The Social Psychology of Intergroup and International Conflict Resolution

277 Pages·1990·4.944 MB·English

by  Ronald J. Fisher (auth.)

SSSP
Springer
Series in
Social
Psychology
SSSP
Ronald 1. Fisher
The Social Psychology
of Intergroup and
International Conflict
Resolution
Springer-Verlag New York Berlin Heidelberg
London Paris Tokyo Hong Kong
Ronald 1. Fisher
Department of Psychology
University of Saskatchewan
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, S7N OWO
Canada
and
Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security
Ottawa, Ontario, KIR 7X7
Canada
With 14 Illustrations
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Fisher, Ronald J.
The social psychology of intergroup and international conflict
resolution/Ronald 1. Fisher.
p. cm. - (Springer series in social psychology)
Includes bibl iographical references.
ISBN-13: 978-1-4612-7952-5 e-ISBN-13: 978-1-4612-3288-9
001: 10.1007/978-1-4612-3288-9
I. Intergroup relations. 2. Conflict management.
3. International relations. I. Title. II. Series.
HM 13 \. F525 198'9
303.6'9-dc20 89-35512
Printed on acid-free paper.
© 1990 by Springer-Verlag New York Inc.
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1s t edition 1990
All rights reserved. This work may not be translated or copied in whole or in part without the written per
mission of the publisher (Springer-Verlag, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010, USA), except for
brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis. Use in connection with any form of infor
mation storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar meth
odology now known or hereafter developed is forbidden.
The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, etc. in this publication, even if the
former are not especially identified, is not to be taken as a sign that such names, as understood by the
Trade Marks and Merchandise Marks Act, may accordingly be used freely by anyone.
Typeset by Caliber Design Planning, Inc.
987654321
Contents
1. Introduction: The Pervasive Enigma of Intergroup Conflict ...... .
Protracted Social Conflict: The Ultimate Enigma ................. 3
The Social-Psychological Study of Intergroup Conflict ......... : . . . . 5
Challenges for the Study of Intergroup and International Conflict . . . . 8
The Scope and Plan of This Book .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2. Classic Contributions to the Study of Intergroup Conflict. . . . . . . . . 21
Ethnocentrism and Realistic Group Conflict Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
The Field Studies: Sherif, Blake, and Mouton, and Zimbardo ....... 25
Social Identity Theory ....................................... 28
The Groundwork for Eclectic Theory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Conclusion: Implications for Theory, Research, and Practice. . . . . . . . 37
3. Cognitive Theories Applied to Intergroup Conflict
(Peter R. Grant) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
The Effects of Categorizing Individuals into Groups:
The Experimental Evidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Cognitive Theories of Intergroup Relations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Implications for Conflict Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4. Group Factors in the Escalation of Intergroup Conflict. . . . . . . . . . . 59
A Primer on Group Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Self-Esteem, Identity, and Ethnocentrism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Intergroup Conflict and Group Cohesiveness ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Conformity, Polarization, and Groupthink ....................... 68
Crisis Decision Making Versus Effective Problem Solving ... . . . . . . . 74
Contents
VI
Leadership and Constituent Pressure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Implications for Conflict Escalation and De-Escalation. . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
5. An Eclectic Model of Intergroup Conflict ...................... 87
The Approach to Theory Building. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Variables of the Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Principles or Laws of Interaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Boundaries of the Model ..................................... 105
System States of the Model ................................... 108
Propositions of the Model .................................... 112
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
6. The Intergroup Conflict Simulation (Peter R. Grant,
Ronald 1. Fisher, Donald G. Hall, and Loraleigh Keashly). . . . . . . . . . . 117
Development of the Initial ICS Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
The Testing and Refining of the Initial ICS Design ................ 133
Testing the Final ICS Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
7. International Conflict: The Question of Survival . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
The Sources of International Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Perception, Cognition, and Images . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Communication and Interaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
