Group conflicts cannot be understood without accounting for third parties

Evidence

In conclusion, the important point is that politicized collective identity is likely to motivate actions aimed both directly and indirectly at a third party that easily evade our analysis if we rely exclusively on a nonpoliticized conceptualization of collective identity limited to bipolar in-group/out-group relations. As the above examples illustrate, we would even be unable to adequately understand many seemingly simple in-group/outgroup interactions because they often contain a critical strategic component, the meaning of which becomes accessible only if the analytical context is extended to include third parties. Finally, the reactions of third parties must remain a conundrum as long as we do not analyze their antecedents in the context of politicized collective identity. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 4453

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to coalitional psychology and the strategic-trade triangle argument; third-party dynamics echo the triangulation seen in coalition theory and in Truman’s ‘the enemy of my enemy’ framing. — connects to: Intergroup power struggles always involve a third-party audience beyond two antagonists — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology: Key Readings, 4411; Provoked overreaction from antagonists is a deliberate tactic to enlist third-party allies. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology: Key Readings, 4452