Maya Hadar
September 2015
Variation in conflict outcomes and
Their effect on social identification
of group members, a web experiment
D
raft
1
Introduction
One of the most outstanding aspects of conflict is that it is practically intrinsic to the life and
dynamics of groups; Conflict is present in interpersonal relations (e.g., Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993;
Rice, 2013), in intragroup and intergroup relations (e.g., Gotsis & Kortezi, 2015) and in strategic
decision-making (e.g., Hurt & Abebe, 2015). While a growing empirical literature estimates the
(mostly negative) effects of conflict on later income, poverty, wealth, health, and education of
individuals and groups1
, conflict can also give rise to beneficial effects on both individuals and
societies (enhance group cohesiveness and unity, see for example (De Dreu & Van de Vliert,
1997; O’Neill, McLarnon, Hoffart, Woodley, & Allen, 2015; Richard A. Posthuma, Ayub, &
Jehn, 2014; M. E. Turner, 2014) and through which identity is constantly constructed and
reconstructed identity (Caselli & Coleman, 2013).
It is long been known that in-group formation arises from processes of social categorization and
the need for cooperative interdependence within groups2
. At the individual level, identification
with in-groups is motivated by the need to belong and to participate in bounded cooperative
social units. Once the self is attached to a distinctive in-group, additional motives to achieve
positive valuation, maintain secure inclusion and protect in-group boundaries are engaged
(Brewer, 2001). One of the most comprehensive theories of group relations is social identity
theory (Emler & Hopkins, 1990; Tajfel, 1959; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). This theory builds on
some basic assumptions; Individuals strive to achieve positive self-esteem, an important part of
an individual’s sense of self comes from membership in social groups, and that values
connotations associated with groups are the result of social comparisons between one’s in group
and a relevant out-group. Once a positive relationship between an individual and a group is
formed, according to Heider's (1958) balance formulation theory, people who positively evaluate
the group, will also evaluate the associated individual in a more positive way.
The context of real life conflict between groups has interesting characteristics that permit a close
examination of some of the central assumptions in social identity theory. It has been maintained
that identity’s salience changes over time, both within the lifetime of individuals and in terms of
wider societal perceptions; ‘The raw materials from which identity is produced may be inherited
from the past but they are also worked on, creatively or positively, reluctantly or bitterly, in the
present’ (Gilroy, 1997, p. 305). War, in particular, transforms and rigidifies that legacy;
evidently, if one is threatened with death because of a particular identity, that identity becomes
salient (Kaldor, 2013). This suggests that when individuals are confronted with an identity threat
(for example, when war erupts between their home country and an adversary), an increase in
social identity's saliency will be demonstrated.
The primary contribution of this study is in examining the effect of different conflict outcomes on
group member’s social identity saliency, national identity, sense of belonging as well as group
1
Justino (2007, 2009) also surveys this literature.
2
For example, see Sumner’s structural functional theory of the origins of groups in the context of conflict over
scarce natural resources (Sumner, 1906).
D
raft
2
member’s sense of community. Future research, aggregating these newly acquired insights is
needed to further advance and expend the existing theories of social identification and their
application in intergroup and intragroup conflicts.
Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses
In a formal theoretical statement by Tajfel and Turner (1979, p. 40), self-esteem was explicitly
referred to as a motivation behind intergroup behavior. This rests on the further assumption
(based on social comparison theory) that “individuals strive to maintain or enhance their selfesteem:
they strive for a positive self-concept”. In addition, an individual’s self-esteem could be
plauisibly associated with the esteem in which his or her group holds itself (Tajfel, 1981). It
follows that groups compete, not just for material resources, but for anything which can enhance
their self-definition: i.e., for positive social identity (D. E. Abrams & Hogg, 1990; Oakes &
Turner, 1980; J. C. Turner, 1982). The problem here is that self-esteem is a relative state rather
than an absolute one.
According to Social identity theory, one of the most comprehensive theories of group relations
(Emler & Hopkins, 1990; Tajfel, 1959; Tajfel & Turner, 1979), an important part of an
individual’s sense of self comes from membership in social groups (i.e. social identity) which are
positively or negatively valued. Values connotations associated with groups are the result of
social comparisons between one’s in group and a relevant out-group and as such, a positive social
identity is only achieved if one’s group is seen as being different from a relevant out-group in a
favorable way3
. In other words, the process of between-group differentiation is tied to objective
measures that reflect success of failure (i.e, winning or losing a war). Notwithstanding
controversies in early literature (Bradley, 1978; Miller, 1978; Miller & Ross, 1975; Weary,
1979), the relationship between Individual’s identification with the group and group performance
may well be mediated through biases such as taking undue credit for success (BIRGing) and deny
responsibility for failure (CORFing).
