Factional conflict in groups: How majorities and minorities relate to one another

Disagreement between numerically larger (majority) and smaller (minority) factions in groups is both common and consequential. For these reasons, there is a long tradition of social psychological interest in the causes and consequences of such disagreement. Early work focused on minority members’ movement toward the majority (majority influence) and majority members’ (negative) perceptions and evaluations of those who refused to move. Later work focused on similarities and differences between majority influence and its mirror opposite, minority influence, and on majority members’ (sometimes relatively positive) perceptions and evaluations of minority members. This paper summarizes current knowledge on these topics and suggests promising avenues for future research.

Exposure to Outgroup Members Criticizing Their Own Group Facilitates Intergroup Openness

A major barrier to conflict resolution is group members' tendency to hold on to the ingroup's narrative of the conflict and reject the outgroup's perspective. In the current research, we propose that voicing internal criticism to an outgroup crowd can undermine such orientations and foster intergroup openness. Across four experiments, Israeli Jews who were exposed to a Palestinian criticizing Palestinians were more open to the Palestinians' perspective of the conflict, than those not exposed to the criticism. This effect was obtained when the criticism was related (Study 1) and unrelated (Study 2) to the conflict, and was consistently mediated by increased hope about the future relations between the groups. Study 3 showed that the effect is more pronounced among those who believe that groups can change. Study 4 established that perceptions about the outgroup as open-minded underlie the effect of ingroup criticism on hope, and further demonstrated downstream effects of openness.

Energizing and de-motivating effects of norm-conflict

Norms have a pervasive influence on behavior, yet previous research has not addressed that people often face conflicting norms from multiple ingroups. The current research addresses this gap in the context of proenvironmental behavior and demonstrates two effects predicted by the novel theoretical position we offer: People can be de-motivated by norm-conflict, or conversely, norm-conflict can encourage people to take action. Studies 1 and 2 demonstrated that norm-conflict is associated with increased perceived effectiveness for those with positive attitudes to the issue and reduced perceived effectiveness for those with moderate attitudes, and effectiveness perceptions mediated an indirect effect on behavioral intentions. Study 3 found that perceived effectiveness also moderates the effects of norm-conflict such that norm-conflict only influences intentions when perceived effectiveness is high. Norm-conflict is both positively and negatively related to behavioral decision making, suggesting additional considerations in the design of social norms-based interventions.