identity groups, where there is an understanding from both groups to achieve common, shared goals, and a reduction in feelings of prejudice, discrimination or stereotyping. [2] [5] [6] On the intergroup relations continuum (IRC), harmony falls on the extreme, with conflict as the other extreme, and is viewed as the goal for group situations, due to the minimal prejudice that occurs, [7] and is therefore essential for enhancing and enriching collaboration in diverse societies and its importance has led to many decades of research about the most effective way to reach the optimum level of intergroup harmony.

Intergroup harmony varies cross-culturally. [8] There are currently two well-recognised cultures in the world: collectivist and individualistic. To measure the cross-cultural differences between intergroup harmony, one study measured the levels of interpersonal forgiveness of a person depending on how close they feel to the offender. [8] It was found that in both cultures there is a positive association between closeness to offender and forgiveness; however, in collectivist cultures, this association was weaker, due to the social norms of collectivist cultures in maintaining a level of intergroup harmony in the community, which could not be maintained by the offender. [9] This demonstrates the differences in cultures, where intergroup harmony is more highly emphasised in collectivist cultures.

The main, and arguably, most important reason for promoting, achieving and maintaining intergroup harmony is the reduction of prejudice and discrimination between groups of people. Lower levels of stereotyping and biases lead to lower levels of violence and tension between groups, creating a peaceful coexistence. [2] [5] Another reason for the importance of intergroup harmony is the increase in psychological well-being for members of all groups. [3] When group members experience negative interactions with other groups, this can lead to enhanced feelings of anxiety, stress, worry or even fear, therefore reaching a state of harmony will decrease these negative emotions, leading to higher levels of wellbeing. [3] This can also lead to higher levels of economic success in certain communities, where as intergroup harmony has increased, the need to spend money on legal disputes or civil unrest is decreased, meaning the money can be used in other domains, to improve the economy or create more opportunity for the members of the community. [4] It leads to higher levels of identity security, as people feel a sense of belonging to a wider group, therefore they can maintain their own unique identity, without the worry of being marginalised or isolated within their own group. [1]

Achieving Intergroup Harmony

Intergroup harmony is important to obtain in any situation where members of diverse groups are present. The ways in which to maximally achieve harmony have been debated; however three main theories have emerged: the contact hypothesis, [2] the presence of subordinate goals, [10] and more recently the use of music and sports to promote harmony. [11] [7]

The Contact Hypothesis

Social psychologist Gordon Allport, who first proposed the Contact Hypothesis for intergroup harmony Gordon Allport.gif
Social psychologist Gordon Allport, who first proposed the Contact Hypothesis for intergroup harmony

The Contact Hypothesis is a theory of social psychology associated with intergroup conflict and harmony, first proposed by Allport in his book, The Nature of Prejudice, [2] which suggests that intergroup harmony can be achieved through structured, meaningful contact between groups. Nineteenth century social psychology was dominated by the view that intergroup contact did not achieve harmony, but instead led to conflict between groups; however, following the end of the Second World War, views began to turn optimistic. Psychologists started to circulate views that intergroup experiences led to a mutual understanding and harmony. [12] [13]

Allport's theory itself drew on previous research about desegregation in the workplace and housing options for black people in the USA. [12] He came to the conclusion that the way to maximally reduce prejudice and achieve a state of intergroup harmony was to increase intergroup contact when four factors were present:

  1. Equal status between groups
  2. Common goals
  3. Intergroup cooperation
  4. The support of higher authority

When all four of these conditions were met, intergroup harmony was achieved. However, he warned that without these conditions, the same contact can lead to increased prejudice, and it is important to account for inconsistencies. [2] In 1998, Pettigrew set out a fifth condition that must be met in order for intergroup contact to have a significant effect: friendship potential. [6] It states that the interaction must provide the opportunity for group members to become friendly with one another and this will lead to the highest levels of intergroup harmony.

Subordinate Goals

Another way to achieve intergroup harmony, which was also proposed in the 1950s, was through subordinate (shared) goals between outgroups. This idea was introduced by Muzafer Sherif, during his 'Robber's Cave' experiment'. [10] 22 boys, aged 11, were sent to a summer camp in Oklahoma and separated into 2 groups, each with their own stereotypes and shared group culture. It was hypothesized that the hostile attitudes that developed between the groups could be overcome when the need to cooperate in order to achieve subordinate goals was present. Situations were created throughout the summer camp where the two groups had to come together to reach a shared goal, for example pooling money to rent a movie, and it was found that the win-win situations for both groups had the positive effect of reducing the prejudice and discrimination the groups felt towards each other, and increasing harmony in the camp. [10]

Music and Sport

In the past, music has been a means of appearing threatening or inciting hatred within ingroups; however, it can also be an effective way of promoting intergroup harmony in many different cultures. Lyrics can be a way of publishing and explicitly projecting messages of encouragement, tolerance and harmony, through engaging, enjoyable means that many different people will listen to. [11] Music can be seen as an emotive, effective communication method used across much of the intergroup landscape.

