500 Social Conflict, Harmony, and Integration
processes) can operate in a complementary and reciprocal
fashion.
Pragmatically, understanding the nature of bias and conflict
can suggest ways in which these forces can be harnessed and
redirected to promote social harmony. Given the different per-
spectives, needs, and motivations of majority (high status) and
minority (low status) groups, interventions based on these
principles need to be considered carefully. Nevertheless, un-
derstanding the multilevel nature of prejudice and discrimina-
tion is an essential step for finding solutions—which may
need to be similarly multifaceted. These principles may be
applied to reduce social conflict and facilitate the integration
of groups as disparate as corporations and stepfamilies
(S. Gaertner, Bachman, Dovidio, & Banker, 2001), to im-
prove race relations in the workplace (Dovidio, Gaertner, &
Bachman, 2001) and more generally (Dovidio & Gaertner,
1998), and to meet the challenge of managing immigration
successfully—in ways that facilitate the achievement and well-
being of immigrants and that produce the cooperation and sup-
port of residents of the receiving country (Esses et al., 2001).
In addition, these approaches may be applied integratively
to reduce international tensions and improve national rela-
tions (Pettigrew, 1998b). Rouhana and Kelman (1994), for
example, described the activities and outcomes of a program
of workshops designed to improve Palestinian-Israeli rela-
tions and to contribute to peace in the Middle East. These
workshops required Palestinian and Israeli participants to
search for solutions that satisfy the needs of both parties.
Rouhana and Kelman (1994) explained that this enterprise
“can contribute to a creative redefinition of the conflict, to
joint discovery of win-win solutions, and to transformation of
the relationship between the parties” (p. 160). Conceptually,
this orientation changes the structural relations between the
groups from competition to cooperation, facilitates the devel-
opment of mutually differentiated national identities within a
common workshop identity, and permits the type of personal-
ized interaction that can enhance social harmony. Pettigrew
(1998b) proposed that these workshops serve as a setting for
direct interaction that provides opportunities for developing
coalitions of peace-minded participants across conflict lines.
Thus, a strategic and reflective application of basic social-
psychological principles can have significant practical bene-
fits in situations of long-standing conflict.
In conclusion, the issues related to social conflict, harmony,
and integration are complex indeed. As a consequence, ap-
proaches to understanding these processes need to address the
issues at different levels of analysis and to consider structural
as well as psychological factors. This diversity of perspectives
produces a complicated and sometimes apparently inconsis-
tent picture of the nature of intergroup relations. However,
rather than viewing these approaches as competing positions,
we suggest that they often reflect different perspectives on a
very large issue. No single position is definitive, but jointly
they present a relatively comprehensive picture of the multi-
faceted nature of intergroup relations.REFERENCESAbrams, D. (1985). Focus of attention in minimal intergroup
discrimination.British Journal of Social Psychology, 24,65–74.
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford,
R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality.New York: Harper.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice.Cambridge, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Allport, G. W. (1958). The nature of prejudice(abridged). Garden
City, NY: Doubleday.
Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter.Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Altemeyer, B. (1998). The “other authoritarian personality.” In M. P.
Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology
(Vol. 30, pp. 47–92). San Diego, CA: Academic.
Amir, Y. (1969). Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations. Psychologi-
cal Bulletin, 71,319–342.
Archer, R. L., & Berg, J. H. (1978). Disclosure reciprocity and its
limits: A reactance analysis. Journal of Experimental Social Psy-
chology, 14,527–540.
Aronson, E., & Patnoe, S. (1997). The jigsaw classroom.New York:
Longman.
Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978).
The jigsaw classroom.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Batson, C. D., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H. J.,
Mitchener, E. C., Bednar, L. L., Klein, T. R., & Highberger, L.
(1997). Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a member of a
stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 72,105–118.
Berry, J. W. (1984). Cultural relations in plural societies. In N.
Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychol-
ogy of desegregation(pp. 11–27). Orlando, FL: Academic.
Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (1992).
Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications. Cam-
bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bettencourt, B. A., Brewer, M. B., Croak, M. R., & Miller, N.
(1992). Cooperation and the reduction of intergroup bias: The
roles of reward structure and social orientation. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 28,301–319.
Blanchard, F. A., Weigel, R. H., & Cook, S. W. (1975). The effects
of relative competence of group members upon interpersonal at-
traction in cooperating interracial groups. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 32,519–530.
Blauner, R. (1972). Race oppression in America. New York:
Harper & Row.