Basking in Reflected Glory (BIRG; Cialdini et al., 1976) is a strategic impression management
technique which enables individuals to raise their esteem in the eyes of others by publicizing their
connection with a successful other (Hirt, Zillmann, Erickson, & Kennedy, 1992)4
. Although it is
understandable that people might wish to share in another's success when they have been
instrumental to that success, the one who basks in the glory of another has done nothing tangible
to bring about the group's success (i.e., citizens of a victorious country who live in the diaspora
and did not contribute in any way to the war effort). Cialdini et al. (1976) argued that BIRGing
3
This tendency of a perceiver to accentuate differences between motivations from different categories is generalized
from the perceptual to the social domain and referred to as between group differentiations (Tajfel, 1978). In social
identity theory, this process is used to explain the clear distinctions that are often made between in-groups and outgroups
(Hogg & Abrams, 1988).
4
In the sports realm, Cialdini et al. (1976) found that university students were more likely to wear school-identifying
apparel on the Monday after a winning performance by their school's football team than after a losing performance.
Students were also found to use the pronoun “we” more frequently when describing the outcome of a game in which
their school's team had been victorious than when their school's team had lost.
D
raft
3
involves a process of unit formation between the individual and the successful group. Tesser's
self-evaluation maintenance model (1986, 1988) views the reflection process of BIRGing as an
important means by which individuals maintain a positive self-concept. The tendency to BIRG
has been found to be greatest when one's public image is threatened (Schlenker, 1980), for
example, when facing a war or a violent conflict. The preceding analysis explains the “fair
weather” Fan-ship observed when sport teams are successful (e.g., Becker & Suls, 1983; Cratty,
1983; Hirt et al., 1992) and lend support to the potential increase in group members’
identification with the group following positively valuated group performance (for example,
victory). In addition, research found that “high and equal power group members reported that
they felt more comfortable, satisfied and happy than lower and no power group members about
their group membership” (Sachdev & Bourhis, 1985, p. 430), whereas low status groups
experiences lowered self-esteem (Sachdev & Bourhis, 1987).
H1: an increase in social identity’s saliency among group-members will be demonstrated only
following positively valuated group performance.
Consistent with the aforementioned balance formulation theory, an important corollary to the
BIRGing phenomenon is individuals’ active avoidance from being connected to, and attempting
to distance themselves from unsuccessful or negatively evaluated others. Snyder, Higgins, &
Stucky (1983), have labeled this phenomenon Cutting off reflected failure (CORFing) and argued
that where BIRGing is an enhancement tactic, CORFing is an image protection tactic that allows
the individual to avoid negative evaluations by others, resulting from association with
unsuccessful people or group5
. Consequently, individuals are motivated to proclaim their
associations with others who are successful, and dissociate themselves from others who fail (Hirt
et al., 1992). These contentions were supported by extensive literature6
. While identifying with a
group may affirm the individual’s sense of self-worth (for example, by BIRGing in group’
success), several theorists stressed the existence of unavoidable consequences and costs that the
individual bares, in case of group’s defeat (e.g., Edwards, 1973; Roberts, 1976). In light of the
CORFing phenomenon, one might expect individuals to identify less or even disassociate
themselves from their in-group following defeat.
H2: a decrease in social identity’s saliency among group-members will be demonstrated
following negatively valuated group performance.
5
Snyder, Lassegard, and Ford (1986) showed that Subjects involved in a successful group effort manifested more
association with their group relative to a no-feedback control group, whereas subjects involved in a failed group
effort showed less association with their group (relative to controls).
6
For example, research indicated that subjects are reluctant to transmit bad news to another because they want to
avoid any association with the bad news and the negative evaluations that follow from that association. However,
subjects were ready to transmit good news to others in order to embrace the resulting positive associations (Manis,
Cornell, & Manis, 1974).
D
raft
4
However, further scholarship addressing the consequences for the individual once an association
with a group has been formed, suggests a more complex state of affairs; Individuals who have
formed a strong unit relationship and therefore associate themselves with a specific group are not
always free to dissociate themselves from that group. Social identity (ethnic belonging, group
membership or Fanship in the sport realm7
) constitutes an affiliation in which a substantial
emotional significance and value are derived from group membership (cf. Abrams & Hogg,
1990). For many individuals, commitment to their identity as members of a particular group,
constitutes an integral part of their self-identity (McCall & Simmons, 1966; Nuttbrock &
Freudiger, 1991), and as such, they may see their group as an extension of their personal sense of
self, and as a result, the group’s performance reflects directly upon group members ((Hirt et al.,
1992). While identifying with a group may affirm the individual’s sense of self-worth (for
example, by BIRGing in group’ success), Taylor, Doria, & Tyler, (1983) suggested that in some
cases, group members are not likely to detach themselves from their group even following
defeat8
; when group’s identity is integral to the individual sense of self, the option of CORFing
following poor performance of the group- may not exist (Hirt et al., 1992).
How can a positive identity be sustained when social comparisons are made with a clearly
superior out-group (for example, following groups’ defeat in a war)? No empirical work on the
effects of group performance on individual’s identification with the group has so far been framed
within social identity theory and applied in the context of political science.
According to social identity theory, in order to cope with a threatened social identity, an
individual may employ the following social change strategies (Tajfel & Turner, 1979):
Individual mobility, involves an attempt to dissociate from the in-group and possibly to move into
a higher status group, and is predicated on the belief that social mobility is possible and that
group boundaries are permeable9
(the implementation of this strategy by group-members is
indicated by H3). Two other strategies, social creativity and social competition are predicated on
the belief that group boundaries are rigid and fixed. Social creativity involves cognitive behaviors
such as comparing the in-group with the out-group on a new dimension of social comparison
(Lalonde, Moghaddam, & Taylor, 1987; Lemaine, 1974), changing the values assigned to
traditional dimensions of social comparison, or changing the out-group of social comparison (the
implementation of this strategy by group-members is indicated by H4). Social competition is
more collective in nature, and involves engaging in conflict with the advantages out-group in
7
Hirt et al. (1992) view fanship as representative of any of a number of important social identities to which
individuals might ally themselves. It was suggested there that similar effects might be observed when positive and
negative outcomes are experienced by any important social group or affiliation (e.g., a nation, political party, or
ethnic group) with which the person has strong allegiance.
8
These findings were later confirmed, see for example Lalonde, 1992; Lalonde, Moghaddam, & Taylor, 1987.
9
While there are agents who are willing to endure the utmost sacrifices to stay true to their identity, evidence exists
which confirms that in at least some cases individuals are able and willing to shed their identity to respond to
external circumstances, particularly discrimination against one’s group. For example, in post-Reform Europe, entire
populations switched back and forth between Catholicism and Protestantism, as the political alliances of their princes
switched back and forth between the Pope, the Emperor, and other potentates. In Fascist Italy many Jews converted
to Catholicism to escape discrimination. In modern day India, some lower-caste Hindus convert to the Muslim or
Catholic faiths, which are relatively less discriminated against (Caselli & Coleman, 2013).
D
raft
5
order to reverse the positions of in-group and out-group. Among the aforementioned strategies,
individual mobility and social competition are largely not viable options in the context of
individual identification with countries and nations. Individual mobility would require members
of the group to quite it10
, and social competition is not applicable as an option since the group is
already involved in a conflict. Thus, the only remaining option is social creativity. While Social
identity theory assumes that members of a disadvantaged group in a social hierarchy cannot
ignore their situation when they engage in social comparison process11
, group members must try
to maintain positive in-group distinctiveness if they are to have some form of positive social
identity, which is vital for maintaining their self-esteem. As mentioned, this could be achieved by
sustaining superiority on an attribute that is unrelated to performance and by consciously
ignoring certain information regarding group’s performance in order to maintain a form of
positive distinctiveness.
When self-categorization as a group member is salient, a person is influenced by group norms,
behaves in line with those norms and shared the concerns and interests of the group. While any
social categorization may be rendered salient in certain contexts, and need for a positive selfimage
may motivate subsequent intergroup behavior, it is also plausible that certain broader
socio-psycological factors may effectively “fix” the level of social identification at the
interpersonal place (D. Abrams & Hogg, 1988), for example, when self-identity and group
identity are embedded in one another. In this analysis, self-esteem does not motivate high levels
of social identification among group members and as such, poor group performance won’t result
in lower social identification levels among group members.
H3: no significant differences in identification levels among group-members will be
demonstrated between positively and negatively valuated group performances.
How would individuals react if confronted with a situation of increasing/diminishing value of
their group in the context of a real time conflict? Do individuals react differently to different
conflict outcomes, depending on their group’s performance? Building on social identity theory,
the aforementioned strategies of coping with diminishing social identity and the concepts of
BIRGing and CORFing, the current work aims at answering those questions by studying the
variations in social identity’s saliency among group members, generated by different conflict
outcomes (victory, defeat, stalemate and agreement).
10
The psychological costs of giving up one’s identity may vary with the nature of that identity. For example, in some
cases passing from one group to the other may require religious conversion, while in others both origin and
destination groups have the same religion. Abandoning one’s religious identity may be more costly psychologically
than abandoning other traits of one’s cultural identity (Caselli & Coleman, 2013). Furthermore, some religions create
physical markers, such as circumcision or scarring, that further increase the cost of passing.
11
Members of a losing group could not ignore performance indicators and positive in-group distinctiveness could not
be achieved on dimensions of social comparison that related to successful performance (denial).
D
raft
6
Method
Participants
321 visits from unique IPs were reported on the introductory page of the experiment. 238
participants completed the experiment, out of which, only 124 provided a respond to the
information given to them during the initial phase of the experiment (“task 1”). A total of 120
participants provided sufficient data which was analyzed in the results’ section.
Procedure
The experiment was conducted via the Internet using WEXTOR, a platform for web experiments
(Reips & Neuhaus, 2002). As part of the recruiting procedure, mainly done through social
networks, potential participants were instructed to enter the web-experiment from different links,
which resulted in four groups of participants; university students of any discipline excluding
Political Science or Peace Research, students of Political Science or Peace Research,
researchers/academics in the field of conflict research and others.
The introductory page of the experiment included a seriousness check in order to address the
problem of non-serious answering behavior which increases noise and reduces experimental
power (Aust, Diedenhofen, Ullrich, & Musch, 2013). Next, the participants were asked to
provide information regarding their gender, age group and whether they lived in a country which
experienced a war or conflict during the time of their presence (possible answers were
yes/no/don’t know). All participants were presented with the following short passage:
“You are a citizen of the country of Narvia, a peaceful country situated in a
galaxy far far away. Narvia is a beautiful country with an average temperature
of 24 degrees Celsius, low unemployment rate, high life expectancy, successful
economy and rainbows. Since Narvia is a small country, people are usually
kind and friendly and enjoy camping, long walks by the beach and drinking
bio-Narvia, Narvia’s most popular and beloved drink”.
Following reading of the above passage, participants were asked to write a short text, describing
their life as citizens of the country of Narvia. Only data originated in participants who fulfilled
the task by providing at least one relevant sentence were kept. The participants were then
randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions, a conflict between the country of
Narvia and a the country of Barekia with variations in its outcome (victory/defeat for Narvia, a
stalemate or a ceasefire agreement). The conflict scenario itself was identical for all participants
and included the following paragraph:
“Two years ago, a meteor made of pure gold fell from the sky, right on the
border between Narvia and its’ neighboring country Barekia. Since both
D
raft
7
countries wanted to keep the gold and could not agree on which side of the
border the meteor fall, a war erupted”.
Together with the above description of the conflict, the participants were given additional
information which related to the termination of the conflict following protracted and intense
fighting (triggered by the random assignment). The “victory” group was presented with a
scenario according to which the Narvian army managed not only to cease the meteor but also to
conquer 15% of the territory of Barekia, including Barekia’s most fertile land. The “defeat”
group was presented with the exact opposite scenario (victory of Barekia and conquering 15% of
Narvia’s territory). The “agreement” group was presented with a scenario, according to which
both countries decided to stop the fighting, to melt down the golden meteor and split the gold
between them. Lastly, the “stalemate” group were given the information that both countries
decided to stop the fighting since it was clear that no army is powerful enough to win the war,
and that the meteor was then confiscated by the united federation of planets.
Following the conflict and the randomly assigned outcome, participants were presented with five
statements. Using five levels Likert-type scaling12
, the participants were asked to grade their
agreement with said statements on five points scale, ranging from “strongly disagree” (0) to
“strongly agree” (5). The order of the statements was not manipulated. The statements were:
“Narvia is my home”, “I don’t consider other Narvians as my friends”, “Staying in Narvia is
important for me”, “I would like to see Narvia prospering”, and “I’m proud to be a Narvian”.
The independent variable was conflict’s termination type (victory, defeat, stalemate and
agreement), whereas the dependent variables were the grading of agreement with the five
aforementioned statements, concerning participants’ identity as Narvians, their sense of
belonging to Narvia, and their feelings toward other Narvians.
Results and discussion
Participants
44.17% of the participants (n = 120) reported that they were female, 53.33% reported they were
male, 2.5% did not report their gender. Participants were aged 20 to 69 with an estimated mean of
28.913
. 11.67% of the participant reported to be over 40 years old. 2.5% of the responders did not
report their age.
12
A Likert scale is a psychometric scale, most widely used to scale responses in survey research. A Likert scale
refers only to a scale proper which emerges from collective responses to a set of items. When responding to a Likert
questionnaire item, respondents specify their level of agreement or disagreement on a symmetric agree-disagree scale
for a series of statements. Thus, the range captures the intensity of their feelings for a given item (Burns & Bush,
2008, p. 245).
13
As participants indicated their age group and not their actual age.
D
raft
8
Experiment Design
In the experiment, participants were asked to imagine that they are citizens of Narvia, an idyllic
made-up country, located in a different galaxy. The countries’ description was purposely realistic
and detailed so to enhance sympathy towards Narvia (whose name and characteristics were as
neutral as possible in order to avoid being associated with any existing country). In order to
assess the initial effect of the story on the participants and as an additional seriousness check,
participants were asked to write a short text, describing their life as citizens of Narvia. More than
half of the participants did not supply any answer whereas only a few other participants wrote a
completely irrelevant text. As expected, this task vastly increased the number of drop-outs, yet
the existing data is of high quality and is more than sufficient (n= 120) in order to test the
aforementioned hypotheses, following the experiment’s design. The texts were typically positive
which corresponded with the bucolic way of describing Narvia in the experiment.
At the core of the experiment, subjects were presented with a conflict’s scenario between their
home-country Narvia and a neighboring country- Barekia over a golden meteor which landed on
the border between the two (a classic conflict over resources). The conflict scenario was specially
designed in order not to resemble any known conflict, but was not as farfetched as to prevent
projection of the findings on real life conflicts and their effect on group members’ feelings
toward their group. The participants were than randomly assigned to one of four different conflict
outcomes from the point of view of their home-country Narvia (defeat, victory, stalemate and
agreement). With the intention of enhancing the differences between the aforementioned conflict
outcomes (and consequently, their effect on the participants’ answers in the following stage of the
experiment), each type of conflict termination was described in a clear and distinct manner (for
example, the victorious country did not only managed to cease the golden meteor but also
conquered 15% of the defeated country’s most fertile land). The “agreement” conflict
termination’s scenario was characterized by a joined consent of both belligerents to stop the war
and to equally divide the gold between them. The “stalemate” outcome was also characterized by
a joined consent of both countries to stop the fighting since it was clear that no army is powerful
enough to win the war. The meteor was then confiscated by an external third entity (the united
federation of planets).
National Identity and the Sense of Belonging
In an analysis of the effect variations in conflict outcome have on individual’s sense of belonging
to their country and on national identity, we conducted an ANOVA with participants’ levels of
agreement with statements 1,3 and 5 as the dependent variable across conditions (conflict
outcomes: defeat vs. victory vs. agreement vs. stalemate). The three relevant statements (“Narvia
is my home”, “staying in Narvia is important to me” and “I’m proud to be a Narvian”) addressed
participants’ sense of belonging, secure relationship and affinity to their country. Whereas
statement 1 related to the existing relationship between the individual and his/her country,
D
raft
9
statement 3 anticipated the future of this relationship. Statement 5 complemented the previous
statements while addressing a higher and more emotional level of social identification- national
pride (Sullivan, 2014).
In relation to statement 1, we observed a slightly significant effect, F(3, 116)=3.79, p = 0.012. A
post-hoc Tukey test showed that the greatest difference value (0.857) was demonstrated between
the “victory” and “agreement” groups14
. In comparison, the former was almost double the
difference between the “victory” and the “defeat” groups (0.449). In relation to statement 3, we
observed a non-significant effect, F(3, 116)=0.42, p = 0.741. In relation to statement 5, we
observed a non-significant effect, F(3, 116)=1.50, p = 0.217.
Figure 1 presents the plots of the agreement scores with the three statements across conditions.
The dotted line marks the overall average scoring whereas the bold line marks the different
average grade per condition.
Figure 1. levels of agreement with statements 1, 3 and 5 across conditions
In large, conflict outcome did not significantly affect the level of agreement with the statements
relating to group member’s sense of belonging to their country and to their national pride.
Sense of Community
The statement (“I don’t consider other Narvians as my friends”) addressed participants’ attitude
other Narvians, members of their (in)group. Traditionally, people’s sense of safety and security
has been viewed as related to one’s sense of belonging, that is, to the communion identity
dimension. Belonging to a community has been argued to enhance one’s sense of safety in a
world perceived as insecure (Bauman, 2001). Society is not a static structure, but rather an
emerging entity generated and constituted by an ongoing process of “sociation” (Cederman &
Daase, 2003; Simmel, 1908). In society, the dynamic of interaction is the living reality which
14
In addition, the largest difference in aggregated means in relation to the first statement across conditions was
demonstrated between the “victory” group (3.406) and the “Agreement” group (2.548).
D
raft
10
leads to the emergence and change of social constructs (Helle, 1988, p. 106). Interaction
processes can be of many types, including exchange, conflict and domination, all depending on
the specific situation. According to Simmel’s conflict hypothesis, conflictual interactions
between two groups of individuals often trigger a sociational dynamic. This not only strengthens
the internal cohesion of pre-existing groups, or creates group consciousness where it did not exist
prior to conflict. It also creates boundaries between the conflicting parties while connecting them
as parts of a social configuration (Simmel, [1908] 1955). Since Simmel’s conflict hypothesis did
not relate to the conflict’s outcome but to the mere existence of conflict (similarly to H1), we
expected participants in all four conditions to report similar (and relatively high) levels of
agreement with said statement. As other statements were positively phrased, we chose to phrase
statement number 2 in a negative way15
and re-code it’s scores.
In an analysis of the effect variations in conflict outcome have on the relationship between group
members as a community, we conducted an ANOVA with participants’ levels of agreement with
statements 2 as the dependent variable across conditions (conflict outcomes: defeat vs. victory vs.
agreement vs. stalemate). We observed a non-significant effect, F(3, 116)=0.053, p = 0.98. As
demonstrated by Figure 2 and consistent with Simmel’s conflict hypothesis, higher level of
agreement with the above statement was found across conditions. The overall average score and
the average score in the individual groups almost completely coincide across conditions. In
comparison with the other three conditions, no participant in the “defeat” group indicated that
he/she “strongly disagree” (0) or even “disagree” (1) with statement 2. This suggests that defeat
hold a greater uniting power than any other conflict outcome. Future research should further
investigate this interesting finding.
Figure 2. levels of agreement with statement 2 across conditions
15
Alternate between positive and negative wording is done in order to minimize extreme response bias and
acquiescent bias (Sauro & Lewis, 2011).
D
raft
11
Self and group relationship
The statement (“I would like to see Narvia prospering”) addressed participants’ attitude toward
their country. As identification is depicted as caring about a group’s status, and in accordance
with the behavioral evidence mentioned in the introduction, it can be expected that individuals
will report higher levels of identification with a winning group (who enjoys higher payoffs and
hence higher status), a notion consistent with H2. However, status is not the only factor
determining identification. Consistent with H3, in some cases, we may observe strong
identification of individuals with their low-status group, if their group identity is embedded in
their self-identity and if they perceive their fate as “linked” to their group16
.