Team sports, such as cricket, have been proposed as a way of promoting intergroup harmony through a shared goal Australia vs India.jpg
Team sports, such as cricket, have been proposed as a way of promoting intergroup harmony through a shared goal

Sports can provide an opportunity for groups to meet with the distraction from their own social categorisations, and a subordinate goal to play or perform in a sport. [7] It can allow those from closed identity groups to highlight their existing commonalities with other groups, leading to a higher level of intergroup harmony, as they feel a closer sense of belonging to the wider identity group, once their commonalities have been emphasised. [7] However, much of the research done on sporting as a way of promoting intergroup harmony has been rather anecdotal, and further, empirical evidence is needed to strongly support this theory. [7]

Applications

Exposure to intergroup harmony in education leads to higher levels of intergroup harmony as the students leave schools, and enter the world. One way in which intergroup conflict is found to manifest itself in schools is through the form of racism. Interventions in primary schools, such as the Building Harmony intervention, have provided evidence for the effectiveness of increasing intergroup harmony by reducing racism in younger children, and although evidence was tenuous in the first study, further studies have provided strong evidence for the measure as a way of reducing racism in schools, therefore leading to higher levels of intergroup harmony. [14]

A second way intergroup harmony can be applied to the real world is in the workplace, where intergroup harmony creates motivated employers, who do efficient, high quality work. In workplaces all over the world, intergenerational conflict can cause ineffective work, due to the ageism faced by both older and younger co-workers. To stop these issues, it is important to create a harmonious working environment. [15] Recently, it was found that when intergroup harmony was achieved via a higher level of quality contact time between the two age groups in the office, task and relationship conflict was highly decreased, leading to more efficient and happier colleagues, which in turn leads to the production of higher quality work. [15] Intergroup harmony is also important in the workplace for diversity, as marginalised outgroups can work together with other groups to reduce negative stereotypes in a controlled environment. [16] This even has wider connotations in the world of social change, as intergroup harmony can foster social change in many other aspects of life. [16]

Intergroup harmony can also be important in the blending of stepfamilies to create a safe, loving environment where children can grow up. As stepfamilies have often been described as the 'less cohesive and more stressful' family type, [17] increasing intergroup harmony can increase the cohesion of these families. When the whole family is viewed as one group, children have reported feeling an elevated sense of harmony in the family, leading to higher levels of psychological well-being and greater positive contact from all members. [18]

Criticism

Intergroup harmony has many implications in the real world, and often involves cooperative, positive interactions; however, when power dynamics are not considered, these encounters can fall through. When power dynamics are ignored, the lower status group seeks to reach a more equal state, whereas the higher status group attempts to maintain the current equality level. This leads to differing views about the current state of equality and can cause negative attitudes towards the groups, as they are no longer attempting to reach a shared goal, but instead attempting to reach different goals, which benefit their ingroup more than the outgroup. [19] This can lead to conflict, even when the initial aim was to reach a harmonious state.

Furthering from causing conflict due to power inequalities, intergroup harmony can also lead people to have false expectations about equality. [20] When contact between two groups was commonality based, outgroup members expected more fairness from ingroup members, as tested by an experiment, when students were separated into two lab groups, and the ingroup were assigned to divide credits to the outgroup members. [20] Before the assignment of credits, members of both groups met and discussed common features. This led to the belief from outgroup members that they would be given a higher number of credits than they were actually given. The intergroup harmony they felt from interacting with the outgroup led them to form false expectations about the equality between the two groups, which can create conflict in the future. [20]

In addition, intergroup harmony does not work for every situation. Interactions that promote harmony can lead to the suppression of differences within groups, causing further negative attitudes towards the other group, and contact with the sole desire of coexistence will not actually improve relations between groups. [21] In 2011, Maoz provided evidence for this theory using the attempts for coexistence between Israeli Jews and Palestinians. [21] Although there is much research on the promotion of intergroup harmony in general, little is said about promoting harmony in groups who are facing protracted asymmetrical disputes, and attempts to promote intergroup harmony can also lead to further problems between these groups, as contact can cause distress and lead to further negative attitudes about the other group. [21]  

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prejudice</span> Attitudes based on preconceived categories

Prejudice can be an affective feeling towards a person based on their perceived social group membership. The word is often used to refer to a preconceived evaluation or classification of another person based on that person's perceived personal characteristics, such as political affiliation, sex, gender, gender identity, beliefs, values, social class, friendship, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race, ethnicity, language, nationality, culture, complexion, beauty, height, body weight, occupation, wealth, education, criminality, sport-team affiliation, music tastes or other perceived characteristics.