The Social Psychology ofInternational Negotiation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
The De-Escalation of International Conflict. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
8. Social-Psychological Approaches for Resolving Intergroup
and International Conflict ........................ . . . . . . . . . . . 177
The Facilitative Conditions ofIntergroup Contact. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
Approaches to Managing and Resolving Conflict. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
The GRIT Strategy for De-Escalating Conflict. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
Problem-Solving Workshops for Improving Intergroup Relations . . . . . 202
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
9. Third Party Consultation as a Method of Intergroup
and International Conflict Resolution (Ronald 1. Fisher and
Loraleigh Keashly) .......................................... 211
Third Party Consultation ..................................... 213
The Social-Psychological Rationale of Third-Party Consultation. . . . . . 218
Toward a Taxonomy of Third Party Intervention. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
Contents vii
Comparing Consultation and Mediation Using the ICS . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
A Contingency Approach to Third Party Intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
10. Conclusion: Paths Toward a Peaceful World ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Major Themes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Implications for Conflict De-Escalation and Resolution. . . . . . . . . . . . 242
The Agenda for the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
Author Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 269
Subject Index ................................................. 275
Chapter 1
Introduction: The Pervasive Enigma of
Intergroup Conflict
Destructive intergroup conflict is the most complex and costly enigma facing
humankind. It is the preeminent social issue of our time in that it ruthlessly saps the
resources required for human development and productivity, and in the extreme
threatens our very survival. Poorly handled intergroup cleavages occur in a variety
of settings-organizational, communal, international-and the costs of destructive
escalation are readily apparent to all. In organizational settings, badly managed con
flict between workers and management, and among various departments and units,
results in lost work time, lowered morale, and wasted energy. In communal settings,
racial prejudice, discrimination, and tension among ethnic groups breeds inequality
and debilitates the quality of life for many. At the international level, many parts of
the world are aflame with violence while others smoulder, all against the backdrop
of an impending nuclear holocaust.
Yet, immediately, we must also acknowledge the functional aspect of intergroup
conflict as a source of often necessary social change and movement toward justice
and equality. Developed and sustainable societies, while still harboring noticeable
inequities, are those that have found apparently adequate means of addressing con
flicting group interests, at least for the time being. Many other societies are racked
by cleavages between various interest and class groups, each seeking a place in the
sun. Thus, on the moral question of the desirability of intergroup conflict, there are
initially two answers. The first is that conflict simply exists and as such it is neither
good nor bad. It is a central fact of human existence and the first task of social
scientists is to describe and explain it. The second answer is conditional-intergroup
conflict can be good or bad depending on whether it is handled constructively or
destructively. The ideal is that differences are confronted and resolved nonvio
lently and in ways that are mutually acceptable to the groups involved. On this ques
tion, the challenge to the concerned social scientist/practitioner is to search for
means by which the destructiveness of intergroup conflict is reduced while the
benefits of social change are simultaneously realized - an order so tall as to be imme
diately labeled as unrealistic by many. Nonetheless, to accept the realists' prescrip
tion-do nothing-is tantamount to accepting the ongoing tragedy of intergroup
2 1. Introduction: The Pervasive Enigma of Intergroup Conflict
conflict as well as the inevitability of eventual annihilation, and must therefore be
rejected. The study of intergroup conflict and its resolution is an imperative if we
are concerned about understanding human social behavior and improving the
human condition.
There are a number of types of destructive intergroup conflict but nowhere are the
costs more obvious and severe than in that most abhorrent form at the international
level which we label "war." Yet surprisingly, this virulent form of violent confronta
tion continues unabated. Since World War II, depending on the criteria used, some
where in the order of 100 wars have occurred, threatening the well-being of millions
of people in dozens of countries. According to Kende (1978), in the 32 years follow
ing World War II, a total of 120 wars were fought on the territories of 71 countries.
