Shannon L. Craig Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Intergroup Conflict in Organizations
In an organizational setting, the dynamics of intergroup behavior are important due to the effects they can have on the day-to-day operation of the organization. Intergroup conflict is of particular interest, as it has been found to have both positive and negative consequences for the organization. With this in mind, researchers have sought to determine the range of these consequences and the antecedents of such conflict. Various researchers have studied how group formation occurs and formulated theories of how conflict between these groups begins and is maintained. They have created different means for measuring conflict and explored its various consequences for the organization. In addition to all of these topics, I will discuss methods for reducing conflict, which have also received considerable attention in the literature concerning intergroup behavior.
I will begin by defining several terms which are relevant to any discussion of intergroup conflict. Sherif (1966) defines intergroup behavior as occurring ��Whenever individuals belonging to one group interact, collectively or individually, with another group or its members in terms of their group identification�� (p.12). Group identification is comprised of three components: an awareness of being a member of that specific group, relating some degree of value to being aware of membership, and having some emotional attachment to both the awareness and the values concerning group membership (Tajfel, 1982). Intergroup bias is one form of intergroup behavior which is an integral precursor of intergroup conflict. According to Struch and Schwartz (1989), ��This bias typically takes the form of in-group favoritism, a preference for one��s in-group over the out-group, expressed in evaluation, liking, or allocation of resources�� (p. 364). Intergroup conflict, then, is a type of behavior which results from an interaction between two or more groups (Litterer, 1966) and which manifests itself in disagreement, differences, or incompatibility (Rahim, 1985). Often, some threat to the group must be perceived for conflict to occur (Stein, 1976). Kabanoff (1985) posits three well-established features of intergroup conflict as being that conflict is instinctual and therefore present and expected in all organizations, it can have both positive and negative effects on the group and organization involved, and conflict management has become a time-consuming aspect of managerial positions. The second feature mentioned was discussed as early as 1966 by Litterer. He pointed out that ��the writers of classical organization theory viewed conflict as undesirable, detrimental to the organization�� (p. 178). It is now typically agreed upon that some amount of conflict is actually good for an organization (Litterer, 1966; Kabanoff, 1985; Rahim, 1985), the reasons for which will be discussed at a later point in this review. Intergroup competition is sometimes referred to rather than intergroup conflict (Stein, 1976). Since the two phrases have not been specifically defined as being conceptually different from one another, I will use them interchangeably. Finally, cohesion is characterized by a lack of conflict within groups (Stein, 1976) and cooperation is frequently used to describe a lack of intergroup conflict (Tjosvold, 1984) and is often referred to as being both a method and goal of reducing such conflict within organizations.
Group Formation and Cohesion
As previously mentioned, before a group can exist or be recognized as a group, two or more individuals must be aware of their membership within that group (Stein, 1976; Tajfel, 1982). Tajfel (1969) has posited that for a group to form and for cohesion to intensify some satisfaction must be provided by the group to each individual member��s social identity. It has been found that group cohesion increases rapidly during problem-solving activities (Blake & Mouton, 1960). It has also been suggested that external conflict or competition can increase internal cohesion (Blake & Mouton, 1960; Bornstein & Ben-Yossef, 1994; Kinzel & Fisher, 1993; Stein, 1976). Variables intervening in this relationship, however, have been found to be the awareness mentioned above, an external threat which is recognized by the entire group, the presence of a strong internal leadership possessing the ability to foster internal cohesion, the group being ongoing, the group being a source of support and comfort, and the rewards for remaining with the group being higher than the rewards for leaving (Stein, 1976). Kinzel and Fisher (1993) found increases in cohesion resulting from the mere anticipation of competition, rather than only conflict. Rabbie (1982), however, found that external competition did not increase internal cohesion any more than external cooperation between the groups. This suggests that almost any interaction with another group can enhance group formation and cohesion.
