Triadic intergroup relations: Studying situations with an observer, an actor, and a recipient of behavior

Abstract

The question of how onlookers make sense of acts they witness between an actor and a recipient of the action, and how the group memberships of the three inform outcomes, is of clear relevance to intergroup research on contact, collective action, and beyond. However, most intergroup research to date has focused on dyadic relationships rather than triadic relationships with an observer, an actor, and a recipient of behavior. Maybe because of the dominance of the dyadic approach, the design implications of focusing on triadic (rather than dyadic) relationships have not always been fully appreciated, leading to the introduction of confounds. This contribution will refer to some previously published studies to illustrate this, and outline recommendations for the study of triadic intergroup relationships in the future.

Introduction to intergroup contact and collective action: Integrative perspectives

“…With the exception of work by social scientists such as Simon and Klandermans () on politicized identities, research in the collective action and intergroup contact literatures has predominately focused on relationships between two groups, or members from two groups. Hanna Zagefka () makes a unique contribution by questioning and providing a solution for considering triadic relations in experimental studies on intergroup contact and collective action. This methodological contribution is particularly important because as societies diversify, theories of two group relations become increasingly detached and problematic.…”

Intergroup contact and collective action: A match made in hell, or in heaven?

“…Furthermore, Górska, van Zomeren, and Bilewicz (2017) Finally, let me describe a set of three studies we conducted (Klavina & Van Zomeren, 2018) on the underlying psychology of intergroup contact and collective action. In this line of work, Zagefka (2019) would be overjoyed to see that we focused on triadic contexts in which intergroup contact and collective action were both psychologically and contextually relevant. We examined whether the same core motivations for collective action that we typically find to apply to disadvantaged and advantaged group members (i.e., group identification, anger, and efficacy beliefs; Van Zomeren et al, 2008) also apply to "third groups" -groups outside of an unequal intergroup relationship (e.g., Blacks and Whites) that nevertheless could be psychologically or actually affected (e.g., Latinos in terms of police brutality in the US).…”

Round Table Talks did not happen in a vacuum: The political solidarity model of social change and Polish transition to democracy

“…Social reality is much more complex and, therefore, cannot be characterized adequately with crude binary divisions (e.g., the privileged and the disadvantaged, in-group and out-group). This limitation has been addressed by several theories in social psychology that proposed viewing intergroup relations as a tripolar structure (Drury & Reicher, 1999;Mugny & Perez, 1991;Simon & Klandermans, 2001;Zagefka, 2019). The tripartite dynamic is also adopted by the political solidarity model of social change (Subašić et al, 2008).…”