Group dynamics is a system of behaviors and psychological processes occurring within a social group, or between social groups. The study of group dynamics can be useful in understanding decision-making behaviour, tracking the spread of diseases in society, creating effective therapy techniques, and following the emergence and popularity of new ideas and technologies. These applications of the field are studied in psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, epidemiology, education, social work, leadership studies, business and managerial studies, as well as communication studies.

In-group favoritism, sometimes known as in-group–out-group bias, in-group bias, intergroup bias, or in-group preference, is a pattern of favoring members of one's in-group over out-group members. This can be expressed in evaluation of others, in allocation of resources, and in many other ways.

In psychology and other social sciences, the contact hypothesis suggests that intergroup contact under appropriate conditions can effectively reduce prejudice between majority and minority group members. Following WWII and the desegregation of the military and other public institutions, policymakers and social scientists had turned an eye towards the policy implications of interracial contact. Of them, social psychologist Gordon Allport united early research in this vein under intergroup contact theory.

In social psychology, superordinate goals are goals that are worth completing but require two or more social groups to cooperatively achieve. The idea was proposed by social psychologist Muzafer Sherif in his experiments on intergroup relations, run in the 1940s and 1950s, as a way of reducing conflict between competing groups. Sherif's idea was to downplay the two separate group identities and encourage the two groups to think of themselves as one larger, superordinate group. This approach has been applied in many contexts to reduce intergroup conflict, including in classrooms and business organizations. However, it has also been critiqued by other social psychologists who have proposed competing theories of intergroup conflict, such as contact theory and social categorization theory.

Social identity is the portion of an individual's self-concept derived from perceived membership in a relevant social group.

Realistic conflict theory (RCT), also known as realistic group conflict theory (RGCT), is a social psychological model of intergroup conflict. The theory explains how intergroup hostility can arise as a result of conflicting goals and competition over limited resources, and it also offers an explanation for the feelings of prejudice and discrimination toward the outgroup that accompany the intergroup hostility. Groups may be in competition for a real or perceived scarcity of resources such as money, political power, military protection, or social status.

Self-categorization theory is a theory in social psychology that describes the circumstances under which a person will perceive collections of people as a group, as well as the consequences of perceiving people in group terms. Although the theory is often introduced as an explanation of psychological group formation, it is more accurately thought of as general analysis of the functioning of categorization processes in social perception and interaction that speaks to issues of individual identity as much as group phenomena. It was developed by John Turner and colleagues, and along with social identity theory it is a constituent part of the social identity approach. It was in part developed to address questions that arose in response to social identity theory about the mechanistic underpinnings of social identification.

The self-expansion model proposes that individuals seek to expand their sense of self by acquiring resources, broadening their perspectives, and increase competency to ultimately optimize their ability to thrive in their environment. It was developed in 1986 by Arthur Aron and Elaine Aron to provide a framework for the underlying experience and behavior in close relationships. The model has two distinct but related core principles: the motivational principle and the inclusion-of-other-in-self principle. The motivational principle refers to an individual's inherent desire to improve their self-efficacy and adapt, survive, and reproduce in their environment. The inclusion-of-other-in-self principle posits that close relationships serve as the primary way to expand our sense of self as we incorporate the identities, perspectives, resources, and experiences of others as our own through these relationships.

The imagined contact hypothesis is an extension of the contact hypothesis, a theoretical proposition centred on the psychology of prejudice and prejudice reduction. It was originally developed by Richard J. Crisp and Rhiannon N. Turner and proposes that the mental simulation, or imagining, of a positive social interaction with an outgroup member can lead to increased positive attitudes, greater desire for social contact, and improved group dynamics. Empirical evidence supporting the imagined contact hypothesis demonstrates its effectiveness at improving explicit and implicit attitudes towards and intergroup relations with a wide variety of stigmatized groups including religious minorities, the mentally ill, ethnic minorities, sexual minorities, and obese individuals. Researchers have identified a number of factors that influence the effectiveness of the imagined contact hypothesis including vividness of the imagery and how typical the imagined outgroup individual is. While some researchers question the effectiveness of the imagined contact hypothesis, empirical evidence does suggest it is effective at improving attitudes towards outgroups.