Theories of Intergroup Conflict
There are several theories concerning the antecedents and maintaining circumstances for intergroup conflict. The three theories which have received the most attention in the literature are Realistic Conflict Theory, Social Identity Theory, and the Contact Hypothesis. I will also briefly discuss a few other relevant theories. Four conflict situations were summarized by Litterer (1966) which provide an excellent starting point for discussion of intergroup conflict theories. The first is ��win-lose situations,�� which develop when two or more groups have conflicting goals which cannot exist simultaneously. The second is called ��competition over means utilization�� and ��stems from the fact that there are differing ideas as to what means are appropriate or who will have the means, �K [there is] shared dependence on limited resources and scheduling problems�� (pp. 181-182). Status incongruency, which is third, results from the basic desire people have to know where they stand relative to others and the variety of standards and hierarchies which can be used to make that judgment. The final situation is ��perceptual differences.�� This happens because groups (and people in general) who view situations differently tend to come into conflict, and may be exasperated by positions within different functional departments or location within the organizational hierarchy.
Realistic Conflict Theory (RCT) is probably the oldest theory which is commonly discussed in the intergroup conflict literature. According to RCT, conflict is due to the presence of incompatible goals between groups (Brown et al., 1986; Esses, Jackson, & Armstrong, 1998; Irvin & Baker, 1995; Kelly & Kelly, 1994; Sherif, 1966). The conflict is termed realistic because it can be ��based on real competition for scarce resources�� (Bornstein, 1992; Esses et al., 1998), based on any real threat between groups (Kinzel & Fisher, 1993), or formally institutionalized by the organization (presented as being a competition) (Tajfel, 1982). The idea that as one group obtains more resources less is available for the other group is termed zero-sum beliefs (Esses et al., 1998). Conflict is thought to increase as the competition for resources increases and there is more to gain from succeeding (Esses et al., 1998). Of particular importance is that actual competition for resources does not need to exist, only perceived competition (Esses et al., 1998). This realistic conflict is thought to intensify in-group bias and out-group hostility, with behaviors of the in-group towards the out-group becoming more uniform and variations in the behavior of the out-group being perceived less frequently (Alexander & Levin, 1998; Brown et al, 1986; Tajfel, 1982). Kinzel & Fisher (1993) have provided support for competition over scarce resources being the source of intergroup conflict. Esses et al. (1998) have created a somewhat adapted version of this theory, the Instrumental Model of Group Conflict, which proposes that the conflict is due to perceptions of the groups that resources are limited to certain groups as well, but is different from RCT in that they believe that the conflict will lead to attempts remove the source of competition, or the out-group. This theory has been supported and examined by other researchers (Dovidio, Maruyama, & Alexander, 1998).
The second theory which has received considerable attention is the Social Identity Theory (SIT). SIT is based on the idea that people as individuals have a personal identity and as group members have a social identity (Irvine & Baker, 1995; Tajfel, 1982). As individuals identify more with a certain group, they begin to assume characteristics (both successes and failures) of the group as their own and develop a sense of who they are (Brown et al., 1986; Brown & Abrams, 1986; Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Irvine & Baker, 1995). Identifying with the group then gives them a positive distinctiveness which leads to in-group bias and cohesion (Brown et al., 1986; Brown & Abrams, 1986; Irvine & Baker, 1995). This group identification is also thought to enhance self-esteem (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). All of these things are thought to occur even in the absence of strong leadership or cohesion (Ashforth & Mael, 1989), simply assigning someone to a group is enough to foster group identification (Alexander & Levin, 1998; Tajfel, 1982). During competition, the in-group bias grows stronger and differences with the out-group are emphasized (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Additionally, it is thought that in-group bias is stronger if the two groups are similar (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Brown & Abrams, 1986). It is important to note that SIT was not developed as a theory to replace RCT, but to add to its explanation of intergroup conflict (Brown & Williams, 1984; Irvine & Baker, 1995). It is thought that the factors outlined under RCT only exacerbate the naturally occurring situation outlined by SIT (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Support for this theory was found by van de Vliert (1995), whose case study revealed that group identities were reflected in the group members�� individual identities. Brown et al. (1986) only found weak support for the effects of group identification on differentiation with the out-group as posited by SIT. They concluded that SIT can have different meanings and effects depending on the situation and therefore more research is necessary. Other research on this topic has tended to be lacking (Brown et al., 1986).
