Intense intergroup conflict makes defection to the outgroup unthinkable and sanctioned

Evidence

One of the main features of this belief system is the perception by the individuals concerned that it is impossible or extremely difficult to move individually from their own group to another group. This is precisely the situation in an intense conflict of interests, in which it is extremely difficult for an individual to conceive of the possibility of “betraying” his or her own group by moving to the opposing group. Although this does happen on occasion, sanctions for such a move are, on the whole, powerful, and the value systems (at least in our cultures) are in flagrant opposition to it. To use an example from social-psychological research, it seems hardly possible that one of the boys in Sherif’s holiday camps would decide to change sides, even though some of his previously contracted friendships overlapped group boundaries. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2686 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Because women are considered a highly valued resource among men, they are not targeted as members of out-groups for harm or debilitation, but are instead often incorporated into the winning group. This logic confirms the initial prediction of the SMTH that men serve as the primary targets and agents of intergroup aggression. However, the SMTH additionally specified that it should be men of subordinate groups who are primarily targeted. We have attempted to revise this assertion using logic from parental investment theory and sexual selection and have also cited evidence in which subordinate groups have displayed intergroup biases toward dominant groups. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1270 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Other researchers have demonstrated that, contrary to Allport’s argument, violence does not require a history of animosity at either the group or individual level. Weingast (1997) has shown that social groups can become poised for armed conflict, even when they have a history of good relations and a preference for peace, if political institutions fail to safeguard each group’s interests and mutual trust is undermined. … Such organizational factors include instructions that permit or legitimize the use of violence, a chain of command that relieves perpetrators of responsibility for their acts, the assignment of anonymous identities to perpetrators, and granting pervasive powers to perpetrators without threat of retaliation or sanctions. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 655 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Threat-hardened nationalist forces punished accommodation of the out-group. — Neil DeVotta, Sinhalese Buddhist Nationalist…, 128; Attempting to quit extremism can itself escalate a person into a worse group — Ryan Andrew Brown, Todd C. Helmus, Rajeev Ramchand, Alina I. Palimaru, Sarah Weilant, Ashley L. Rhoades, and Liisa Hiatt (RAND Corporation), Violent Extremism in America:…, 366; Intense intergroup conflict makes individual group-switching socially unthinkable and sanctioned — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2686 (+5 more)

Broader Connections

• Intense intergroup conflict makes individual group-switching socially unthinkable and sanctioned #corroborates (0.97) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2686
• Intergroup aggression targets outgroup men while incorporating outgroup women #complicates (0.76) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1270
• Intergroup violence can erupt without prior animosity when institutions fail and trust collapses #complicates (0.74) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 655