In an analysis of the effect variations in conflict outcome have on the relationship between group
members and the group, we conducted an ANOVA with participants’ levels of agreement with
statements 4 as the dependent variable across conditions (conflict outcomes: defeat vs. victory vs.
agreement vs. stalemate). We observed a non-significant effect, F(3, 116)=0.109, p = 0.95. As
demonstrated by Figure 3, the data is consistent with H3 and contradicts H2. Similar to the
analysis of statement 2, the overall average score and the individual groups’ average score are
almost identical across conditions. In comparison with the other three conditions, no participant
in the “defeat” group indicated that he/she “strongly disagree” (0) or even “disagree” (1) with
statement 4. This finding is not surprising in light of the poor performance of the “defeat” group.
It is also of interest to note that none of the participants in the experiment, regardless of the
different conditions, indicated the highest level of agreement with the aforementioned statement.
Figure 3. levels of agreement with statement 4 across conditions
16
The notion of “linked faith” is discussed by Dawson (1995).
D
raft
12
Witnessing a conflict
Witnessing a conflict in participant’s real life could be a confounding factor in estimating the
effect variations in conflict outcomes have on social identification by group members. The
participant’s own experience of a national or international conflict which ended in a way
unknown to us, may cognitively project on the described conflict and effect his/her answers in the
experiment. As hundreds of intrastate and dozens of interstate conflict had taken place since the
Second World War17
, it was to be expected that individuals who had the potential of witnessing a
violent conflict of any kind, will take part in the experiment. Thus, in the beginning of the
experiment and together with ordinary demographic questions, participants were asked whether
they lived in a country which experienced a war or conflict during the time of their presence. A
staggering 48.18% of the participants positively answered the above question18
. To control for
base rate effects derived from witnessing a real-life conflict, we have repeated the analysis
excluding data which was originated in the aforementioned participants. In an ANOVA
conducted with participants’ levels of agreement with all five statements, excluding participants
who indicated witnessing a real-life conflict, the effect remain non-significant across all
conditions and in relation to all statements19
. Interestingly, when conducting the ANOVA
analysis when excluding the participants who indicated not witnessing a conflict, a slight
significance was spotted in relation to the first and fifth statements20
(“Narvia is my home” and
“I’m proud to be a Narvian”) which were aimed at evaluating social identification in its’ core.
Political Science, Peace research and the study of conflicts
Previous specific knowledge of political science and conflicts was also considered as a potential
confounding factor in the experiment. Since participants were instructed to enter the webexperiment
from different links, four source groups (university students of any discipline
excluding Political Science or Peace Research, students of Political Science or Peace Research,
researchers/academics in the field of conflict research and others) were created. We have
conducted an ANOVA with participants’ levels of agreement with the different statements as the
dependent variable across conditions (conflict outcomes: defeat vs. victory vs. agreement vs.
stalemate) and “source” affiliation of the participant. No significant effect of studying political
science, peace research or being a professional in the research of conflicts was spotted. The
overall analysis excluding the latter participants did not chance the results of the main analysis.
17
According to PRIO Battle Deaths Dataset v.3.0 (Lacina & Gleditsch, 2005) and Human security report series.
18
This could be partially due to the fact that participants were recruitment using the Israeli author’s Facebook page
and the post was shared by several Israeli friends. Nevertheless, recruitment also included publishing the experiment
in mailing lists of international researchers and in international political science and conflict research Facebook
groups.
19
Statement 1: F(3, 55)=1.202, p = 0.317, Statement 2: F(3, 55)=0.285, p = 0.835, Statement 3: F(3, 55)=0.981, p =
0.408, Statement 4: F(3, 55)=0.097, p = 0.960, Statement 5: F(3, 55)=1.710, p = 0.175.
20
Statement 1: F(3, 56)=0.394, p = 0.0549, Statement 5: F(3, 56)=2.237, p = 0.093.
D
raft
13
Limitations and future research
According to Tajfel (1978), an increase in social category salience is likely to move
interpretations of behavior closer to the intergroup end of the interpersonal-intergroup behavior
continuum and, as a result, make individuals more likely to engage in group-oriented behaviors.
Tajfel believed that, in a social situation, one feature that will facilitate its interpretation at an
intergroup level of analysis is the extent to which the individual has an emotional investment in
the categorization process. Consequently, it is safe to assume that the effect of different conflict
outcomes on social identification is mitigated by social category salience. The low statistical
significance of our findings can, therefore, be attributed, inter alia, to the fact that both groups
(Narvians and Barakias) had no real meaning outside of the experiment. In addition, real
intergroup behavior seems most often to be based on factors such as the distribution of wealth
and power, material resources, the nature of goal relations between groups and religious or
political values21
and not on group performance as mitigated by individual’s self-esteem.
Predicated on past research (e.g., Lalonde & Silverman, 1994) and on social identity theory, we
would expect to witness a more significant effect in a replicating experiment in which the
participants are assigned to a more meaningful group or real social category22
.