The Contact Hypothesis is the third major theory discussed concerning intergroup conflict. The idea behind this theory is that contact, or interaction, between members of different groups should lead to positive feelings about one another, which will in turn reduce conflict (Allport, 1954; Irvine & Baker, 1995; Nelson, 1989). Interaction between the groups is also thought to maintain permeability of the boundaries between the groups and provide networks for conflict resolution (Nelson, 1989). Nelson (1989) found support for this theory in that organizations whose members had strong ties to members of other groups were characterized by low levels of conflict, however, the contacts were not necessarily effective if they were random but served to reduce conflict when one dominant group provided the channels of contact between other groups or if the contacts were arranged hierarchically. Wright et al. (1997) found that cross-group friendships and the mere observation of cross-group friendships reduced in-group bias, thus also supporting the Contact Hypothesis. Brown et al. (1986), however, found only a weak and inconsistent relationship between contact and differentiation with the out-group. Nevertheless, Alexander and Levin (1998) state that this theory has provided the theoretical basis for many of the conflict reduction programs which have been developed.
There are a few other theories of intergroup conflict which deserve brief mention. The Common Ingroup Identity Model ��proposes that influencing the ways in which group members conceive of group boundaries can reduce intergroup bias and conflict, but through recategorization rather than decategorization�� (Dovidio, Maruyama, & Alexander, 1998, pp. 838-839). Kabanoff (1985) relates intergroup conflict to Structural Role Theory, pointing out that ��incongruent expectations or beliefs about appropriate behavior on the part of members of a group�� (p. 122) can be the antecedents of conflict. Finally, van de Vliert (1995) posits that differences in the value systems and priorities of groups can manifest themselves in intergroup conflict.
Measurement
Intergroup conflict has been measured or assessed in a variety of ways, the most frequent seeming to be through the use of either self-reports or team games. The variety of methods that researches have used in measurement include scales of tension, annoyance, disputes, distrust, and disagreement (Rahim, 1985), thus measuring either antecedents or symptoms of conflict rather than conflict itself. The Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory - I is a self-report measure of both inter- and intra-group conflict (Rahim, 1985). Rahim (1985) asserts that measurement of intergroup conflict should look at four factors: ��1) the amount of conflict at the individual, group, and intergroup levels; 2) the styles of handling conflict of the organizational members with superior(s), subordinates, and peers; 3) the sources of (1) and (2); and 4) individual, group, and organizational effectiveness�� (p. 86). Other researchers point out that it is the reward structure of conflict that can be measured (Bornstein & Ben-Yossef, 1994; Esses et al., 1998), with rewards that are public goods resulting in more conflict because they are available to all members of a group, regardless of how much effort they expend in the competition to obtain those rewards (Bornstein & Ben-Yossef, 1994), and rewards associated with zero-sum beliefs also resulting in greater amounts of conflict (Esses et al., 1998).
Bornstein and his associates (Bornstein, 1992; Bornstein, Erev, & Goren, 1994) have attempted to measure intergroup conflict through team games. The Intergroup Prisoner��s Dilemma (IPD) game models conflict over continuous public goods and the Intergroup Public Good (IPG) game models conflict over step-level goods. Examples of conflicts concerning continuous public goods are wars, political struggles, and labor-management disputes, where the amount of reward to the group is dependent on the margin of the victory over the out-group. Examples of conflicts concerning step-level goods are elections and sports competitions, where one point is enough to secure the entire reward for the in-group (Bornstein, 1992). The games set up conflict situations and present the proportion of the reward that can be obtained by a group based on each individual member��s contribution toward success. The measurement, then, reveals how much effort each individual will expend in participating in the conflict with the goal of obtaining the desired amount of reward (Bornstein, 1992; Bornstein et al., 1994). Bornstein et al. (1994) point out that a weakness of this method is that it frequently only measures one-time behaviors, while decisions made in organizations are almost always affected by decisions and behaviors that have been displayed in the past. When they repeated the game several times between the same groups, they found that certain strategies were learned based on the success of previous strategies and therefore decisions made by participants in conflict situations are related to conflict situations which have occurred in the past.
Consequences of Intergroup Conflict
Many consequences of intergroup conflict have been discussed in the literature. I have already mention that it has been argued that conflict can have both positive and negative consequences (Litterer, 1966). Therefore, I will list those effects of conflict which have received attention, separating them by whether they are generally considered to be positive or negative.
