OVERVIEW READINGS

EDP 5285 GROUP PROCESSES GUIDE 1:  INTRODUCTION GUIDE 2: METHODS FOR STUDYING GROUPS GUIDE 3: GROUP STRUCTURE GUIDE 4: ASPECTS OF GROUP STRUCTURE II GUIDE 5: ATTRACTION TO GROUPS GUIDE 6: COHESIVENESS II GUIDE 7: INFLUENCE PROCESSES GUIDE 8: PERFORMANCE & DECISION-MAKING GUIDE 9: LEADERSHIP GUIDE 10: GROUP COOPERATION & CONFLICT

COURSE PAPER PRESENTATION

To this day, I wonder how successful the research team truly was in creating cooperation--or did they fudge a little about how much they succeeded? After all, had children gone home prior to the series of engineered disasters designed to bring the groups together, what would they have told their parents about the camp experience? Would the researchers have been sued, despite the signed consent forms? This series of studies was conducted about 20 years prior to the establishment of institutional review boards (IRBs or Human Subjects Committees) on campus. Would they have been approved? What kind of arguments would you have presented as the Principal Investigator to convince the FSU IRB to approve this research?

Typically we think of conflict occuring across groups and cooperation occuring within groups. Yet factions and exploitation can occur within groups, making cooperation among members difficult. At its worse, the group may become totally dysfunctional and even disintegrate. While we may at first consider the arguments and conflicts of interest that occur within informal friendship groups, here are some formal group examples:

• About 15 years ago, the large Southern Baptist Convention (a religious denomination) fractured into what so far has become three distinct groups, none of which (so far) is as "successful" as the original parent convention. If you hear about "Southern Baptist pronouncements," these days, you had better be sure which Southern Baptists are meant.

• Academic college departments often split in two (or more), and sometimes an entire department may either cease to exist or may be subsumed by another department. Educational Policy at FSU was once part of the Department of Educational Research (now Educational Psychology and Learning Systems), then its own department of Educational Foundations, and is now part of the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies (can you keep this one straight without a scorecard?)

• Corporations may become so internally fractured that the company goes out of business.

While continued competitive interactions may create conflict, a lot probably depends on whether these competitions are within or across groups, and whether these competitions are regularized in some way. Internal competition may be detrimental to group cohesion and lead to members resenting one another. In classrooms, we see this in the use of "curves" for grading. " Win-lose" evaluations or rating systems in employment and other group endeavors can sometimes even lead to the sabotage of others' efforts.

On the other hand, what about teams which play each other on a regular basis, where competition is expected, or "traditional rivalries" such as "brain bowls?" Corporations, too, are regularly ranked by several agencies. Surprisingly, competition can be "good-natured" as well as "cutthroat."

The Johnsons suggest that a "go for the win" strategy or distributed negotiation is most pronounced when parties do not regularly interact and do not anticipate future interaction. Under these circumstances groups do not see mutual interests and may believe that their own negative actions will not have consequences. On the other hand, integrative negotiation, or problem solving attempts to maximize joint benefits should be more common when regular interaction is expected. For example, football teams from adjacent high schools, whose members interact in several other contexts, may still want to win but may also be less likely to engage in truly "dirty" ploys. Supportive evidence has been reported in summaries by Joe Feagin (University of Florida).

For whatever reasons, it appears much easier to create conflict among groups than to create cooperation. Here are some factors that appear to increase animosity across groups:

• Competition for scarce resources. Competition can create conflict both within and across groups. Within groups, individual interests may be at odds with group interests, especially in the short term. "The tragedy of the commons" refers to the tendency of individuals in search of their own interests to deplete group resources faster than they can be replenished. Ultimately all group members, including those who initially profited, are far worse off.

