Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T19:31:22.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Psychological and actual group formation: Conflict is neither necessary nor sufficient

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2022

Julia Elad-Strenger  and
Thomas Kessler Open the ORCID record for Thomas Kessler [Opens in a new window]
Julia Elad-Strenger
Affiliation:
Department of Political Studies, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan 5290002, Israel [email protected]://www.juliaeladstrenger.com/
Thomas Kessler
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, 07743 Jena, Germany [email protected]://www.sozialpsychologie.uni-jena.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Conflict is neither necessary nor sufficient for the existence of groups. First, the existence of mutually supporting, rather than antagonistic, interactants is sufficient to constitute a “social group.” Second, conflict does not necessarily mark group boundaries but can also exist within an ingroup. Third, psychological representations of social groups do not only trace, but also perpetuate the existence of groups.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e105
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ben-Shitrit, L., Elad-Strenger, J., & Hirsch-Hoefler, S. (2021). “Pinkwashing” the radical-right: Gender and the mainstreaming of radical-right policies and actions. European Journal of Political Research, 61, 86–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. (1988). Group processes: Dynamics within and between groups (2nd ed.). Blackwell.Google Scholar
Elad-Strenger, J. (2013). Changing minds: A psychodynamic interpretation of Kuhnian paradigm change. Review of General Psychology, 17, 40–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elad-Strenger, J. (2016). Activism as a heroic quest for symbolic immortality: An existential perspective on collective action. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 4, 44–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elad-Strenger, J., Fireman, Z., Schiller, M., Besser, A., & Shahar, G. (2013). Risk-resilience dynamics of ideological factors in distress after the evacuation from Gush Katif. International Journal of Stress Management, 20, 57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elad-Strenger, J., Hall, B. J., Hobfoll, S., & Canetti, D. (2021). Explaining public support for violence against politicians during conflict: Evidence from a panel study in Israel. Journal of Peace Research, 58, 417–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elad-Strenger, J., Halperin, E., & Saguy, T. (2019). Facilitating hope among the hopeless: The role of ideology and moral content in shaping reactions to internal criticism in the context of intractable conflict. Social Science Quarterly, 100, 2425–2444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elad-Strenger, J., & Shahar, G. (2017). Revisiting the effects of societal threat perceptions on conflict-related political positions: A three-wave study. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 62, 1753–1783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hechler, S., Neyer, F., & Kessler, T. (2016). The infamos among us: Enhanced reputational memory for uncooperative ingroup members. Cognition, 157, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kessler, T., & Cohrs, J. C. (2008). The evolution of authoritarian processes: How to commit group members to group norms. Group Dynamics Theory, Research, and Practice, 12, 73–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marques, J. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (1988). The black sheep effect: Judgmental extremity towards ingroup members in inter- and intragroup situations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 287–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinto, I. R., Marques, J. M., Levine, J. M., & Abrams, D. (2010). Membership status and subjective group dynamics: Who triggers the black sheep effect? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 107–119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sassenberg, K., Kessler, T., & Mummendey, A. (2003). Less negative = more positive? Social discrimination as avoidance and approach. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 48–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherif, M. (1966). In common predicament. Social psychology of intergroup conflict. Houghton & Mifflin.Google Scholar
Skyrms, B. (2014). Evolution of the social contract (2nd ed.). Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, M., & Swann, W. B. (1978). Behavioral confirmation in social interaction: From social perception to social reality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 148–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European journal of social psychology, 1(2), 149–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Worchel, S., & Austin, G. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks.Google Scholar
Todes, D. (1987). Darwin's Malthusian metaphor and Russian evolutionary thought, 1859–1917. Isis, 78, 537–551.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In Tajfel, H. (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15–40). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Turner, J. C., & Giles, H. (1981). Introduction: The social psychology of intergroup behaviour. In Turner, J. C., & Giles, H. (Eds.), Intergroup behaviour (pp. 1–32). Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar