Intergroup hostility is a product of structured interests, not fixed animosity.

Evidence

Early on, the Robbers’ Cave experiments at a boys’ summer camp (Sherif & Sherif, 1953) had demonstrated that people’s intergroup attitudes were a product of their group’s interests in a specifically structured, intergroup relationship. When relations between the Eagles and Rattlers were structured with repeated zero-sum, win-or-lose contests between groups, reciprocated hostilities quickly developed in the groups’ behaviors and attitudes. Hostilities were dispelled by introducing “superordinate goals” that required cooperation and changed the interests of the two groups from mutually opposed to shared and interdependent (see also Gaertner & Dovidio, ch. 5 this volume). Although the Sherifs’ field experiments were restricted to a rudimentary dichotomy in intergroup structure (mutually opposed interests with frequent competitive interactions versus shared interests with cooperative interactions), their results pointed to the significance of structural constraints and self-interest in shaping intergroup attitudes and behaviors. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 651

Categorization

• SEED: The superordinate-goals design is a natural companion to the tree-as-infrastructure article’s grafting metaphor — shared goals as structural graft between groups.
• XREF: Connects to Milgrom on institutions substituting reputation for direct knowledge — here structural constraints substitute for intergroup hostility.