Put in different terms, the total duration of wars in the 32-year period was more than
369 years, and on any single day in the period, an average of 11 wars were being
fought. Kende's criteria include an armed conflict involving activities of regular
armed forces on at least one side, organized fighting on both sides, and a degree of
continuity between armed clashes, however sporadic. The types of wars identified
include "antiregime wars" fought within the territory of a country against the
government in power; "tribal wars" fought between tribal, ethnic, or religious
groups over territory or autonomy; and "border wars" wherein two or more coun
tries fight across their boundaries for territory or other objectives. Kende's analysis
indicates that the most frequent type of war in the modern era is the antiregime war
(73 of 120), often with foreign participation. Tribal wars and border wars are less
frequent (29 and 18 of 120, respectively) and foreign participation in these wars is
not as pronounced. Kende's interpretation is that this pattern is a consequence of the
current political situation in which the disintegration of the colonial system coin
cides with conflict among antagonistic social and political groups, classes, and ten
dencies within the same country. Congruent with this interpretation, the vast
majority of wars are occurring in the Third World, specifically in Asia, Africa, the
Middle East, and Latin America. These wars are primarily internal ones, and as
countries have gained independence, the conflict is more and more between groups
or factions within the same country. The trends identified by Kende (1978) continue
into the present. In its 1987 yearbook, the Stockholm International Peace Research
Institute lists 36 wars currently being fought, all but one in the Third World, and
almost all internal conflicts. These wars involve over 5 million soldiers from 41
countries, with various forms of support from many other countries.
Behind this painful picture of Third World conflagration stands the even more
ominous conflict between the superpowers and their allies holding the horrendous
possibility of worldwide nuclear "omnicide." Although recent moves toward detente
between the Soviet Union and the United States are to be applauded and encouraged,
it must be realized that the arms race continues almost unabated. The agreement on
Intermediate Nuclear Forces in Europe will only reduce the number of nuclear war
heads by approximately 5%. This still leaves each side with approximately 10,000
strategic weapons. The total nuclear arsenal of tactical and strategic weapons is
close to 50,000 and represents over 5,000 times all the explosive force used in World
War II. The first atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, a tactical weapon by today's
standards, killed or maimed 160,000 people and devastated an area of 4V2 square
Protracted Social Conflict: The Ultimate Enigma 3
miles. If a modern, 20-megaton nuclear warhead fell on a typical North American
metropolitan area, for example San Francisco, 2 million people would die within the
first 10 minutes. Another million would be seriously injured, suffering third-degree
burns, deafness, and blindness. As the Physicians for Social Responsibility point
out, medical facilities, many of them destroyed, would be totally inadequate to deal
with such a calamity. On a global scale, the use of even a fraction of existing nuclear
warheads, perhaps as low as 1000, could trigger nuclear winter, an environmental
catastrophe of unheralded proportion (P.R. Ehrlich, 1983; Sagan, 1983; Turco,
Toon, Ackerman, Pollack, & Sagan, 1983). Dust from groundbursts and ash and
soot from firestorms in burning cities and forests would blot out the sun, tempera
tures would drop to below freezing, photosynthesis would stop, crops would die, and
all life would be threatened. Oxides of nitrogen injected into the atmosphere by
nuclear detonations would break down the ozone layer, allowing increased ultravio
let radiation to strike the earth when the skies eventually cleared, blinding animals
and birds, and killing aquatic life that starts the food chain. While estimates of the
severity of nuclear winter vary, the fact is that a nuclear war between the super
powers would set civilization back centuries at a minimum and at a maximum could
annihilate all life on this planet.
The costs, both direct and indirect, of war and the preparedness for war are stag
gering. In 1986, ironically the United Nations International Year of Peace, total
world military expenditures approached 900 billion U.S. dollars (Sivard, 1986). The
United States accounts for about 30% of these expenditures and is ranked 1st in a
number of categories of military activity, yet it stands 10th in public health expendi
tures per capita and 17th in infant mortality rate. Worldwide, three in five govern
ments spend ':TIore on the military than on fighting all the enemies of good health.
