Dynamics of conflicts between informal groups in adolescence: Qualitative analysis in the school context

• Published date: 01 March 2022
• Author: Gloria Inés Rodríguez,Enrique Chaux
• Date: 01 March 2022
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21320

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Dynamics of conflicts between informal groups

in adolescence: Qualitative analysis in the

school context

Gloria Inés Rodríguez | Enrique Chaux

Department of Psychology, Universidad

de los Andes, Bogot

a, Colombia

Correspondence

Enrique Chaux, Department of

Psychology, Universidad de los Andes,

Carrera 1 E # 18A-70, Bogot

a, Colombia.

Email: echaux@uniandes.edu.co

Abstract

Conflicts between informal groups are common in ado-

lescence, and can lead to much aggression, but have

been much less studied than conflicts between stable

groups such as gangs. Seeking to understand better

their conflict dynamics, informal groups were identi-

fied with a peer-nomination method applied to 121 ado-

lescents from Bogot

a, Colombia (12–16 years), and

23 semi-structured interviews were conducted. Most

conflicts escalated to verbal or physical aggression.

Whether conflicts escalated or de-escalated seemed to

depend on beliefs legitimizing aggression, social identi-

ties, online (vs. face-to-face only) interactions, and on

third parties interventions. Results provide insights for

prevention of school violence.

KEYWORDS

adolescence, aggression, conflicts, intergroup, qualitative,

social norms

1|INTRODUCTION

Constructive conflict management is essential for peaceful relations and for the prevention of

aggression and violence. There has been significant progress on the study of interpersonal conflicts

(e.g., Ben-Ari & Hirshberg, 2009; Brunson & Miller, 2009; Chaux, 2005; Dhami et al., 2008;

Dirghangi et al., 2014; Duckworth et al., 2016; Kiviruusu et al., 2016; Van Kleef et al., 2008; Yeager

et al., 2011) and in the development of school-based programs that promote their constructive man-

agement (e.g., Burrel et al., 2003; Chaux et al., 2017; Duckworth et al., 2019; Durlak et al., 2011;

Ellis, 2019; Gonz

alez et al., 2019; Hakvoort, 2010; Johnson & Johnson, 1996; Jones et al., 2011;

Received: 11 October 2019 Revised: 9 August 2021 Accepted: 24 August 2021

DOI: 10.1002/crq.21320

Conflict Resolution Quarterly. 2022;39:275–293. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/crq © 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC. 275

Kreidler, 1991; Mytton et al., 2006; Wilson et al., 2003). However, much less has been studied about

school-based intergroup conflicts, particularly between informal groups that are created spontane-

ously (in contrast to more stable groups such as youth gangs or groups of football fans). This seems

particularly important during adolescence when relationships are in great part mediated by group

dynamics and when groups are fundamental for both the development of identity and to gain

instrumental and emotional support (Heaven et al., 2005). This dearth of knowledge about conflicts

between informal groups in adolescence is surprising given that informal groups are ubiquitous

during adolescence, and that frequently these intergroup conflicts escalate to violence. In order to

contribute to our understanding of intergroup conflicts during adolescence, the current study

sought to qualitatively describe the dynamics—and identify factors associated with escalation or de-

escalation—of conflicts between informal groups during adolescence.

Intergroup conflicts (i.e., conflicts between groups of individuals) have several characteris-

tics that make them different from interpersonal conflicts (i.e., conflicts between of individ-

uals). Stephan (2008) highlights that the main difference between interpersonal and

intergroup conflicts is that intergroup conflicts jeopardize social identities, values, norms,

and group beliefs. There are also differences in how these two types of conflicts are per-

ceived, the emotions that people experience, how they are managed, and the way in which

people behave towards their rivals. Also, when more than two people are involved, inter-

group conflicts are usually more difficult to resolve compared with interpersonal ones; they

also last longer and frequently escalate towards violence (De Dreu et al., 2020; Meier

et al., 2007; Meier & Hinsz, 2004). Several studies have examined the group dynamics and

conflicts between stable groups with shared identities like gangs, football fans, and criminal

organizations. In these settings, violence is commonly used to achieve group goals

(Alleyne & Wood, 2010; Barnes et al., 2010; Craig et al., 2002; Esbensen et al., 2009; Grekul &

LaBoucane-Benson, 2008; Katz & Fox, 2010; Mir

on & Otero-L

opez, 2005; Perea, 2007;

Ramos, 2004; Ruble & Turner, 2000; Salazar, 2003; Stodolska et al., 2009; Swahn

et al., 2010). There are much fewer studies that analyze the conflict dynamics between infor-

mal adolescent groups on which this study focuses.

2|CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND

Social identity theory provides crucial understanding to group dynamics, and to conflicts that

involve groups. Tajfel (1981, p. 255) defines social identity as “that part of an individual's self-

concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership in a social group (or groups)

together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership.”When the

parties in conflict are groups, individuals tend to behave and react towards members of another

group in terms of their social identification with their group, not as individuals. According to

Tajfel (1981), individual members of groups perceive each other as members of the same social

category. They share certain emotions in terms of how they define themselves as a group, and

they arrive at some degree of social consensus regarding the evaluation of their group and their

belonging to it. This gives them a sense of direction and definition about their place in society.

If another group puts the distinguishing nature of the group in danger, members can try to

draw attention to the differences between groups, for example, showing extreme favoritism

towards their own group, or making favorable social comparisons for their group in relation to

the others, what is known as ethnocentrism (Brewer, 2001; Heaven et al., 2005; Tajfel, 1981;

Tarrant, 2002).

276 RODRÍGUEZ AND CHAUX