Moreover, since social identification levels of the participants upon describing of Narvia and
prior to the mentioning of the conflict were not measured, there is no knowing of the baseline
level of social category salience among participants to which post conflict identification levels
should be compared to. Therefore, any replication of the experiment should probably incorporate
a categorization condition for baseline and/or control, in order to address these issues.
While the current research focused the effect of variation in conflict outcomes on individual
feelings (social and group identity), future research may address the behavioristic aspect of group
performance on individuals in political science context. Moreover, since the measurement took
place in close proximity with the termination of the conflict, the duration of the effect of variation
in conflict outcomes has on social identification among group members is unknown. The issue of
how long lasting these effects are, is influences by conflict outcomes. First, the duration of these
changes in fans' perceived self-competence is unknown. Thus, the issue of how long lasting these
effects are, should be included in future study.
21
For a review of relevant research, see D. Abrams & Hogg, 1988.
22
A meta-analysis of research addressing in-group bias also serve to buttress the expectation that social identity
salience will facilitate group directed behavior; Mullen, Brown, and Smith (1992) found that in-group bias effects
were stronger in magnitude in studies that focused on real groups than in studies using artificial groups. Mullen et al.
believed that this effect is due to the greater salience of the in-group in real as opposed to laboratory-created
categorizations (Lalonde & Silverman, 1994).
D
raft
14
Conclusions
This experiment has shown that (1) the is no significant effect of variation in conflict outcomes
on social identification level, as the latter relate to group members’ relation with the group, sense
of community, sense of belonging, national identity and self and group relationship. (2) A low
significant effect was detected in the analysis of participants’ levels of agreement with statements
1 as the dependent variable across conditions (conflict outcomes: defeat vs. victory vs. agreement
vs. stalemate). A post-hoc Tukey test showed that the greatest difference value (0.857) was
demonstrated between the “victory” and “agreement” groups and not between the “victory” and
the “defeat” groups as suggested by previous literature based on the effect of group performance
on group identification. (3) The Data supported the hypothesis according to which poor
performance (in comparison with superior performance) did not result in a lower social
identification levels among group-members.
References
Abrams, D. E., & Hogg, M. A. (1990). Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances.
Springer-Verlag Publishing.
Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1988). Comments on the motivational status of self-esteem in social
identity and intergroup discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18(4),
317–334.
Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on
strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of
Management Journal, 39(1), 123–148.
Aust, F., Diedenhofen, B., Ullrich, S., & Musch, J. (2013). Seriousness checks are useful to
improve data validity in online research. Behavior Research Methods, 45(2), 527–535.
Becker, M. A., & Suls, J. (1983). Take me out to the ballgame: The effects of objective, social,
and temporal performance information on attendance at major league baseball games.
Journal of Sport Psychology, 5(3), 302–313.
Bradley, G. W. (1978). Self-serving biases in the attribution process: A reexamination of the fact
or fiction question. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(1), 56.
Brewer, M. B. (2001). Ingroup identification and intergroup conflict. Social Identity, Intergroup
Conflict, and Conflict Reduction, 17–41.
Burns, A. C., & Bush, R. F. (2008). Basic marketing research: using Microsoft Excel data
analysis (2nd ed). Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Caselli, F., & Coleman, W. J. (2013). On the theory of ethnic conflict. Journal of the European
Economic Association, 11(s1), 161–192.
Cederman, L.-E., & Daase, C. (2003). Endogenizing corporate identities: the next step in
constructivist IR theory. European Journal of International Relations, 9(1), 5–35.
Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, A., Walker, M. R., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L. R. (1976).
Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 34(3), 366.
Cratty, B. J. (1983). Psychology in contemporary sport: guidelines for coaches and athletes (2nd
ed). Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.
D
raft
15
Dawson, M. C. (1995). Behind the mule: Race and class in African-American politics. Princeton
University Press.
De Dreu, C. K., & Van de Vliert, E. (1997). Using conflict in organizations. Sage.
de Wit, F. R., Jehn, K. A., & Scheepers, D. (2013). Task conflict, information processing, and
decision-making: The damaging effect of relationship conflict. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 122(2), 177–189.
Edwards, H. (1973). Sociology of sport. Homewood, Ill: Dorsey Press.
Emler, N., & Hopkins, N. (1990). Reputation, social identity, and the self. In D. E. Abrams & M.
A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances. SpringerVerlag
Publishing.
Gilroy, P. (1997). Diaspora and the detours of identity. In K. Woodward (Ed.), Identity and
Difference (pp. 299–341). London: Sage.
Gotsis, G., & Kortezi, Z. (2015). Workplace Diversity: A Resource or a Source of Conflict? In
Critical Studies in Diversity Management Literature (pp. 1–12). Springer.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Helle, H. J. (1988). Soziologie und Erkenntnistheorie bei Georg Simmel.
Hirt, E. R., Zillmann, D., Erickson, G. A., & Kennedy, C. (1992). Costs and benefits of
allegiance: Changes in fans’ self-ascribed competencies after team victory versus defeat.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(5), 724.
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup
relations and group processes. Taylor & Frances/Routledge.