It doesn't take much. For most of us much of the time, resources are short and desirable resources are always short. A tight job market, a selective graduate program, a desirable place to live, next to no raise money, the "big game": free market economists claim competition is supposed to "bring out the best in us." Competition is supposed to make us sharper and more productive. It can. But instead competition, especially fierce competition, can generate sabotage, scapegoating, and conflict across groups. That said, competition theories do not tell us which groups will be scapegoats, or whether the target will be groups rather than random (or lucky) individuals. Competition appears to interact with:

Cultural history of hostilities. Whether competition among groups which have lived close to each other creates hostilities, or whether the rancor created by long-standing stereotypes provides a convenient target for aggression, outgroups are seldom random. Outgroups tend to be low enough in social standing that negative actions taken against them are not met with swift punishment from legitimate authorities or powerful allies. Groups appear to agree on the rank order standing of each other in society (exempting one's own group, see below). Identifiable groups low in power and resources often become scapegoats for many of the groups ranking above them. Sociologists refer to the intersection of race-gender-class to designate groups that may be particularly vulnerable.

Within groups, too, there is often a rank order. Departments within a school or a college may be unobtrusively rated by their fellows in social status. Fraternities may rate women as acceptable dating partners or as sexual fodder. Members of various standing in the military rate the other services--and platoons of their own.
 

• Ingroup solidarity. When groups are internally very cohesive (especially on the interpersonal dimension), they tend to be less friendly toward other groups. This may occur because high levels of cohesion.

• Accentuate social identity. When individuals identify very strongly with a group, they are less friendly toward other groups. You may be surprised to learn how trivially easy it can be to activate social identity. Remember studies early in the semester that found a student's pain tolerance greatly increased if you told him that "Catholics [Jews/fill-in-the-blank] tolerate pain less well than other religious groups." Cultural symbolism (flags, songs, photos, mottos) also activate social identity.

• Diversity. Differences in personal styles (e.g., authoritarianism), gender or ethnicity (different background experiences leading to different expectations), or power differentials can also increase the potential for within or cross group conflict. This is particularly the case if there is fusion across different levels, for example, power differentials coincide with gender. Lower status members will be distrustful and higher status members tend to over-estimate their contributions to a group.

Unfortunately, it is tougher to create cooperation than conflict. If one approach does not work, the advice is: try, try again. Keep in mind that adversarial parties in conflict don't want to meet, don't want to cooperate. In an atmosphere of suspicion, each side fears that any attempts at reconciliation will be seen as weakness or concessions, leading the "advance party" worse off than before.

• Simple contact. The idea that we can simply put together different factions, ethnic groups, gangs, or other "warring" entities in the same room, the same school, or the same neighborhood is popular. Too bad. Not only do groups rarely become more positive toward each other, simple contact appears augmented by selective perception and stereotypes. What happens is that groups typically become more negative toward one another. Contact is seen as the excuse to fuel negative impressions (the Israeli-Palestinian situation provides some vivid examples of this).
 
Part of the problem is that simple group contact is often stratified or unequal contact. For example, when largely White schools are integrated with Hispanic or Black students, Whites are more often placed into Honors classes, and the Hispanic or Black kids, originally from schools with fewer resources, are placed in remedial courses. Thus, White students and their parents look around to see their worst ethnic stereotypes reaffirmed. Anything that segregates a particular group and makes it visible (e.g., "Women's Auxilliaries") will not create more positive cross-group attitudes. Recall, after all, that Southern Whites and Blacks interacted for years--but hardly as status equals.
 
• Contact under pleasant circumstances. Perhaps simple reinforcement theories could work, so the somewhat simple-minded theory goes. We place "warring factions" together to enjoy a pleasant experience such as a meal or a movie. Sad to say, that does not promote cooperation either. In fact, the occasion may provide the opportunity for rival groups to call each other names, "gather more dirt," or even throw food as the Robber's Cave campers did in the Sherif experiments.

• Provide positive information about the other group. Group members don't pay much attention, remember very little, and are highly skeptical about what they do remember. It probably won't hurt, but providing "positive propaganda" about a warring group probably won't help either.

Try some of these suggestions and remember to give any of them some time. It's either to instill suspicion than trust.

• Contact must be equal status. Rival or hostile groups must meet as status equals in the task at hand. It may be difficult to convince group members that the other group is equal overall, but information must be given at the beginning that these groups are equal with respect to the task.

• For several years, the National Science Foundation has been very concerned about the paucity of women and Black or Hispanic minorities in science. Some of the studies they funded have visited college campuses to conduct in-depth interviews with faculty, staff, and administration. One conclusion the NSF has drawn is that inclusion MUST "begin at the top." If top university and college administration appear to support inclusion, the result is an increase in women/minority doctorates awarded, in faculty, and in administration. If support at the top appears lukewarm or non-existent, not much gets done.

