Intergroup conflict describes a state of tension or hostility between two or more distinct social groups who perceive their goals, interests, or values as fundamentally incompatible. This form of conflict is a pervasive sociological and psychological phenomenon that transcends national borders and political systems. It is rooted in the demarcation of an “us” versus a “them,” where group membership becomes a defining factor in how resources are distributed and how social interactions unfold. Understanding these disputes requires examining both material conditions and the underlying human psychology that fuels them.
Conflict Driven by Resource Scarcity
One of the most direct causes of intergroup hostility is competition over tangible, finite assets necessary for survival or prosperity. This form of conflict, sometimes described as “realistic conflict,” arises when groups perceive a zero-sum game, meaning one group’s gain is necessarily another group’s loss. Historically, a significant percentage of all intrastate conflicts have been linked to the control or exploitation of natural resources.
Competition for productive land and water is a prominent example, particularly in regions facing environmental stress. In the Sahel region of Africa, clashes frequently occur between sedentary farming communities and nomadic herder groups. Prolonged drought and desertification have shrunk available grazing lands, forcing herders to venture into established farmland, which immediately triggers violent disputes over territory and livelihood.
The struggle extends beyond agricultural resources to include high-value commodities like oil, timber, and minerals. Conflicts have erupted over control of oil reserves in the Middle East and North Africa. Disputes also frequently arise between indigenous communities and large extractive companies over the pollution and diversion of water resources in Latin America. Locally, competition for jobs can drive intergroup tension when established populations perceive immigrant groups as a threat to their economic stability, leading to prejudice and discrimination rationalized by the need for economic security.
Conflict Based on Ideological Differences
Intergroup conflict is often fueled by intangible differences in worldviews, beliefs, and values, which can be entirely separate from material resource competition. These ideological disputes center on differing moral frameworks, religious interpretations, or political alignments, creating deep schisms within societies. The resulting conflicts can be complex and prolonged because they challenge a group’s very sense of identity and purpose.
Sectarian violence exemplifies this type of conflict, involving hostility between different subgroups within a single religion or ideology. The historical and contemporary conflict between Sunni and Shia Muslims, rooted in a centuries-old dispute over the rightful successor to the Prophet Muhammad, continues to destabilize entire regions, including Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. This theological divide is often exacerbated by political power struggles, where competing sects vie for control of governance, leading to the marginalization and oppression of minority groups.
Political polarization in modern democracies also represents an ideological conflict, where partisan groups hold increasingly divergent views on social and political issues. When a political identity becomes fused with a person’s social identity, the opposing political group is perceived not merely as a competitor but as an existential threat to the nation’s values. This often leads to “political sectarianism,” where individuals prioritize their party’s success over neutral policy outcomes and view members of the opposing side with contempt and distrust.
The Psychological Engine of Intergroup Bias
Underpinning both resource-based and ideological conflicts are fundamental psychological mechanisms that govern how humans categorize and perceive group membership. This mental process begins with the formation of an “in-group,” consisting of people perceived as “us,” and an “out-group,” consisting of people perceived as “them.” The simple act of social categorization is sufficient to generate bias and favoritism toward one’s own group.
Research using the minimal group paradigm demonstrates how easily this bias can be triggered, even when groups are created based on trivial criteria. Participants in these experiments consistently favor their in-group members when allocating resources, even if that decision results in a smaller overall gain for everyone. This in-group favoritism suggests that the desire for a positive social identity—seeing one’s own group as superior—can override purely rational behavior.
Once established, these group boundaries are maintained and reinforced through stereotyping and generalization. People tend to perceive the out-group as largely homogenous, believing “they are all the same,” while recognizing the diversity and complexity within their own in-group. This “out-group homogeneity” effect simplifies the world, making it easier to assign negative traits to the rival group.