One and one-half billion people have no effective medical care and 570 million are
malnourished (Epp~Tiessen, 1987). Of the $950 billion owed by developing coun
tries to the developed ones, arms imports account for 25% thus accentuating the dis
crepancies between the North and the South. At the same time, the continuing
militarization of the planet consumes significant human resources. An estimated 45
million people make up the work force of the world's armed forces, and in develop
ing countries the recruitment of highly skilled workers for military purposes means
that civilian needs go begging. About 20% of the world's scientists and technicians
are engaged in research and development for military purposes, and they spend
about 25% of the resources devoted to such activities. In 4 days, military expendi
tures equal the total yearly budget of the United Nations for international develop
ment. In a world where 40,000 children die in agony every day from starvation and
related illness, this situation can only be regarded as inexplicable and unconscion
able. And yet it exists.
Protracted Social Conflict: The Ultimate Enigma
Intergroup conflict arises in many forms and there are a number of typologies for
categorizing it. Galtung (1965) distinguishes conflict at the individual level from
that at the collective level which may be either intrasystem or intersystem. Thus,
4 1. Introduction: The Pervasive Enigma of Intergroup Conflict
collective conflict may be intranational or international, and Galtung notes that the
introduction of a group level to the scheme would account for conflict within and
between class, ethnic, racial, or other interest groups. Beres and Schmidt (1982) use
Galtung's scheme to help distinguish four predominant areas of conflict research:
social conflict involving structures of dominance and inequity between class or
interest groups within a society, industrial conflict between organized labor and
management groups within an established adversarial system, organizational con
flict involving small groups (units, departments, etc.) within a cooperative system,
and international conflict between nations within the loosely defined global system.
Dahrendorf (cited in Angell, 1965) delineates conflict between various levels of
social units including "groups" (e.g., males and females), "sectors" (e.g., the army
and the navy), and "societies" (e.g., Protestants and Catholics). Suprasocietal rela
tions, then, involve conflict between countries or blocs. Dahrendorfs scheme also
distinguishes among conflicts between equals, and unequals and between the whole
versus a part (e.g., the state versus the criminal gang).
Building on these schemes, the current analysis distinguishes various forms of
intergroup conflict primarily on the basis of the level of the overarching system.
Thus, intergroup conflicts can be located at the organizational, communal, societal,
and international levels. Intergroup conflict in organizations occurs between various
structural groupings such as departments, between levels such as executive and mid
dle management, and between labor and owners/managers as in classic industrial
conflict. In communal settings, intergroup conflict is often expressed between eth
nic, racial, religious, and gender groups and is usually noticeable through the exis
tence of prejudice and discriminations as well as the occasional outburst of violence.
These intergroup cleavages may also be expressed at the societal level in the form
of social issues (e.g, racism, poverty) and are joined by conflict between classes,
political groups, or other broad sectors of society, such as the military-industrial
complex, the environmental lobby, and various other social movements. Finally, at
the international level there is conflict between nations and blocs that is often inter
twined with intergroup cleavages at the societal and communal levels. It is this inter
mixing of levels and issues that produces the most enigmatic and irresolvable form
of intergroup cleavage-protracted social conflict.
There exist in the world today a number of intense intergroup conflicts, some
between and some within nations, that appear intractable. A continuing state of ten
sion is heightened by episodes of escalation often involving violence, which is typi
cally terminated by mutual exhaustion and/or some form of peacekeeping.
Traditional approaches to conflict management prove ineffective and the underlying
issues move no closer to resolution. Examples of such conflicts at various points of
longevity and expression include those· in the Middle East, Northern Ireland,
Cyprus, Lebanon, United States-Soviet Union, India-Pakistan, South Africa, Kam
puchea, Sri Lanka, Iran-Iraq, the Horn of Africa, EI Salvador, and Nicaragua.
Numerous other conflicts of a similar but less intense nature exist throughout the
world, awaiting the process of escalation to increase their intensity and visibility.
This type of seemingly intractable intergroup conflict has recently been labeled
"protracted social conflict" by Azar (1983) to denote its ongoing and seemingly