Intergroup conflict and barriers to common ground: A self‐affirmation perspective

Abstract

Psychological barriers to conflict resolution stem, in part, from defensive responses to feelings of self-threat. Self-affirmation theory proposes that affirmations of global self-worth-often achieved by writing or reflecting on core values-can broaden individuals' perspectives and potentially reduce biases in their intergroup judgments. In this paper, we review the extant literature on the use of self-affirmation to potentially reduce intergroup biases in order to shed light on the role of self-threat in perpetuating conflict.Self-affirmation has been shown to impact 3 key aspects of intergroup conflict: (a) the strength with which conflict-supporting beliefs are held, (b) the biased processing of conflict-relevant information, and (c) the resistance to seeing common ground in negotiations. Discussion centers on the limits as well as the potential of self-affirmation to promote openness and 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 ).…”

“…To further organize our list of twenty‐six unique barriers, we created a typology based on research that distinguishes between the cognitive, affective, and motivated reasoning determinants of attitudes and beliefs (Kahneman and Tversky ; Halperin ; Sherman, Brookfield, and Ortosky ). Consistent with these proposed distinctions, our review of the literature on psychological barriers found that some scholars (e.g., Kahneman and Tversky ; Ross and Ward ) focused on “cognitive barriers,” while a second group (e.g., Halperin ; Halperin ) focused exclusively on emotion‐related barriers to conflict resolution, and a third group (e.g., Sherman et al ; Binning et al ; Sherman, Brookfield, and Ortosky ) emphasized the role that self‐enhancement might play in the creation of attitudes that promote positive self (or group) image at the cost of fueling intergroup conflict. Accordingly, we classified each of our twenty‐six unique barriers based on whether scholars had most strongly associated it with underlying psychological processes that were cognitive, affective, and/or motivated in nature.…”

“…The third category, “barriers of motivated reasoning” (hereafter referred to as “motivated barriers”), consists of attitudes and beliefs that arise from, or are exacerbated by, a desire to see oneself (or one’s group) positively (De Dreu and Van Knippenberg ; Sherman, Brookfield, and Ortosky ). Motivated barriers include psychological phenomena such as confirmation bias and system justification .…”

“…The fourth research domain is comprised of research on values and identity . This research includes work such as Steele (), Ginges and Atran (2013), and Sherman, Brookfield, and Ortosky (). Here we find research on barriers such as self‐identity threat (Cohen, Aronson, and Steele ; Binning et al ; Sherman, Brookfield, and Ortosky ) and sacred values (Baron and Spranca ; Ginges et al ; Ginges and Atran 2013).…”

“…This research includes work such as Steele (), Ginges and Atran (2013), and Sherman, Brookfield, and Ortosky (). Here we find research on barriers such as self‐identity threat (Cohen, Aronson, and Steele ; Binning et al ; Sherman, Brookfield, and Ortosky ) and sacred values (Baron and Spranca ; Ginges et al ; Ginges and Atran 2013). This literature focuses not only on violent intergroup conflict, but also nonviolent political conflict, such as the divide between conservatives and liberals in the United States (e.g., Cohen et al ; Graham, Haidt, and Nosek ; Binning et al , ).…”