ORIGINS OF CONFLICT

Conflict has its origins in either perceived divergence of interest with another party or annoyance from that party. In either case, the basic source of conflict lies in needs, which appear to be opposed to the other party’s needs (divergence of interest) or to be deprived or frustrated by the other party (annoyance).

Most conflict scholars recognize that need deprivation is not sufficient, in and of itself, to account for the origin of conflict, because parties (individuals or groups) often endure need deprivation for long periods of time without engaging in conflict. Hence, two bodies of theory have been developed to explain how need deprivation produces conflict: relative deprivation theory and group mobilization theory. Both bodies of theory are supported by case studies (for example, see Davies, 1971) and are widely accepted in the field. But they are in need of further theoretical development and solid empirical testing.

Relative Deprivation

Relative deprivation occurs when need achievement falls short of a “reason­able” standard, such as what one has achieved in the past, what comparison figures have achieved, what law or custom says one deserves, or what one expects to achieve. Sociologists and social psychologists know a lot about the sources of relative deprivation but not much about its impact on behavior, including conflict behavior. For example, we know from laboratory experiments that people tend to compare themselves with others who are proximate or salient or who are similar to themselves in group membership, attitudes, val­ues, or social status (Major, 1994).

The social psychological laboratory is a possible site for studies of this effect. Such studies could build on prior research about the impact of relative depri­vation on cognition. The beauty of laboratory experiments is that they allow creation of novel conditions, precise operationalization of variables, and unam­biguous assessment of cause and effect (Pruitt, 2005b). The design of such stud­ies might compare three conditions: no deprivation, deprivation in the absence of a standard, and deprivation in the presence of a standard. The dependent variables could be such conflict behaviors as requests for improved outcomes, threats, and retaliation.

In addition to discovering whether and how much conflict behavior is pro­duced under each condition, such studies should explore the mechanisms underlying these effects, such as whether relative deprivation has its impact by encouraging a sense of injustice and anger. The impact of various moderating variables should also be examined, guided by what is already known about the conditions encouraging relative deprivation.

If relative deprivation is established as an important antecedent of conflict behavior, follow-up research should examine the effect of the passage of time during relative deprivation. Casual observation suggests that people usually get used to relative deprivation after a while; hence, conflict behavior should dimin­ish over time. Yet there also is evidence that dysphoric rumination may some­times set in, producing an ever increasing sense of grievance (Baron, 2004). Theory and research are needed to establish the conditions under which each of these effects takes place.

Group Mobilization

By “group” is meant any set of people with a common identity who can com­municate in some way and can take organized action. Groups, in this meaning, run all the way from small face-to-face friendship groups and workgroups to departments, organizations, organized ethnic groups, and even nations.

How do the origins of intergroup conflict differ from those of interpersonal conflict? For one thing, relative deprivation must be understood in somewhat different terms. Questionnaire studies have found that readiness to participate in social protest actions is more closely related to collective deprivation, a sense that one’s group is not doing as well as other groups, than to personal deprivation (Birt and Dion, 1987; Guimond and Dube-Simard, 1983). In addition, group mobilization is usually a forerunner of intergroup conflict.

Group mobilization theory (Azar, 1990; Gurr, 1996; Pruitt and Kim, 2004) iden­tifies a series of stages on the way to group action. First, individuals must become strongly identified with their group—the group must be an important part of their self-definition. Then they must develop a sense of group deprivation—a perception that the group as a whole has been victimized, that their own suffer­ing and that of their fellow group members are part of a larger pattern. For this perception to lead to actual conflict behavior, group members must also be will­ing and able to pool their actions in a joint endeavor. This requires some level of group organization and the emergence of leaders or an activist subgroup that is willing to carry the group’s grievances to the adversary. These three stages— identity, perceived deprivation, and organization—tend to recycle. For example, leaders, once they emerge, often encourage increased group identity and greater perceived group deprivation.

Group mobilization theory is powerful and helps to explain a lot. But it is not very well developed, in the sense of understanding the processes that occur at each stage and the conditions that produce these processes. The field needs more case studies to understand these processes and some large-sample stud­ies to test hypotheses about these conditions.

One hesitates to propose that such hypotheses be tested with laboratory groups because of the complexity of the phenomena under study and the cor­responding difficulty of developing an adequate laboratory simulation. Yet, as mentioned earlier, laboratory studies require clear operationalization of con­cepts, making them a good place to sharpen hazy ideas, such as those now found in the theory of group mobilization. Laboratory settings also make it easy to observe stages in the development of groups because they occur right before the eyes of the investigator.

Studies should also be done of group humiliation, in the sense of reduced group prestige in comparison to other groups, which has been suggested as a motive for a current spate of terrorist attacks. Research is needed to determine whether humiliation is indeed a powerful group motivator and, if so, what con­ditions produce its current, highly virulent form.