The following is a summary of two studies on intergroup conflict performed nearly 60 years apart. This summary will highlight the similarities, differences, and options for reducing intergroup conflict then and now. 1958 Sherif (1958) was frustrated with the lack of a generalized approach to reducing intergroup conflict. Many approaches to reducing intergroup conflict have been studied, but there has been no consistent correlation of what worked, when, and how. To get a better understanding of the different types of conflict, Sherif explored group conflict during wars, between religious groups, opposing street gangs, and during strikes. Understanding the dynamics of ingroup and outgroup behavior, Sherif hypothesized that he could create …show more content…
Sherif did this by creating competitive opportunities where one group had to win over the other to get the desired prize. The results of this experiment were that the groups displayed the same behaviors identified in the intergroup conflicts explored in the paper; derogatory statements about and harassment towards the other group, negative stereotyping, physical aggression, and the eventual distancing of themselves from one another. The ingroup cohesion grew stronger as the outgroup hostility grew. The next phase was to reduce the intergroup conflict. Sherif explored six activities and tested two in this phase of the study; social contact and introduction of superordinate goals. The social contact, eating together, watching a movie, or other entertainment engagement, had the opposite effect. These interactions resulted in more name calling and physical hostility. The superordinate goals, such as; obtaining either food or water when needed or procuring a desired movie, did work. The intergroup conflict diminished and, with the introduction of each new superordinate goal, the intergroup dynamics became more favorable. Sherif’s findings were new to the research and should have led future researchers to replicate his results. However, research took a detour as identified by Wright, Mazziotta, and Tropp (2017). …show more content…
323) as being successful at changing all three levels of social interaction, referencing Sherif (1958) as the start of the idea of superordinate goals being the key to reducing hostility and violence between two groups. The authors use world peace negotiations as an example of how a higher-level goal for both groups, resulted in more amicable relationships between the negotiating groups. With real world examples of the positive results from successful negotiations, the authors recommend using a negotiation model in future research and studies to test the hypothesis - negotiations that leave the parties equally content lead to stronger more amicable relationships between the two
For example, in a communal society that focuses heavily on shame, issues will not be directly addressed, but nonetheless, addressed in some manner (Elm-p54; 98). So, in some cases, conflict and unity can still exist especially with proper management like the given examples of a mediator or submitting to
The model is an element of conflict theory that views racial personality not just as a consequence of negative perception between different racial groups but as a reflection of the competition and conflict between the same groups over power and status. The model roots its argument in a collective group position with the group interest being the driving force that underlie the relation between the groups. Most of the group interest are attached to the beliefs of the members that they have claims to the scarce resources. The attitude of the dominant group towards other racial groups are positional: a term that defines the shape of the sense of the supremacy of the groups over other minority groups. On the other hand, the subordinate group is usually motivated by unfair treatment by the dominant group.
Even in a society that, overall, is diverse, people with similar ideas and experiences tend to congregate in small groups, where they are comfortable. It is much easier to remain in homogenous groups, among those who understand each other. When different groups combine, many different life experiences and points of view will be present and will potentially clash. Misunderstanding is bound to occur in some form when individuals of different backgrounds interact. When misunderstandings occur, people tend to respond with violence, fear, or stereotyping.
Throughout history groups have worked together to profit and develop relations. In Asia the countries and groups of people developed the Silk Road, in Rome, the districts owned by the lords that governed them worked with the roman emperor to create a road system. But, these countries who have worked together have sometimes manipulated each other and took advantage of each other. Therefore, when groups work together they can create positive ideas, but in the end have negative outcomes.
Without peace, it would be hard to achieve certain levels of trust, cooperation, and inclusiveness for societies to be united and resilient. In 2001 when
They try to smooth over or ignore conflict to keep everybody happy, they see conflict as destructive and will give in to others to maintain the peace (Page 38), Bryan is a very good Illustration of accommodation he sacrifice his needs for the group, he share’s his lunch with John, he writes the last easy for the group, he maintain peace among the group when john and andy was arguing. Even though bryan is trying trying to keep the peace in the group, he is has problems with himself and he sense unfairness and inequality throughout the film. Collaborating is a strategy is used in a I win, you win Situation. According to Patterson James “ The problem-solving or collaboration strategy is usually the best approach to win-win negations and the problem- solving strategy is usually the best way to cut through conflict. Make a decision and work toward win-win deals (page 41).
