See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/348648205

Tajfel and Turner Intergroup Conflict Theories 1997

Preprint · January 2021

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30820.60809

CITATIONS READS
0 7,152

1 author:

D. Robert Worley
Johns Hopkins University
41 PUBLICATIONS   80 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

An American Strategy for an Era of Instability View project

Governance and Political Psychology View project

All content following this page was uploaded by D. Robert Worley on 21 January 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Tajfel and Turner Intergroup Conflict Theories 1997

Intergroup Conflict Theories

In the continuing attempt to better understand intergroup prejudice, specifically
ethnocentrism, social psychologists proposed Realistic Group Conflict Theory1 (RCT) and
Social Identity Theory2 (SIT). RCT concludes that intergroup conflict is caused by conflict
over real group interests. The theory has considerable empirical support, and there is no
shortage of examples of groups competing over scarce resources, including power, wealth,
and prestige. SIT, in contrast, concludes that group conflict or competition can be caused
merely by the awareness of different groups, and prestige is the output of social comparison
rather than a scarce resource to compete over.
Groups may be distinguished by ethnicity, race, sex, language, religion, socio-economic
class, profession, or any number of other discriminants, and they are subject to the
behaviors described in the previous chapter. Both RCT and SIT study arbitrary groups by
randomly assigning individuals to Team A and Team B, thus minimizing the effects of other
distinctions.
According to RCT, group interests in obtaining scarce resources promote intergroup
competition. Intergroup competition enhances group morale, cohesion, and cooperation, and
it heightens identification within the group. Competition can lead to overt social conflict.
But goals shared by groups may promote intergroup cooperation.
From RCT, “opposing claims to scarce resources—such as power, prestige, or wealth—
generate ethnocentrism and antagonism between groups.”3 From SIT, “The evidence
suggests, however, that where social-structural differences in the distribution of resources
have been institutionalized, legitimized, and justified through a consensually accepted status
system (or a least a status system that is sufficiently firm and pervasive to prevent the
creation of cognitive alternatives to it), the result has been less and not more ethnocentrism
in the different status groups.”4 We now focus on social identity theory.

SOCIAL IDENTITY
Social Identity Theory introduces the notion of the ingroup (us) and outgroup (them)
and goes on to say that there is a tendency for ingroup members to have more favorable
views of their ingroup over the outgroup—ingroup favoritism or ingroup bias. The “mere
awareness of the presence of an out-group is sufficient to provoke intergroup competitive or
discriminatory response on the part of the in-group.” Once acknowledged, the possibility
exists for conflict, competition, or discrimination. A designation more pointed than ingroup
and outgroup is between a dominant group and subordinate groups, respectively thought to
be superior or inferior in status—status or prestige being the outcome of intergroup

1
D. T. Campbell, (1965). “Variation and selective retention in socio-cultural evolution,” in Social change in developing
areas. Eds. H.R. Barringer, G.I. Blanksten, and R. W. Mack.MA: Schenkman, 19-49.
2
Henri Tajfel and John C. Turner. “An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict,” in W. G. Austin and S. Worchel (eds.),
The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1979). 33-47.
3
Tajfel and Turner. “An Integrative Theory,” 37.
4
Tajfel and Turner. “An Integrative Theory,” 37.

D. Robert Worley 1 [email protected]

Tajfel and Turner Intergroup Conflict Theories 1997

comparison. “The laboratory analog of real-world ethnocentrism is ingroup bias—that is,

the tendency to favor the in-group in evaluations and behavior.” 5
SIT proposes a continuum with poles labeled purely interpersonal behavior and purely
intergroup behavior while acknowledging that both extremes are unlikely in the real world.
Where individuals’ behavior lies on the continuum depends on the situation and the strength
of identification with their ingroup. The more intense the conflict, the stronger the
identification and the greater likelihood that an individual will behave more as a group
member and less as an individual.
Individuals are motivated to feel good about themselves, that is, to maintain or enhance
their self-esteem. That can be obtained through individual accomplishment or through
identification with an elevated social group. Not just feeling good but seeking a positive
distinction from others. An important component of an individual’s personal identity is his
or her social identity. SIT asserts that social identity is the outcome of three distinct
processes executed in series:
 social categorization,
 social identification, and
 social comparison.
Social Categorization. Human beings have a natural tendency to group things. There is
an immense diversity of tables and chairs, but lumping them together allows us to easily
think about, speak about, and even use them. We do the same with people: White Anglo-
Saxon Protestant males, people of color, doctors, lawyers, trade unionists, for example. We
make sweeping generalizations about them, and in the extreme we erect and apply
stereotypes. Social categorization will likely produce a large number of overlapping
categories, the number limited only by what is useful to the individual. A group is a social
category. Categorization systemizes the social world and provides a system of orientation
for self-reference, one’s place in society.
Social Identification. Having ordered people into groups, individuals then identify
themselves as belonging to one or more groups. Self-evaluation is conducted through social
identity. As members of a group, individuals adopt salient aspects of that group’s behavior,
including an understanding of normative behavior. For example, professionals, like doctors
and lawyers, have explicit codes of conduct. Violating the professional ethic may cause
suspension or removal from the profession. Adhering to the professional ethic bolsters self-
esteem and peer respect. In addition to parental and social pressures, group membership can
impose one more set of restraints on instinctive behavior.
Social Comparison. Armed with group categorization and identification with one or
more groups, individuals then turn to intergroup social comparison, that is, comparing their
ingroup with relevant outgroups seeking positive aspects of the ingroup or seeking negative
aspects of an outgroup enhances one’s self-image. An individual strives to achieve and
maintain positive social identity, and a positive social identity is largely based on favorable
intergroup comparison. We are motivated to maintain our self-esteem and will seek positive

