In-group-out-group differences in the perceived efficacy of coercion and conciliation in resolving social conflict.

In-group and out-group members were predicted to differ in the judged efficacy of coercion and conciliation as social influence strategies, with coercion perceived as relatively more effective than conciliation by outgroup rather than ingroup members. In Experiment 1, all subjects read a description of a conflict between two hypothetical nations, with half of the subjects taking the perspective of the defense minister of one nation and half the perspective of the other. Each nation was developing weapons that increased rather than decreased the likelihood of war. Each subject was asked to consider the effectiveness of an array of social influence strategies, varying in degree of coercive or conciliatory tone, that could modify the actions of either their own or the other country. The prediction was confirmed, both by indexes of rated effectiveness and by a ranking of effectiveness. In Experiment 2, the perspective-taking manipulation was weakened by merely asking subjects to imagine that they were citizens of one country or the other. Experiment 2 replicated the basic findings of Experiment 1. The implications of these results for international conflict, with particular reference to the arms race, are discussed.