The Hidden Code of Connection – Part 3 : Us vs. Them: The Psychology of Intergroup Conflict and Identity

From Interpersonal Conflict to Group Identity

To understand social conflict fully, analysis must shift from the individual’s perspective to the intergroup perspective, recognizing that individuals categorize themselves as group members. This intergroup mindset—thinking in terms of competition rather than personal differences—profoundly affects behavior. Musaf Sherif’s research set the stage for this understanding, moving beyond intragroup processes (like conformity) to focus on how comparisons between one’s own group and others affect prejudice and hostility.

Sherif first proposed the realistic group conflict theory, which holds that prejudice and hostility are rational results of competition for scarce resources. This theory appears consistent with real-world conflicts over land or oil, and the rise of anti-immigration sentiment during economic recessions when jobs are scarce. Sherif tested this theory in a series of longitudinal, quasi-experimental studies, the summer camp studies, conducted in Oklahoma in the 1950s.

In Stage 1, boys arriving at the camp were randomly divided into two groups (“Rattlers” and “Eagles”). Sherif immediately observed the development of spontaneous social comparisons and group icons. In Stage 2, competitive games were introduced for prized rewards. This competition led to a dramatic rise in tension, culminating in physical attacks on the opposing group’s icon and cabin, suppressing nearly all interpersonal thinking. However, Sherif’s work also suggested that categorization alone might be sufficient to incite conflict, as spontaneous derogation occurred in Stage 1 before competition was introduced.

The Minimal Seeds of Discrimination

This possibility was explored by Henri Tajfel, who developed the minimal group paradigm (MGP) in the 1970s. The MGP sought to create an ad hoc basis for categorization, using arbitrary criteria like preference for abstract paintings by Paul Klee or Wassily Kandinsky, with allocation to the groups being entirely random and meaningless. Crucially, participants assigned points to their own group (ingroup) and the other group (outgroup) but could not gain personally from the allocations, eliminating the element of competition for resource or self-interest.

Tajfel found a persistent tendency for participants to allocate more points to people in their own group compared to the outgroup. This established the mere categorization effect: a tendency to favor “us” over “them” even when group identities are meaningless, lacking history, conflict, or self-interest. An “ultra-minimal” study confirmed that bias persisted even when categorization was based simply on a coin toss, supporting the idea that categorization is the psychological core of intergroup bias.

Further analysis of the MGP revealed that participants often chose an allocation strategy that maximized the difference in points between the ingroup and outgroup, even if it meant sacrificing overall profit for the ingroup. This maximal differentiation strategy is explained by the category differentiation model: the social mind is motivated to create simple and distinct representations of its social environment, making the world easier to predict.

Identity and the Drive for Positive Distinction

However, the category differentiation model struggles to explain why differentiation is always ingroup-favoring. To account for this, Tajfel and John Turner proposed social identity theory, which asserts that, in addition to clarity, we use groups to boost our self-esteem. We experience pride and positive feelings vicariously through the achievements of the groups to which we belong.

This phenomenon, called “basking in reflected glory,” was demonstrated by Robert Cialdini, who observed that after a football win, supporters were more likely to wear team regalia and use collective pronouns like “We won!”. This desire for a positive social identity provides the motivation to favor one’s own group over others, thus driving intergroup bias. The perceived status and core qualities of the group also influence how leaders are viewed; leaders who fit the social identity projected by the group are seen positively.

Strategies for Reconciliation and Tolerance

Recall that in Stage 3 of Sherif’s summer camp studies, introducing cooperative goals (like working together to push-start a bus) successfully reduced conflict. This inspired the common ingroup identity model, which argues that cooperation promotes recategorization. Instead of representing the world as “us” versus “them,” people shift to a single, inclusive “we”. This approach is effective because it redirects the social mind’s pervasive tendency to categorize.

This process aligns with Gordon Allport’s seminal idea, the contact hypothesis, which holds that contact decreases conflict, but only under specific conditions. These four key criteria are crucial for successful integration:

1. Social norms favoring equality: There must be institutional support (laws, policies) promoting integration. This creates cognitive dissonance if discriminatory attitudes conflict with non-discriminatory behavior, compelling attitude change.
2. Acquaintance potential: Contact must be intimate, frequent, and long-lasting enough to develop meaningful relationships.
3. Equal social status: Minority groups should not interact as subordinates, ensuring an equal share of responsibility.
4. Cooperative interaction: Contact must be cooperative, ideally characterized by mutual interdependence and shared rewards, maximizing the chance of forming a common ingroup identity.

However, direct contact is often impossible where it is most needed. A solution lies in imagined contact, where mentally simulating a positive interaction reduces apprehension and bias. This taps directly into the social mind’s desire to build mental models by enhancing the availability of positive contact scripts and schemas.