• Superordinate goals. This was the most famous conclusion to emerge from the "Robber's Cave" studies. The researchers created a series of disasters that required cooperation from all campers, Rattler and Eagle alike, to solve. For example, the "water pump broke," then the truck "broke down." Both Rattlers and Eagles had to retrieve the necessary parts.

• A variation on superordinate goals is Aronson's Jigsaw Classroom. Aronson and his colleagues created multidimensional tasks and integrated groups. Each child received one piece "of the puzzle" and had to teach other students in the group. Only when all group members contributed could the entire group complete the task. This approach has now been used in school systems all over the United States and is one large portion of what has come to be called cooperative learning.

• Take a problem solving approach. Integrative negotiations are more likely to result in cooperation than distribution negotiations in which people try to maximize payoffs. A focus on what group members (or groups) have in common as well as defining conflict as localized helps to mediate disagreement. Very often, groups "at war" still have common problems.

 

 
 
 

For example, we all must live on the same Earth. All of us, no matter how rich or poor, are possible victims of SARS, the contagious respiratory virus that periodically erupted in 2003 (in fact, the initial victims have tended to be the poor, living under unhealthy and crowded conditions--or the "rich" who could afford to visit Hong Kong or Singapore from Western countries). Clearly, there will be disagreements. Is there "really" a global warming problem? Is SARS a new contagious virus? Opposing sides will war about the definition of the problem, whether there is a problem, and what to do about the problem. In the process, we can only hope each side will see common goals.
 

• Give it time. Aronson (and others) have found that students are initially hostile to members of other ethnic or gender groups. It can take several weeks of working together productively to produce more positive views toward the other group and more interaction.

---

Several cognitive processes can foster cross-group conflict.

• We tend to remember vivid information and information more consistent with existing cognitive structures more easily. All it takes is one vivid incident  about an individual or group ("did you hear what happened in Anthropology last week?") and that information tends to be remembered and generalized.

• In our private lives, we tend to "affirm the consequent," that is, we draw conclusions first, then search for supportive evidence. If, for example, I tell you that someone was born under a particular zodiac sign (say, "The Year of the Dragon" or a "Leo"), you will tend to select, accentuate, and remember information that is consistent with your schema, or cognitive picture, of a "Dragon" or a "Leo."

• The Fundamental Attribution Error. Research indicates that we are more likely to attribute our own actions to the environment, the situation, or other people while we explain the actions of others in terms of their personal characteristics or dispositions. This sets the stage to interpret actions  performed by others as due to intended and personally driven malice or hostility.

When we stereotype, we categorize. We take the people we encounter and place them in a "cognitive bin" with information about other people whom we believe are similar in key respects (such as gender, ethnicity, or age). This is all well and good--people categorize all kinds of objects as a form of cognitive "economy" (do you examine every head of lettuce at the store? or each tube of Colgate toothpaste?). However, stereotypes differ in key sinister ways from other forms of categorization:

• Stereotypes reduce outgroup variation. Members are seen as more alike than they really are (for example, stereotypes about memory loss in older people).

• Stereotypes exaggerate differences between the ingroup and the outgroup. For example, stereotyped individuals will argue that "men are logical and women are emotional" (or "men are from Mars and women are from Venus"...)

• Stereotypes tend to be rigid. When presented with contradictory information about other kinds of objects, people tend to alter their generalizations, at least to some degree. However, we are more likely to defend our stereotypes, claiming the contradictory information is "the exception that proves the rule" or that "most 'Xers' fit the mold." This rigidity suggests that individuals have a kind of vested interest in believing their stereotypes are true. Probably so, since:

• Stereotypes typically rank groups in a social hierarchy or stratification system. No surprise! Ingroups tend to be ranked higher, outgroups ranked lower. The interesting thing is that it is largely rankings of the ingroups that are the most distorted compared with the rankings of others. One study of sororities at Tulane found that "sisters" nearly always rated their own sorority at the top. Their rankings of the other sororities were closely tied to rankings given across campus (with the exception of each woman's own sorority, of course).