Hurt, K. J., & Abebe, M. A. (2015). The Effect of Conflict Type and Organizational Crisis on
Perceived Strategic Decision Effectiveness An Empirical Investigation. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies.
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup
conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 256–282.
Justino, P. (2007). On the links between violent conflict and household poverty: How much do
we really know? Presented at the MICROCON-A Micro Level Analysis of Violent
Conflict.
Justino, P. (2009). Poverty and violent conflict: A micro-level perspective on the causes and
duration of warfare. Journal of Peace Research, 46(3), 315–333.
Kaldor, M. (2013). Identity and war. Global Policy, 4(4), 336–346.
Lacina, B., & Gleditsch, N. P. (2005). Monitoring trends in global combat: A new dataset of
battle deaths. European Journal of Population/Revue Européenne de Démographie, 21(2-
3), 145–166.
Lalonde, R. N. (1992). The dynamics of group differentiation in the face of defeat. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(3), 336–342.
Lalonde, R. N., Moghaddam, F. M., & Taylor, D. M. (1987). The process of group differentiation
in a dynamic intergroup setting. The Journal of Social Psychology, 127(3), 273–287.
Lalonde, R. N., & Silverman, R. A. (1994). Behavioral preferences in response to social injustice:
The effects of group permeability and social identity salience. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 66(1), 78.
Lemaine, G. (1974). Social differentiation and social originality. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 4(1), 17–52.
McCall, G. J., & Simmons, J. L. (1966). Identities and interactions. New York: Free Press.
Miller, D. T. (1978). What constitutes a self-serving attributional bias? A reply to Bradley.
Miller, D. T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or
fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82(2), 213.
D
raft
16
Mullen, B., Brown, R., & Smith, C. (1992). Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and
status: An integration. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22(2), 103–122.
Nuttbrock, L., & Freudiger, P. (1991). Identity salience and motherhood: A test of Stryker’s
theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 146–157.
Oakes, P. J., & Turner, J. C. (1980). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour: Does
minimal intergroup discrimination make social identity more positive? European Journal
of Social Psychology.
O’Neill, T. A., McLarnon, M. J., Hoffart, G. C., Woodley, H. J., & Allen, N. J. (2015). The
Structure and Function of Team Conflict State Profiles. Journal of Management,
0149206315581662.
Pruitt, D. G., & Carnevale, P. J. (1993). Negotiation in social conflict. Thomson Brooks/Cole
Publishing Co.
Reips, U.-D., & Neuhaus, C. (2002). WEXTOR: A Web-based tool for generating and
visualizing experimental designs and procedures. Behavior Research Methods,
Instruments, & Computers, 34(2), 234–240.
Rice, A. K. (2013). Learning for leadership: Interpersonal and intergroup relations. Routledge.
Richard A. Posthuma, P., Ayub, N., & Jehn, K. (2014). When diversity helps performance:
Effects of diversity on conflict and performance in workgroups. International Journal of
Conflict Management, 25(2), 189–212.
Roberts, M. (1976). Fans! How we go crazy over sports. Washington: New Republic Book Co.
Sachdev, I., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1987). Status differenttals and intergroup behaviour. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 17(3), 277–293.
Sauro, J., & Lewis, J. R. (2011). When designing usability questionnaires, does it hurt to be
positive? In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (pp. 2215–2224). ACM.
Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and
interpersonal relations. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company Monterey, CA.
Simmel, G. (1908). Soziologie: Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung (Vol.
11). Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
Simmel, G. (1955). Conflict. Georg Simmel, Conflict and the Web of Group-Afiiliations (New
York: The Free Press, 1955).
Snyder, C. R., Higgins, R. L., & Stucky, R. J. (1983). Excuses: Masquerades in search of grace.
John Wiley & Sons.
Snyder, C. R., Lassegard, M., & Ford, C. E. (1986). Distancing after group success and failure:
Basking in reflected glory and cutting off reflected failure. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 51, 382–388.
Sullivan, G. B. (2014). Understanding Collective Pride and Group Identity: New directions in
emotion theory, research and practice. Routledge.
Sumner, W. G. (1906). Folkways: A study of the sociological importance of usage, manners,
customs, mores, and morals.
Tajfel. (1959). Quantitative Judgement in Social Perception. British Journal of Psychology,
50(1), 16–29.
Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups (Vol. 164). London: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge University Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The Social
Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 33(47), 74.
Taylor, D. M., Doria, J., & Tyler, J. K. (1983). Group performance and cohesiveness: An
attribution analysis. The Journal of Social Psychology, 119(2), 187–198.
D
raft
17
Tesser, A. (1986). Some effects of self-evaluation maintenance on cognition and action.
Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior, 1, 435–464.
Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 181–227.
Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In Social identity and
intergroup relations (pp. 15–40). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, M. E. (2014). Groups at work: Theory and research. Psychology Press.
Weary, G. (1979). Self-serving attributional biases: Perceptual or response distortions?
Yarnell, L. M., & Neff, K. D. (2013). Self-compassion, interpersonal conflict resolutions, and
well-being. Self and Identity, 12(2), 146–159.D
raft