Two studies tested the schema-based distrust interpretation of the tendency of intergroup relations to be more noncooperative (or competitive) than interindividual relations. According to this interpretation, anticipated competitiveness rationally leads to noncooperativeness or defensive withdrawal. Thus, the postulated motivation is fear of the other group's competitive intent. Study 1 was a nonexperimental investigation in which discussion of distrust of another group was assessed and correlated with the number of cooperative choices. As predicted, the greater the within-group discussion of distrust for the other group, the less the number of cooperative choices. Study 2 was an experimental investigation that included as independent variables intergroup versus interindividual relations and PDG matrix versus PDG-Alt matrix (PDG matrix plus a third Alt or withdrawal, choice producing intermediate outcomes regardless of the opponent's choice). As predicted, there were more withdrawal choices on the PDG-Alt matrix for groups than for individuals. However, it was still found that on the PDG-Alt matrix (where a safe withdrawal choice is possible), groups competed more than individuals.

Campbell's (1958) concept of ingroup entitativity is reformulated as a perceived interconnection of self and others. A 2 (intergroup relations: competitive, neutral) Â 3 (intragroup interaction: low, medium, high) between-subjects design was used to examine (1) the eects of intergroup and intragroup relations on perceived ingroup entitativity and (2) the relation between ingroup entitativity and intergroup bias. Regardless of the relations between groups, members who experienced intragroup interaction had stronger perceptions of ingroup entitativity and stronger representations of the aggregate of ingroup and outgroup members as two separate groups than members who lacked intragroup interaction. Furthermore, perceptions of ingroup entitativity mediated the eect of the salience of the intergroup boundary on behavioral intergroup bias. These results call into question the`intergroup' nature of group based phenomena. An ingroup entitativity framework is presented that locates the source of group-based phenomena (e.g. intergroup bias) in intragroup processes.

No abstract

Consistent with the role of a long-term perspective in reducing the tendency of intergroup relations to be more competitive than interindividual relations in the context of noncorrespondent outcomes, an experiment demonstrated that anticipated future interaction reduced intergroup but not interindividual competitiveness. Further results indicated that the effect was present only for groups composed of members high in abstractness (Openness-Intellect on the Big 5 Inventory and Intuition on the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory) who trusted their opponents.

This quantitative review of 130 comparisons of interindividual and intergroup interactions in the context of mixed-motive situations reveals that intergroup interactions are generally more competitive than interindividual interactions. The authors identify 4 moderators of this interindividual-intergroup discontinuity effect, each based on the theoretical perspective that the discontinuity effect flows from greater fear and greed in intergroup relative to interindividual interactions. Results reveal that each moderator shares a unique association with the magnitude of the discontinuity effect. The discontinuity effect is larger when (a) participants interact with an opponent whose behavior is unconstrained by the experimenter or constrained by the experimenter to be cooperative rather than constrained by the experimenter to be reciprocal, (b) group members make a group decision rather than individual decisions, (c) unconstrained communication between participants is present rather than absent, and (d) conflict of interest is severe rather than mild.