Often times, mindless conformity leads to senseless violence that could have been avoided with just a little more thought. In order to justify hateful and exclusive acts, the actions of people in minorities are often taken
A Long Way Gone Forest fires engulf tall rows of trees, turning green leaves and the homes of animals into ashes. Although fires leave a destructive trail of darkened groves, they create a chance for new life to develop. Nutrients find their way through the ashes into new soil, a new life begins to flourish, and old wreckages create new homes. Ishmael Beah, the author of ‘A Long Way Gone’, tells his readers his story that one man could never forget; new opportunities and chances for a better life often flourish in the ashes created from past challenges. The book ‘a long way gone’ is based on true events experienced by the author.
It is in observing how people deal with and react to conflicts that we see clear differences between cultures. Some cultures view conflict as a positive thing, while others view it as something to be avoided. In the United States, conflict is not usually desirable; nonetheless, conventional wisdom in this country encourages individuals to deal directly with conflicts when they do arise. In fact, face-to-face encounters are usually suggested as the way to work through whatever problems exist. By contrast, in many Asian countries, open conflict is experienced as embarrassing or demeaning.
Conflict resolution as a field of study as indicated has formed hypothetical bits of knowledge into the nature and source of conflict and how conflicts can be resolved through peaceful systems to effectuate a dependable settlement. Morton Deutsch, was the first to form and understanding into the helpful results of collaboration as a scholastic enquiry. In his view, various variables like the way of the debate and the objectives every group in a conflict goes for are crucial in deciding the sort of introduction a group would convey to the negotiation table in its endeavor to unravel the conflict (Morton Deucth, 1985, p.24). To him, two essential orientations do exist. These are competitive and cooperative.
As described earlier in the introduction part, I have recalled different courses of negotiation in my life from which I have tried to figure out my weaknesses and strengths. Before the negotiation course, I could only realize some of my capacity and limits, for example I might be good at emotional control and bad at active listening. I believed they were not all the weaknesses and strengths that I should realize. In addition, I found it hard to hone my strengths and improve my weaknesses because (i) I did not see negotiation in systematic viewpoint (ii) I have not had enough negotiation experiences. Thankfully, this course has shed the new light on the wide scope of negotiations and how they should be conducted.
These factors all go hand in hand due to them having to do with interpersonal interaction. Conflict did arise during one of our sessions and I believe everyone fell into their familial roles, with mediators, appeasers and ones that stay out of the conversation (Yalom & Leszcz, 2005, p. 31). As the conflict arose, I looked towards the group leaders to see how they would handle the conflict between the members as well as observed the reaction of the remainder of the group to see how they were choosing to deal with the situation. This to me was a learning experience to see how others dealt with conflict resolution and to apply it to my own future experiences. Not only did the conflict provide an opportunity for imitation of behavior for the future and development of social techniques, it also highlighted each member’s own internal framework.
Introduction Conflict is unpleasant, but inevitable throughout life. In any situation involving two or people, conflict may arise. Conflict can be defined as, “any situation in which incompatible goals, cognitions, or emotions within or between individuals or groups lead to opposition or antagonistic interaction” (Learning Team Toolkit, 2004, pp 242-243). People come from different backgrounds and live through different life experiences therefore, even when working towards a common goal, they will not always agree. Major conflict that is not dealt with can devastate a team or organization (Make Conflict Work, 2008).
The use of power based negotiation can foster mistrust and anger. The parties view each other as adversaries, and can withhold information that may hinder the negotiation. One of the major downsize of power based negotiations is that the parties may lose sight of the real issue. Personal Application As a
Basis of modern science of conflict is studies of German, Austrian, American sociologists of the 20th century: G.Simmel, L. Gumplowicz, D. Smalley, W. Sumner, R. Dahrendorf, Parsons. Conflict was recognized as normal social phenomenon. A number of biological, psychological, social and other factors inevitably generate conflict. Most scientists refer Georg Simmel to the founders of Theoretical conflictology.