Intergroup anxiety is the social phenomenon identified by Walter and Cookie Stephan in 1985 that describes the ambiguous feelings of discomfort or anxiety when interacting with members of other groups. Such emotions also constitute intergroup anxiety when one is merely anticipating interaction with members of an outgroup. Expectations that interactions with foreign members of outgroups will result in an aversive experience is believed to be the cause of intergroup anxiety, with an affected individual being anxious or unsure about a number of issues. Methods of reducing intergroup anxiety and stress including facilitating positive intergroup contact.

The common ingroup identity model is a theoretical model proposed by Samuel L. Gaertner and John F. Dovidio that outlines the processes through which intergroup bias may be reduced. Intergroup bias is a preference for one's in-group over the out-group. Derived from the social identity approach to intergroup behaviour, the common ingroup identity model is rooted in the process of social categorization, or how people conceive of group boundaries. The model describes how intergroup bias can be reduced if members of different groups can be induced to conceive of themselves to be part of the same group, then they would develop more positive attitudes of the former outgroup members. An individual will change the way they view the out-group through a social categorization process called recategorization where former out-group members become incorporated into individual's representations of the in-group.

There is a great deal of research on the factors that lead to the formation of prejudiced attitudes and beliefs. There is also a lot of research on the consequences of holding prejudiced beliefs and being the target of such beliefs. It is true that advances have been made in understanding the nature of prejudice. A consensus on how to end prejudice has yet to be established, but there are a number of scientifically examined strategies that have been developed in attempt to solve this social issue.

Integrated threat theory (ITT), also known as intergroup threat theory, is a theory in psychology and sociology which attempts to describe the components of perceived threat that lead to prejudice between social groups. The theory applies to any social group that may feel threatened in some way, whether or not that social group is a majority or minority group in their society. This theory deals with perceived threat rather than actual threat. Perceived threat includes all of the threats that members of group believe they are experiencing, regardless of whether those threats actually exist. For example, people may feel their economic well-being is threatened by an outgroup stealing their jobs even if, in reality, the outgroup has no effect on their job opportunities. Still, their perception that their job security is under threat can increase their levels of prejudice against the outgroup. Thus, even false alarms about threat still have "real consequence" for prejudice between groups.

Intergroup relations refers to interactions between individuals in different social groups, and to interactions taking place between the groups themselves collectively. It has long been a subject of research in social psychology, political psychology, and organizational behavior.

In social psychology, a metastereotype is a stereotype that members of one group have about the way in which they are stereotypically viewed by members of another group. In other words, it is a stereotype about a stereotype. They have been shown to have adverse effects on individuals that hold them, including on their levels of anxiety in interracial conversations. Meta-stereotypes held by African Americans regarding the stereotypes White Americans have about them have been found to be largely both negative and accurate. People portray meta-stereotypes of their ingroup more positively when talking to a member of an outgroup than to a fellow member of their ingroup.

Diversity ideology refers to individual beliefs regarding the nature of intergroup relations and how to improve them in culturally diverse societies. A large amount of scientific literature in social psychology studies diversity ideologies as prejudice reduction strategies, most commonly in the context of racial groups and interracial interactions. In research studies on the effects of diversity ideology, social psychologists have either examined endorsement of a diversity ideology as individual difference or used situational priming designs to activate the mindset of a particular diversity ideology. It is consistently shown that diversity ideologies influence how individuals perceive, judge and treat cultural outgroup members. Different diversity ideologies are associated with distinct effects on intergroup relations, such as stereotyping and prejudice, intergroup equality, and intergroup interactions from the perspectives of both majority and minority group members. Beyond intergroup consequences, diversity ideology also has implications on individual outcomes, such as whether people are open to cultural fusion and foreign ideas, which in turn predict creativity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fiona A. White</span> Australian psychologist

Fiona A. White is an Australian academic. She is a professor of social psychology at the University of Sydney, Australia, and director of the Sydney University Psychology of Intergroup Relations (SUPIR) Lab., and degree coordinator of the Bachelor of Liberal Arts and Science (BLAS). She has been a lead author on four editions of Developmental Psychology: From Infancy to Adulthood. White is known as the developer of the E-contact intervention, a synchronous online tool that has been found to reduce anxiety, prejudice, and stigma.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Recategorization</span> Phenomenon in social psychology

In social psychology, recategorization is a change in the conceptual representation of a group or groups. When deliberate, recategorization is often encouraged in order to mitigate bias by making salient a common ingroup identity that encompasses the group identities of the preexisting categorization. This common ingroup identity is more inclusive than the preexisting group identities, changing conceptions of an "us" ingroup and a "them" outgroup into a "we" superordinate group, and can result in ingroup bias towards former outgroups and an increase in prosocial behavior. Common ingroup identities can be built around superordinate goals, perceived shared fate, or preexisting superordinate group identities, and are supported by positive intergroup contact.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Intergroup harmony</span>

