Minority v. Majority: Intergroup Conflict as a Structural Phenomenon

With increasing geographical mobility, globalized business, and an ever more salient dialogue on multiculturalism, it is certain that our local, previously homogeneous communities are changing. In the face of diversity of religious conviction, political opinion, ethnic background, or cultural tradition, human societies have to regularly handle some form of minorities and majorities. Previous research has shown that this relationship is often troubled by prejudice, discrimination, lack of cohesion, and a collapse of group resources.

The current project investigates intergroup bias between minorities and majorities from an evolutionary perspective, utilizing the Structural Goal/Expectation theory (sGET). Rather than rely on internalization of social identity, sGET attempts to connect human behaviour to the structural characteristics of the situation. Thus, we define minorities and majorities as distinct groups of unequal size which are nevertheless are interdependent. This definition highlights two structural characteristics, relative group size and group-level interdependence (a new concept here defined as the influence actors have on the common resource), which the authors predicted would impact intergroup bias. More precisely, we predicted that given the need to manage public goods together, majorities would commit intergroup bias more frequently and more intensely than minorities.

Indeed, two minimal group studies designed to replicate the structural characteristics we discussed showed majority members deliberately detract from minority outcomes, while minority members behave more fairly. The negative bias was explained by the majority’s expectation that minorities will cheat the group. These findings are discussed in terms of modern political and economic challenges in diverse societies.