Positive outcomes associated with intergroup conflict include:
�h Increased intergroup cooperation and cohesion (Blake & Mouton, 1960; Bornstein & Ben-Yossef, 1994; Kinzel & Fisher, 1993; Stein, 1976; Tajfel, 1982); though this may be detrimental to the group as a whole (Bornstein, 1992)
�h Individual willingness to sacrifice self-interest for the group (Bornstein & Ben-Yossef, 1994)
�h Group identification increases (Rabbie, 1982)
�h Managers have more influence over subordinates if they are competing with each other than if they are united against him/her; subordinates experience more autonomy when superiors are in conflict (Litterer, 1966)
�h Resolution of conflict can lead to innovation, invention, adaptation, and change (Litterer, 1966)
�h People are energized to action, experience increased motivation (Litterer, 1966)
�h Conflict can reveal problems with organizational functioning (Litterer, 1966)
Intergroup conflict can also produce negative outcomes, some of which are thought to include:
�h More severe punishment and rejection of noncooperative group members (Bornstein & Ben-Yossef, 1994)
�h More authoritative leadership within groups (Bornstein & Ben-Yossef, 1994), challenge of current leadership in losing groups (Blake & Mouton, 1960)
�h Increased pressure to conform (Bornstein & Ben-Yossef, 1994; Kinzel & Fisher, 1993)
�h Simplification / rigidity of the in-group��s thinking; in-group is seen only in a positive light, while out-group is viewed only in a negative light (also termed ��black-and-white mirror images) (Alexander & Levin, 1998; Blake & Mouton, 1960; Brown et al., 1986; Brown & Williams, 1984; Carnevale & Probst, 1998; Esses et al., 1998; Kinzel & Fisher, 1993; Rouhana, O��Dwyer & Vaso, 1997; Tajfel, 1969; van de Vliert, 1995)
�h Tendency to attribute own attitudes to those of the group increases (Rouhana et al., 1997)
�h Strengthening of intergroup boundaries (Irvine & Baker, 1995; Struch & Schwartz, 1989)
�h In-group sees out-group as being based around one central, powerful person within the group (van de Vliert, 1995)
�h Feelings of frustration, dissatisfaction, hostility, tension, and possibly aggression (Blake & Mouton, 1960; Kabanoff, 1985; Kelly & Kelly, 1994; Struch & Schwartz, 1989; Tajfel, 1982), Kelly & Kelly (1994) did not find support for the aggression factor
�h Automatic cognitive and social processes can bias interaction and maintain conflict situations (Dovidio et al., 1998)
�h Out-groups attitudes are thought to be more extreme than they actually are (Rouhana et al., 1997)
�h Members of groups experiencing extended periods of conflict may separate themselves from the group and create their own social system (Alexander & Levin, 1998; Blake & Mouton, 1960)
�h Increased constituent pressure on representatives to act in ways which maintain conflict (Kinzel & Fisher, 1993)
�h Ability to envision novel solutions is impaired, as is problem-solving; in-group solution is viewed as ��best�� (Blake & Mouton, 1960; Carnevale & Probst, 1998)
�h Higher levels of arousal and anxiety (Carnevale & Probst, 1998)
Thus, while intergroup conflict was found to have some positive consequences, it also results in a multitude of negative attitudes and behaviors. Therefore, researchers have sought various methods of reducing intergroup conflict within organizations
Methods of Conflict Reduction or Resolution
Litterer (1966) proposed that there are three basic strategies to be employed in reducing organizational conflict. The first is called ��making the system work�� and entails modifying certain elements of the system to make things run more smoothly. ��Developing additional machinery�� is the second strategy. This strategy requires adding or replacing certain elements within the system. Finally, ��changing institutional structure to eliminate the cause of the conflict�� involves a major change in the system, such as creating new positions or departments. He suggests that these strategies should be sequential, attempted in the order in which they have been presented.
