Elsevier

Current Opinion in Psychology

Volume 33, June 2020, Pages 250-255
Current Opinion in Psychology

Power dynamics in intergroup relations

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.10.006Get rights and content

Power and intergroup relations are complex, multilevel, and dynamic. Using Power Basis Theory, we explain our criteria for deciding whether theory or research addresses intergroup power dynamics: it must (a) address power and not authority or other topics, (b) involve attempted or real change regarding groups and power, or the prevention of change, (c) involve protracted interactions among multiple actors through more than one channel, (d) involve more than one level of social organization (e.g. person, group, superordinate group). We organize our 10-year review by these criteria. Research meeting all our criteria is rare. We explain relevant new theory and new research tools, including multi-level modelling, multi-player games, agent-based models, big data, and machine-learning, that can help fill the gap.

Section snippets

Definition of power

Following Power Basis Theory (PBT), we define constructive power as the ability to meet one’s or close others’ needs, and destructive power as the ability to create need deficits or thwart needs-meeting [10]. PBT holds that (1) there are particular, universal survival needs: access to material resources, legitimate acceptance in a community, knowledge, freedom from violence, receiving care from others, and transcendence, (2) the potential to meet needs jointly depends on human capacities and

Theories assuming dynamic group interactions

Important intergroup theories are dynamic in involving change, multiple parties, protracted relationships, alternative goals or agendas, although these dynamic aspects are not equally elaborated across theories. Social Identity Theory (SIT) addresses dynamics in how groups and coalitions form, and why people become active for ‘social change’ [15,17,18,19,20]. Image Theory (IT) predicts how intergroup relations can change as groups imagine other group’s goals [21, see also Ref. 18]. Social

Multi-player games

New methods can handle the complexity of examining multiple parties interacting in multiple ways over time. The In Game is a multi-person game, in which rules, game tokens, and events represent distinct types of power (legitimacy, material resources, obligations, violence) while providing players with plenty of choice [43,45]. In different game cultures, the simple motivation to ‘survive’ (i.e. stay in the game) produces different behaviors, uses of power, and distributions of power among

Conclusion

Considering intergroup power dynamically goes beyond cognition, dyadic influence, and identity. It highlights agency, societies, empowerment, and material reality [16]. Examining intergroup relations emphasizes the importance of studying non-dominant and/or non-majority groups [4,31]. Though studying protracted interactions among multiple parties is difficult, new tools and new theories of intergroup history, coupled with established methods, are poised to link intergroup power dynamics with

Conflict of interest statement

Nothing declared.

References and recommended reading

Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have been highlighted as:

  • • of special interest

  • •• of outstanding interest

References (62)

  • N. Ferguson et al.

    Social movements, structural violence, and conflict transformation in Northern Ireland: the role of Loyalist Paramilitaries

    Peace Confl: J Peace Psychol

    (2018)
  • F. Pratto et al.

    When inequality fails: power, group dominance, and societal change

    J Soc Political Psychol

    (2013)
  • J. Sidanius et al.

    Social Dominance Theory: an Intergroup Theory of Oppression and Dominance

    (1999)
  • A.L. Stewart et al.

    International support for the Arab uprisings: understanding sympathetic collective action using theories of social dominance and social identity

    Group Process Intergroup Relat

    (2016)
  • K. Greenaway et al.

    The source model of group threat: responding to internal and external threat

    Am Psychol

    (2019)
  • F. Pratto et al.

    Power basis theory: a psychoecological approach to power

  • R.R. Vallacher et al.

    Rethinking intractable conflict: the perspective of dynamical systems

    Am Psychol

    (2010)
  • A. Anson

    Reconceptualizing social movements and power: towards a social ecological approach

    Sociol Q

    (2017)
  • J.R.P. French et al.

    The bases of social power

  • J. Nelson

    The United Nations and the employment of sanctions as a tool of international statecraft: social power theory as a predictor of threat theory utility

    Law Psychol

    (2005)
  • M. Van Zomeren et al.

    Protesters as “passionate economists” a dynamic dual pathway model of approach coping with collective disadvantage

    Personal Soc Psychol Rev

    (2012)
  • F. Pratto

    On power and empowerment

    Br J Soc Psychol

    (2016)
  • A.L. Stewart et al.

    Explaining different orientations to the 2013 Gezi Park demonstrations in Istanbul, Turkey

    Br J Soc Psychol

    (2019)
  • J. Sweetman et al.

    I have a dream: a typology of change goals

    J Soc Political Psychol

    (2013)
  • J. Sweetman et al.

    Attitude toward protest uniquely predicts (normative and nonnormative) political action by (advantaged and disadvantaged) group members

    J Exp Soc Psychol

    (2019)
  • C.P. Teixeira et al.

    Is Martin Luther King or Malcolm X the more acceptable face of protest? High status groups’ reactions to low status groups’ collective action

    J Personal Soc Psychol

    (2019)
  • F. Pratto et al.

    Politics and the psychology of power: multi-level dynamics in the (im)balances of human needs and survival

  • J.H. Liu et al.

    Symbologies, technologies, and identities: critical junctures theory and the multi-layered nation–state

    Int J Intercult Relat

    (2014)
  • A. Stein

    Ethnicity extraterritoriality, and international conflict

    Ethnic Racial Stud

    (2017)
  • A. Ansell

    New Right, New Racism: Race and Reaction in the United States and Britain

    (1997)
  • C. Anderson

    White Rage: the Unspoken Truth About Our Racial Divide

    (2016)
  • Cited by (3)

    • Resistance to collective victimization and oppression

      2020, Current Opinion in Psychology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Collective victimization, power, and resistance are closely linked (Figure 1). Victimization that occurs through violence involves ‘avoidable insults to basic human needs, and generally to life, lowering the real level of need satisfaction below what is potentially possible’ [7, p. 292], while power entails the ability to meet needs [8,9]. Thus, collective victimization is destructive power exercised over others—which, as Foucault and others have argued, always elicits resistance [3,8,10,11].

    This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

    View full text