5
Tajfel and Turner. “An Integrative Theory.” 38.

D. Robert Worley 2 [email protected]

Tajfel and Turner Intergroup Conflict Theories 1997

comparison with other groups. Groups become rivals and comparison leads to competition
or even conflict.
Once a social categorization is constructed, members tend to exaggerate the differences
between the groups and tend to exaggerate the similarities of individuals in a group.
Individuals tend to see outgroup members as interchangeable rather than as unique
individuals. “[T]he mere awareness of the presence of an out-group is sufficient to provoke
intergroup competitive or discriminatory response on the part of the in-group.”6
Social Hierarchy. Consistent with previous analysis, a group status hierarchy is
assumed ever-present. Comparison produces a hierarchical ordering of group status. “The
aim of differentiation is to maintain or achieve superiority over an out-group on some
dimensions.”7 Social status is defined as “a ranking or hierarchy of perceived prestige,” that
reflects relative position on some evaluative dimension.8

SOCIAL CHANGE
“Subordinate groups often seem to internalize a wider social evaluation of themselves as
‘inferior’ or ‘second class’ producing a consensual inferiority that is stabilizing.9 But when
the system is clearly stratified and perceived as unjust, it is “impossible or very difficult for
individuals, as individuals, to invest themselves of an unsatisfactory, underprivileged, or
stigmatized group membership.”10
Social identity theory asks four questions. Is the hierarchical system permeable? Is the
system stable? Is the system legitimate? Which value dimensions serve for intergroup
comparison and ranking in the social hierarchy? Answers to these questions lead to three
strategies for improving one’s social identity:
 individual mobility,
 social competition, and
 social creativity.
Individual Mobility. If the hierarchy is perceived to be stable and permeable, then
individual mobility, or upward mobility, offers the individual a possible path up the social
ladder. A number of myths support the belief in upward mobility: the “self-made man,”
“pulling oneself up by the boot straps,” and the rags to riches Horatio Algiers stories.
The individual mobility belief system rests on the perception that the system is a
meritocracy. The individual is not bound by race, sex, religion, or economic situation, for
example; the individual is limited only by talent and effort. The widespread belief in
individual mobility both rests on the perception of system stability and further promotes
system stability. There is no need for social change and the dimensions for intergroup
comparison need not be challenged.

6
Tajfel and Turner. “An Integrative Theory.” 38.
7
Tajfel and Turner. “An Integrative Theory.” 41.
8
Tajfel and Turner. “An Integrative Theory,” 37.
9
Tajfel and Turner. “An Integrative Theory,” 37.
10
Tajfel and Turner. “An Integrative Theory,” 35.

D. Robert Worley 3 [email protected]

 Tajfel and Turner Intergroup Conflict Theories 1997

Adherents to the individual mobility belief system accept the system as just or just
enough. But others believe that individual mobility is inadequate and that the social system
must be changed before it can be accepted as just and legitimate. For those, social
competition and social creativity offer strategies for social change. Individual mobility
requires individuals to break the group bond and leave their former peers behind; social
change, however, preserves individuals’ identification with their ingroup.
Social Competition. If the system’s intergroup boundaries are perceived to be relatively
impermeable and the system potentially unstable (amenable to change), then a social
competition strategy requires group members to coalesce in an effort for their group to
achieve better outcomes in terms of access to scarce resources.
Social Creativity. If the system is perceived to be relatively impermeable and the system
reasonably stable (resistant to change), then social creativity offers three methods of
improving a group’s positive self-image.
 Comparing the ingroup to the outgroup on some new dimension. The subordinate group
must legitimize the new dimensional comparison and can expect the dominant group to
oppose.
 Changing the values assigned to the attributes of the group, so that comparisons which
were previously negative are now perceived as positive. “Black is beautiful” and “Black
Lives Matter” are examples. Again, the dominant group will likely oppose.
 Changing the outgroup. “[S]elf-esteem can be enhanced by comparing with other lower
status groups rather than with those of higher status.”11 Rather than compare themselves
to the dominant group, a subordinate immigrant group might compare itself to another
subordinate immigrant group.
Threats to Status. Discrimination is one method of resistance to change. The status
security of individuals and groups depends on the perceived legitimacy of the status quo
system. But when the legitimacy of the social system is challenged, stability may be
undermined, and those challenges will likely be seen as threats by some. “[W]hen the
dominant group or sections of it perceive their superiority to be legitimate, they will likely
react in an intensely discriminatory fashion to any attempt by the subordinate group to
change the intergroup situation.”12
An unequal distribution of objective resources promotes antagonism between dominant and subordinate groups,
provided that the latter group rejects its previously accepted and consensually negative self-image, and with it the
status quo, and starts working toward the development of a positive group identity. The dominant group may react
to these developments either by doing everything possible to maintain and justify the status quo or by attempting to
13
find and create new differentiations in its own favor, or both.

11
Tajfel and Turner. “An Integrative Theory.” 44.
12
Tajfel and Turner. “An Integrative Theory,” 45-46.
13
Tajfel and Turner. “An Integrative Theory,” 38.

D. Robert Worley 4 [email protected]

View publication stats