Editing Group dynamics (section)

==Intergroup dynamics==
''Intergroup dynamics'' (or [[intergroup relations]]) refers to the behavioural and psychological relationship between two or more groups. This includes perceptions, attitudes, opinions, and behaviours towards one's own group, as well as those towards another group. In some cases, [[Intergroup relations|intergroup dynamics]] is prosocial, positive, and beneficial (for example, when multiple research teams work together to accomplish a task or goal). In other cases, [[Intergroup relations|intergroup dynamics]] can create conflict. For example, Fischer & Ferlie found initially positive dynamics between a clinical institution and its external authorities dramatically changed to a 'hot' and intractable conflict when authorities interfered with its embedded clinical model.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Fischer|first=Michael Daniel|author2=Ferlie, Ewan|title=Resisting hybridisation between modes of clinical risk management: Contradiction, contest, and the production of intractable conflict|journal=Accounting, Organizations and Society|date=1 January 2013|volume=38|issue=1|pages=30–49|doi=10.1016/j.aos.2012.11.002|s2cid=44146410|url=http://eureka.sbs.ox.ac.uk/4368/1/Fischer_M_D__Ferlie_E_%28authors%27_post-print_version%29_Accounting_Organizations_and_Society.pdf|access-date=29 August 2019|archive-date=5 July 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190705140612/http://eureka.sbs.ox.ac.uk/4368/1/Fischer_M_D__Ferlie_E_%28authors%27_post-print_version%29_Accounting_Organizations_and_Society.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref> Similarly, underlying the 1999 [[Columbine High School massacre|Columbine High School shooting]] in [[Littleton, Colorado]], United States, [[Intergroup relations|intergroup dynamics]] played a significant role in [[Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold|Eric Harris’ and Dylan Klebold]]’s decision to kill a teacher and 14 students (including themselves).<ref name=Aronson/>

===Intergroup conflict===
According to [[social identity theory]], intergroup conflict starts with a process of comparison between individuals in one group (the ingroup) to those of another group (the outgroup).<ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Turner | first1 = J. C. | doi = 10.1002/ejsp.2420050102 | title = Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup behaviour | journal = European Journal of Social Psychology | volume = 5 | pages = 1–34 | year = 1975 | doi-access = free }}</ref> This comparison process is not unbiased and objective. Instead, it is a mechanism for enhancing one's self-esteem.<ref name=HoggW/> In the process of such comparisons, an individual tends to:

* [[ingroup favoritism|favour the ingroup]] over the outgroup
* exaggerate and overgeneralize the differences between the ingroup and the outgroup (to enhance group distinctiveness)
* minimize the perception of differences between ingroup members
* remember more detailed and positive information about the ingroup, and more negative information about the outgroup<ref name=Gaertner>{{Cite journal | last1 = Gaertner | first1 = S. L. |author2-link=John Dovidio | last2 = Dovidio | first2 = J. F. | last3 = Banker | first3 = B. S. | last4 = Houlette | first4 = M. | last5 = Johnson | first5 = K. M. | last6 = McGlynn | first6 = E. A. | doi = 10.1037/1089-2699.4.1.98 | title = Reducing intergroup conflict: From superordinate goals to decategorization, recategorization, and mutual differentiation | journal = Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice | volume = 4 | pages = 98–114 | year = 2000 }}</ref>

Even without any [[Intergroup relations|intergroup interaction]] (as in the [[minimal group paradigm]]), individuals begin to show favouritism towards their own group, and negative reactions towards the outgroup.<ref name=Gaertner/> This conflict can result in prejudice, [[stereotypes]], and [[discrimination]]. Intergroup conflict can be highly competitive, especially for social groups with a long history of conflict (for example, the 1994 [[Rwandan genocide]], rooted in group conflict between the ethnic Hutu and Tutsi).<ref name=HoggW/> In contrast, intergroup competition can sometimes be relatively harmless, particularly in situations where there is little history of conflict (for example, between students of different universities) leading to relatively harmless generalizations and mild competitive behaviours.<ref name=HoggW/> Intergroup conflict is commonly recognized amidst racial, ethnic, religious, and political groups.