The Contact Hypothesis, discussed above, has also been a conflict reduction strategy frequently proposed in the literature pertaining to intergroup conflict. The contact between group members is thought to lessen hostility and intergroup differentiation. (Brown et al., 1986). Wright et al. (1997) propose three mechanisms through which this theory works: 1) a positive exemplar from the out-group can create tolerance and caring within the in-group member, 2) this exemplar can also dispute the negative expectations and beliefs held about the out-group��s attitude toward the in-group, and 3) knowledge of the positive contact with a member of the out-group can lead to a partial inclusion of the out-group in the self. Strong intergroup ties have been found to be more present in low conflict organizations than in high conflict organizations, thus supporting the use of this method (Nelson, 1989). Support for this method was also found by Wright et al., who demonstrated a reduction of negative intergroup behavior resulting from a cross-group friendship, even if this friendship was merely observed. Tajfel (1982) agrees that this method has received considerable attention, but concludes that ��whenever the underlying structure of social divisions and power or status differentials is fairly resilient, it is not likely to be substantially affected by piecemeal attempts at reform in selected situations of ��contact���� (p. 29). Brown et al. (1986) found only weak support for contact actually reducing differentiation, and Irvine and Baker (1995) state that ��Current research suggests that intergroup contact does not necessarily reduce intergroup tension, prejudice, hostility, and discriminatory behavior�� (p. 183).
Another method frequently mentioned is based on cooperation theory. The underlying theory for this method is that cooperation and the sharing of goals leads to less conflict than does competition (Dovidio et al., 1998; Tajfel, 1982). Progress toward achieving the goal within either group results in movement towards goal achievement for the other group as well (Tjosvold, 1984). Cooperation also leads to a sense of responsibility for handling the conflict between groups in an effective way and collaboratively (Kinzel & Fisher, 1993). Bornstein (1992) stresses that to reduce conflict, the role of individual contributions should be downplayed, thus focusing group members on the higher group or organizational goals. Tjosvold (1984) found support for cooperation theory, saying that it provides channels through which organization members can communicate and share resources. It is important to note that the levels of group identification present prior to the shared goals can affect the effectiveness of cooperation on reducing conflict (Tajfel, 1982).
Multigroup membership also has been suggested as a method of reducing intergroup conflict. This method can also be referred to as the creation of cross-functional teams (Irvine & Baker, 1995). This involves having an individual be a member of one group based on some criteria, and also being a member of another group (which has traditionally been an out-group) based on different criteria (Tajfel, 1982). Irvine and Baker (1995), however, warn against the token placement of an ethnic minority within a certain group, pointing out that this can serve to highlight differences and create isolation of the token member.
Rahim (1985) suggests that, considering the positive consequences of conflict, it is not really necessary to reduce conflict, but instead manage it. It is thus proposed that there are two approaches to conflict intervention: behavioral and structural. The behavioral approach involves teaching group members effective styles of handling conflict in various situations. These include interventions such as team building and problem-solving techniques. The structural approach focuses on the organizational system and involves interventions such as work design, and improvements in communication and reward structure.
Finally, van de Vliert (1995) presents ��a six-step strategy for reducing conflict in situations where relations between groups are strained or overtly hostile. The steps are these:
1. The groups agree to search for mechanisms that may reduce the conflict;
2. Each group meets and builds two lists: a list of opinions about and perceptions of the other group, and a list of anticipations of what the other group is saying about them in its list;
3. The groups come together to share and clarify the lists without any discussion;
4. The groups separate and discuss what they have learned about themselves and the other group, correct misconceptions and misperceptions, and make a prioritized list of the intergroup issues that still need to be resolved;
5. The groups come back together to discuss their lists and to integrate them into one prioritized list, also containing action steps for resolving the issues;
6. They have a follow-up meeting to evaluate and reinforce the progress of the project�� (pp. 93-94).
Support for this method is provided in van de Vliert��s (1995) case study, however, this method isn��t mentioned specifically in any of the other literature on intergroup conflict in organizations.
Though the body of research pertaining to intergroup conflict in organizations is somewhat extensive, it also has a variety of weaknesses which have impeded the progress of the scientific community toward reaching any conclusions, or even agreeing on an integrated theory, concerning this topic. Possibly the biggest problem is that intergroup conflict, as a concept, is ill-defined. There is disagreement over whether conflict and competition are separate or similar intergroup behaviors. Measurement and conclusion problems can stem from the fact that sometimes intergroup conflict is viewed as a predictor, other times as a moderator, and still others as an outcome. Is it to be viewed as a cause or a symptom of organization dysfunction? There isn��t even agreement on conflict being dysfunctional. All of these things aside, the literature available offers many interpretations of and suggestions for dealing with intergroup conflict. The theories proposed to explain intergroup behavior - such as RCT, SIT, and the Contact Hypothesis - provide a theoretical basis for future research, as do the methods of conflict reduction which have been suggested by various researchers. Those presented included an extension of the Contact Hypothesis, cooperation theory, and multigroup membership. Methods of measurement and potential consequences, both positive and negative, of intergroup conflict should also provide researchers with a position from which to undertake future research concerning intergroup conflict in organizations.