Intergroup harmony refers to having a positive and harmonious relationship within the group. The characteristic of this concept is that the members within the same group respect each other, and prejudice and conflict are reduced. The main component of this concept would be the members within the same group having equal status and cooperation among the group. This is essential for cultivating intergroup harmony because cooperation and equal status create a condition to reduce bias and enhance mutual understanding within the group. There are several approaches to foster harmony among the group. One of the methods is keeping positive intergroup contact, which helps reduce stereotypes and prejudices. Also, using dual-identity frameworks and electronic contact would be effective in improving relationships and alleviating intergroup anxiety. However, there is a possibility that intergroup harmony brings negative impacts to the group. Harmony may sustain inequalities if there are power imbalances that have not yet been addressed and the intervention did not consider social, political, and cultural contexts. This concept is provided by the Social Identity Theory and Contact Theory and is the theoretical basis for understanding and improving intergroup relations.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). "An integrative theory of intergroup conflict." In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading/Addison-Wesley.
  3. 1 2 3 Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2013). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In Reducing prejudice and discrimination, 23-45. Psychology Press.
  4. 1 2 Putnam, R.D. (2007), E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30: 137-174. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x
  5. 1 2 Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of personality and social psychology, 90(5), 751.
  6. 1 2 Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual review of psychology, 49(1), 65-85.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 Sugden, J. (2017). Sport and integration: An exploration of group identity and intergroup relations in Fiji (Doctoral dissertation, University of Technology Sydney (Australia)).
  8. 1 2 Karremans, J. C., Regalia, C., Paleari, F. G., Fincham, F. D., Cui, M., Takada, N., Ohbuchi, K.-I., Terzino, K., Cross, S. E., & Uskul, A. K. (2011). Maintaining Harmony Across the Globe: The Cross-Cultural Association Between Closeness and Interpersonal Forgiveness. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(5), 443-451. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550610396957
  9. ↑ Markus, H. R. (1991). Cultural variation in the self-concept. The Self: Interdisplinary approaches/Springer.
  10. 1 2 3 Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment. Norman, OK: University Book Exchange
  11. 1 2 Harwood, J. (2017). Music and intergroup relations: Exacerbating conflict and building harmony through music. Review of Communication Research, 5, 1-34. doi:10.12840/issn.2255- 4165.2017.05.01.012
  12. 1 2 Williams Jr, R. M. (1947). The reduction of intergroup tensions: A survey of research on problems of ethnic, racial, and religious group relations. Social Science Research Council Bulletin.
  13. ↑ Lett, H. A. (1945). Techniques for achieving interracial cooperation. Proceedings of the Institute on Race Relations and Community Organization.
  14. ↑ Grigg, K., & Manderson, L. (2014). Building harmony: reducing and measuring racism in Australian schools. Australian Commun Psychol, 26(2), 68-89.
  15. 1 2 Drury, L., & Fasbender, U. (2024). Fostering intergenerational harmony: Can good quality contact between older and younger employees reduce workplace conflict?. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 97(4), 1789-1812.
  16. 1 2 Di Bernardo, G. A., Vezzali, L., Birtel, M. D., Stathi, S., Ferrari, B., Giovannini, D., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2022). The role of optimal conditions and intergroup contact in promoting positive intergroup relations in and out of the workplace: A study with ethnic majority and minority workers. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 25(6), 1516-1533. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302211010929
  17. ↑ Anderson, J. Z., & White, G. D. (1986). An empirical investigation of interaction and relationship patterns in functional and dysfunctional nuclear families and stepfamilies. Family Process, 25(3), 407-422.
  18. ↑ Banker, B. S., & Gaertner, S. L. (1998). Achieving stepfamily harmony: An intergroup-relations approach. Journal of Family Psychology, 12(3), 310.
  19. ↑ Saguy, T. (2018). Downside of Intergroup Harmony? When Reconciliation Might Backfire and What to Do. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5(1), 75-81. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732217747085
  20. 1 2 3 Saguy, T., Tausch, N., Dovidio, J. F., & Pratto, F. (2009). The Irony of Harmony: Intergroup Contact Can Produce False Expectations for Equality. Psychological Science, 20(1), 114-121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02261.x
  21. 1 2 3 Maoz, I. (2011). Does contact work in protracted asymmetrical conflict? Appraising 20 years of reconciliation-aimed encounters between Israeli Jews and Palestinians. Journal of Peace Research, 48(1), 115-125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343310389506
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.