Conflict, what conflict?: Evidence that playing down ‘conflict’ can be a weapon of choice for high‐status groups

Abstract

Three studies using pre‐existing (Studies 1 and 3) and minimal (Study 2) groups tested the hypothesis that ingroup status shapes whether ‘conflict’ with an outgroup is strategically acknowledged or downplayed. As predicted, high (vs. low) ingroup status led group members to downplay conflict, but only to an outgroup rather than ingroup audience (Studies 1 & 2; Ns = 127 & 292), and only when the status difference was unstable (vs. stable) and the outgroup’s action was perceived as illegitimate (Study 2). High‐status group members also collectively communicated with the outgroup in a manner designed to defuse conflict (Study 2). Survey data of industrial (manager‐worker) relations further indicated that company managers (high‐status) characterized manager–worker relations as less conflictual than did workers (low‐status) in the same companies (Study 3; N = 24,661). Findings imply that high‐status groups play down conflict as a ‘benevolent’ (but unacknowledged) means of maintaining intergroup status hierarchies.