• Stereotypes ideologically justify poor treatment of the outgroup. Members of the ingroup carefully explain the necessity for their condescending, segregating, even cruel, behavior toward outgroups. They must treat outgroup members in these ways because outgroup members behave in such shoddy, shabby, even dangerous manners. The cause of the hostilities is attributed to the outgroup. Group members may believe that an outgroup is so threatening that they must engage in "pre-emptive strikes," damaging the outgroup sufficiently so as to prevent harm to themselves. For example, Jim Jones' actions in Jonestown in shooting and killing visiting politicians from the United States were justified by explaining that the politicians had come to harm Jones and the Jonestown community.

Psychology typically locates the genus of action in the individual. Thus, psychologists will treat stereotypes and other ideological factors held by individuals as causal to outgroup hostility and scapegoating. Social psychologists recognize that some causes of our behavior are internal but that others emanate from the environment. Further, social psychology has shown that if people change their behavior (perhaps due to outside forces) and feel committed to that behavior, attitudes will often follow suit and become consistent with the behavior.

What does this mean for the rhetoric of outgroup hostilities? Some conflictual actions toward outgroups no doubt occur because we hold pre-existing negative attitudes toward a particular group. However, it is also possible that because we treat members of a group poorly, we develop hostile attitudes toward them. To admit that we engaged in aggression toward members of another group (including cheating at games, stealing possessions, or even murder) because we were jealous, coveted their resources, felt bad because we had failed at something, or wanted an advantage toward some type of prize could induce considerable shame, guilt and anxiety. To ameliorate these nasty feelings, we convince ourselves that members of the other group "deserve it" because of their derogatory characteristics. Thus, we feel better about ourselves and our actions. We may even glorify ill behavior toward outgroups, convincing ourselves that "society is better off."

---

Once again we return to the combination of high interpersonal cohesion and highly directive leadership that can produce "Groupthink." Several elements that Irving Janis idenitified in the syndrome were: heightened in-group identification; "we-they" thinking; a tendency to denigrate other groups and to see them as inferior to one's own. One's own group was seen as relatively invulnerable.

The guilty party that contributes so much of the research in this section is a strong sense of group identity. Is cross-group antagonism inevitable? Some social and behavior scientists think that it is because competition constantly occurs for valued and scarce goods. On the other hand, insights from game theory and negotiating suggest cautious optimism. By changing the definition of the situation, we may be able to maintain cohesive groups yet minimize outgroup hostility.
 

A SIDE BAR FROM GAME THEORY

Game theorists (e.g., The Prisoner's Dilemma) work with a variety of "payoff matrices" to study how groups and individuals interact. In "zero-sum" games, what one person or group wins, the other loses. This is true in most team sports, wherein only one team can win the game or the tournament. However, zero-sum is not necessarily the case in individual sports such as marathon running, where players are relatively satisfied if they set a "personal best."

In non-zero-sum games, it is possible for all parties to win something, although the payoffs may vary to the different groups. Although the naive outsider often believe that labor and management wage constant war, in fact unions provide a structured and ritualized bargaining situation for both union and administration to "come to the table." Under these circumstances, agreements may be hammered out so that both parties believe they have gained. Superordinate goals tend to create non-zero-sum games.

Of course, so much depends on the relative resources of all parties to the interaction. If a group holds few bargaining chips, there is little incentive for the more powerful group to bargain. The less powerful group may be able to appeal to altruism or to guilt over prior treatment. Less powerful groups may be able to form coalitions  (for example, the "Religious Right" with the economically conservative among Republicans and minorities and working class of all ethnic backgrounds among Democrats) thus making them more equal to groups holding more resources.
 

IS CONFLICT ALL BAD?

Finally, it is important to remember that, although conflict is typically treated as destructive and to be avoided, it can be positive for groups. One does not necessary have to take the Johnsons' position that conflict prevents life from getting boring! (Sometimes boring has a lot of appeal.) Whether across or between groups, conflict can:

• Clarify goals

• Prioritize goals

• Lead to the development of skills

• Strengthen group identity

• Lead to cross-communication across groups that might not occur otherwise

• Develop negotiating skills

• Foster the use of compromise

• Ultimately force groups to cooperate for their own mutual benefit

OVERVIEW

READINGS

This page was built with Netscape Composer.
It is best viewed with Netscape Navigator
600 X 800 display resolution.
Susan Carol Losh April 16 2005