REFERENCES
Alexander, M.G. & Levin, S. (1998). Theoretical, empirical, and practical approaches to intergroup conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 54(4), 629-639.
Allport, G.W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.
Ashforth, B.E. & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20-39.
Blake, R.R. & Mouton, J.S. (1961). Reactions to intergroup competition under win-lose conditions. Management Science, 7, 420-435.
Bornstein, G. (1992). The free-rider problem in intergroup conflicts over step-level and continuous public goods. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(4), 597-606.
Bornstein, G. & Ben-Yossef, M. (1994). Cooperation in intergroup and single-group social dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 52-67.
Bornstein, G., Erev, I., & Goren, H. (1994). The effect of repeated play in the IPG and IPD team games. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 38(4), 690-707.
Brown, R. & Abrams, D. (1986). The effects of intergroup similarity and goal interdependence on intergroup attitudes and task performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 78-92.
Brown, R., Condor, S., Mathews, A., Wade, G., & Williams, J. (1986). Explaining intergroup differentiation in an industrial organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59, 273-286.
Brown, R. & Williams, J. (1984). Group identification: The same thing to all people? Human Relations, 37(7), 547-564.
Carnevale, P.J. & Probst, T.M. (1998). Social values and social conflict in creative problem solving and categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1300-1309.
Chatman, J.A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person-organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 333-349.
Dovidio, J.F., Maruyama, G., & Alexander, M.G. (1998). A social psychology of national and international group relations. Journal of Social Issues, 54(4), 831-846.
Esses, V.M., Jackson, L.M., & Armstrong, T.L. (1998). Intergroup competition and attitudes toward immigrants and immigration: An instrumental model of group conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 54(4), 699-724.
Irvine, D. & Baker, G.R. (1995). The impact of cross-functional teamwork on workforce integration. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 6(2), 171-191.
Kabanoff, B. (1985). Potential influence structures as sources of interpersonal conflict in groups and organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 113-141.
Kelly, C. & Kelly, J. (1994). Who gets involved in collective action?: Social psychological determinants of individual participation in trade unions. Human Relations, 47(1). 63-88.
Kinzel, R. & Fisher, R.J. (1993). Ethnocentrism, group cohesion, and constituent pressure on negotiators in intergroup conflict. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 4(4), 323-336.
Litterer, J.A. (1966). Conflict in organization: A re-examination. Academy of Management, 178-186.
Nelson, R.E. (1989). The strength of strong ties: Social networks and intergroup conflict in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 377-401.
Rabbie, J.M. (1982). The effects of intergroup competition on intragroup and intergroup relationships. In V.J. Derlega & J. Grzelak (Eds.). Cooperation and Helping Behavior: Theories and Research. New York: Academic Press.
Rahim, M.A. (1985). A strategy for managing conflict in complex organizations. Human Relations, 38(1), 81-89.
Rouhana, N.N., O��Dwyer, A., & Vaso, S.K.M. (1997). Cognitive biases and political party affiliation in intergroup conflict. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(1), 37-57.
Sherif, M. (1966). Group Conflict and Cooperation: Their Social Psychology. London: Routledge & Kegan.
Sherif, M. (1966). In Common Predicament: Social Psychology of Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Stein, A.A. (1976). Conflict and cohesion: A review of the literature. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 20(1), 143-172.
Struch, N. & Schwarts, S.H. (1989). Intergroup aggression: Its predictors and distinctness from in-group bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(3), 364-373.
Tajfel, H. (1969). Cognitive aspects of prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 25(4), 79-97.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1-39.
Tjosvold, D. (1984). Cooperation theory and organizations. Human Relations, 37(9), 743-767.
Van de Vliert, E. (1995). Helpless helpers: An intergroup conflict intervention. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 6(1), 91-100.
Wright, S.C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S.A. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 73-90.
