The Role of Group Schema in the Selection of Influence Attempts

Abstract Subjects rated how likely they would be to use threats and promises to resolve interpersonal, intergroup, and international conflicts. Threats were rated as more likely to be employed in intergroup and international than in interpersonal disputes; promises were rated as more likely to be employed in interpersonal than in intergroup or international disputes. Questions dealing with subjects' general impressions regarding type of conflict revealed that subjects differed in their perceptions of interpersonal and intergroup conflicts. For example, interpersonal disputes were seen as being safer than intergroup or international disputes. In addition, subjects differed in their perceptions of intergroup and international conflict; subjects thought it was more important to do well, use strength, and employ physical force in international conflict than in intergroup or interpersonal conflict. The results are discussed in terms of the group schema hypothesis, and a recommendation is made for researchers to make a distinction between intergroup and interpersonal conflict.