Governments, publics, and enemies: Intragroup dynamics as barriers to conflict resolution

Abstract

Scholars and political commentators have long noted that domestic or internal politics can play a significant role in the development of foreign (or other intergroup) relations. In the context of international (or other intergroup) conflicts, the literature notes that such features as disparate interests within a group or leader-constituent dynamics can impede the prospects for intergroup conflict resolution. Scholarly writing on the topic, however, tends to be cabined along disciplinary lines. This article is interdisciplinary and draws lessons from different fields, particularly from political science and social psychology, to describe various intragroup structures and dynamics that can constitute barriers to intergroup conflict resolution. Among other observations, the article notes the unintended effect that statements directed towards one audience in a conflict setting (i.e. the negotiating adversary or key outside actors in the international community) may have on the other audience (i.e. the speaker's domestic constituency), and how these effects can serve to diminish the prospects for conflict resolution.

Psychological Barriers to Resolving Intergroup Conflict: An Extensive Review and Consolidation of the Literature

“…Over the years, a significant body of literature has developed on psychological barriers to conflict resolution (Ross and Ward ; Kelman ; Bruneau and Saxe ; Bar‐Tal ; Bachar and Weiner ; Halperin ; Sherman, Brookfield, and Ortosky ). Intergroup conflict is a multidimensional phenomenon with a variety of causes, including historical grievances, unequal distribution of power and other resources, competing visions for the future, and incompatible ideologies (Bar‐Tal ; Klar and Branscombe ).…”

“…While psychological barriers reside in the minds of individuals (Kahneman and Tversky ; Ross and Ward ), when these attitudes or beliefs are widely shared among group members, they can influence intergroup behaviors through a variety of channels. These pathways range from leader selection, to defining the scope of what is and is not negotiable, to normalizing extreme individual sacrifice, to delegitimizing moderation or compromise in negotiations (Bruneau and Saxe ; Bar‐Tal ; Bachar and Weiner ).…”

“…These “psychological barriers” to conflict resolution not only render purely structural solutions insufficient, they reduce the motivation of conflicting parties to consider solutions at all. Hence, while it remains crucial to evaluate and address the structural impediments to conflict resolution (Raiffa ; Nadler ; Bachar and Weiner ; Crump ; Ditlmann, Samii, and Zeitzoff ), it is equally important to understand—and identify ways to attenuate—psychological barriers (Ross and Ward ; Kelman ).…”