The formation of intergroup conflict was investigated in a popular series of studies by [[Muzafer Sherif]] and colleagues in 1961, called the [[Robbers Cave Experiment]].<ref>{{cite book | last = Sherif | first = Muzafer | title = The Robbers Cave Experiment | publisher = Wesleyan University Press | location = Middletown | year = 1988 | isbn = 978-0-8195-6194-7 }}</ref> The Robbers Cave Experiment was later used to support [[realistic conflict theory]].<ref>{{cite book | last = Levine | first = Robert | title = Ethnocentrism: Theories of Conflict, Ethnic Attitudes, and Group Behavior | publisher = Wiley | location = New York | year = 1971 | isbn = 978-0-471-53117-3 }}</ref> Other prominent theories relating to intergroup conflict include [[social dominance theory]], and social-/[[self-categorization theory]].

===Intergroup conflict reduction===
There have been several strategies developed for reducing the tension, bias, prejudice, and conflict between social groups. These include the ''contact hypothesis'', the ''jigsaw classroom'', and several categorization-based strategies.

====Contact hypothesis (intergroup contact theory)====
In 1954, [[Gordon Allport]] suggested that by promoting contact between groups, prejudice can be reduced.<ref>{{cite book | last = Allport | first = Gordon | title = The Nature of Prejudice | publisher = Addison-Wesley Pub. Co | location = Reading | year = 1979 | isbn = 978-0-201-00179-2 }}</ref> Further, he suggested four optimal conditions for contact: equal status between the groups in the situation; common goals; intergroup cooperation; and the support of authorities, law, or customs.<ref name=Pettigrew>{{Cite journal | last1 = Pettigrew | first1 = T. F. | last2 = Tropp | first2 = L. R. | doi = 10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751 | title = A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory | journal = Journal of Personality and Social Psychology | volume = 90 | issue = 5 | pages = 751–783 | year = 2006 | pmid =  16737372| s2cid = 14149856 |author-link1=Thomas F. Pettigrew (sociologist)}}</ref> Since then, over 500 studies have been done on prejudice reduction under variations of the contact hypothesis, and a meta-analytic review suggests overall support for its efficacy.<ref name=Pettigrew/> In some cases, even without the four optimal conditions outlined by Allport, prejudice between groups can be reduced.<ref name=Pettigrew/>

====Superordinate identities====
Under the contact hypothesis, several models have been developed. A number of these models utilize a ''superordinate identity'' to reduce prejudice. That is, a more broadly defined, ‘umbrella’ group/identity that includes the groups that are in conflict. By emphasizing this superordinate identity, individuals in both subgroups can share a common social identity.<ref name=Hornsey>{{Cite journal | last1 = Hornsey | first1 = M. J. | last2 = Hogg | first2 = M. A. | doi = 10.1177/0146167200264010 | title = Subgroup Relations: A Comparison of Mutual Intergroup Differentiation and Common Ingroup Identity Models of Prejudice Reduction | journal = Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin | volume = 26 | issue = 2 | pages = 242–256 | year = 2000 | s2cid = 145116253 }}</ref> For example, if there is conflict between White, Black, and Latino students in a high school, one might try to emphasize the ‘high school’ group/identity that students share to reduce conflict between the groups. Models utilizing superordinate identities include the [[common ingroup identity]] model, the ingroup projection model, the mutual intergroup differentiation model, and the ingroup identity model.<ref name=Hornsey/> Similarly, "recategorization" is a broader term used by Gaertner et al. to describe the strategies aforementioned.<ref name="Gaertner"/>

====Interdependence====
There are techniques that utilize interdependence, between two or more groups, with the aim of reducing prejudice. That is, members across groups have to rely on one another to accomplish some goal or task. In the [[Robbers Cave Experiment]], Sherif used this strategy to reduce conflict between groups.<ref name=Gaertner/> [[Elliot Aronson]]’s [[Jigsaw Classroom]] also uses this strategy of interdependence.<ref>{{cite book | last = Aronson | first = Elliot | title = The Jigsaw Classroom | publisher = Longman | location = New York | year = 1997 | isbn = 978-0-673-99383-0 }}</ref> In 1971, thick racial tensions were abounding in Austin, Texas. Aronson was brought in to examine the nature of this tension within schools, and to devise a strategy for reducing it (so to improve the process of school integration, mandated under [[Brown v. Board of Education]] in 1954). Despite strong evidence for the effectiveness of the ''jigsaw classroom,'' the strategy was not widely used (arguably because of strong attitudes existing outside of the schools, which still resisted the notion that racial and ethnic minority groups are equal to Whites and, similarly, should be integrated into schools).