Intergroup violence can erupt without prior animosity when institutions fail and trust collapses

Evidence

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

Categorization

• SEED: An article angle: the institutional preconditions of violence, challenging the ‘cycle of hatred’ framing in media coverage of ethnic conflicts.
• XREF: connects to: Mass violence evolves progressively from lesser harms rather than erupting suddenly; Group violence arises from interacting cultural, situational, and motivational influences, not single causes — Leonard S. Newman and Ralph Erber (eds.), Understanding Genocide: The Social…, 174; Capacity loss in nondemocratic regimes raises collective violence, as in the post-1985 USSR. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 764 (+2 more)