Realistic conflict theory posits that groups tend to have more friction with each other when they are in competition for resources and will be more cooperative with each other if they feel solidarity or have unified goals. This is a social psychological concept and is thought to partially explain how prejudice develops. The most famous example of this theory was explored in an experiment called Robber’s Cave, conducted by Carolyn and Muzafer Sherif in the 1950s. Since then, other social psychologists have evaluated multiple aspects of this concept and how it impacts group interactions in many ways.
Numerous examples of realistic conflict theory in action exist in the waves of immigration to the United States. When a new group of immigrants from a specific ethnic background would arrive in great numbers, members of the group often met with profound prejudice because they were viewed as competitors for resources like jobs. Over time, this discrimination would die back, but it could be reignited if a group was thought to constitute an ongoing threat. Japanese immigrants, for instance, faced extreme prejudice and internment during WWII, and many people of Arabic descent were discriminated against after the terrorist attacks on the US on 11 September 2001.
There are also many historical instances when groups cooperated together and formed greater bonds. The building of workers' unions often brought together immigrants of many groups that had formerly been characterized by high conflict relationships. Affiliation to political parties also created shared goals among different groups.
These examples and many others led to curiosity about the nature of conflict between groups. To study this more fully, social psychologists Carolyn and Muzafer Sherif designed an experiment called Robber’s Camp with two camps of pre-teen boys. The two groups were first unaware of each other and were studied for how they coalesced and formed bonds within the group.
After a few days, both camps were made aware of each other, and a variety of activities that were meant to increase friction and competition between the two groups were introduced. These led to a nearly immediate expression of group solidarity and intergroup discrimination. Rising tension was so profound that the second phase had to be discontinued after a few days.
The third part of the Sherifs’ realistic conflict theory experiment was to present both groups with shared goals that they could only earn through cooperation. As the groups began to work together, shared appreciation and solidarity developed. By the end of the study, strong bonds had grown between the two camps.
https://www.wise-geek.com/what-is-realistic-conflict-theory.htm
Andy and Jim, colleagues from work, both love football. Andy is a Manchester United supporter, and Jim supports the Liverpool team, which is probably why they hate each other passionately. On one occasion, they discuss with a colleague, a volleyball fan, which sport is better, football or volleyball? Andy and Jim, who now play on the same team and have a common goal, become closer and decide to have lunch together. So can belonging to competing groups affect how we interact with others?
We might find answers to some of these questions in the realistic conflict theory (Sherif, 1966).
Have you ever fought with your sibling over the last piece of clothing, the front seat, or food? Since they are your sibling you’re probably going to fight with them anyway, but the fighting can get more intense when only one item is left. This theory for fighting is a simple way of describing the realistic conflict theory.
The realistic conflict theory says that when there are groups trying to get the same finite resources, there will be conflict.
When you’re fighting with your sibling over the last biscuit, your view of them gets tainted by the fight for the biscuit. Chances are, you start to see (or even fabricate) lots of their negative qualities. The same thing can happen on a larger scale. The realistic conflict theory states that when two or more groups are fighting for scarce resources, they become prejudiced against and discriminatory towards the other group.
The realistic conflict theory is a psychological theory of prejudice that suggests competition for scarce resources as the reason for conflict between groups. Group members are more likely to perceive their group as the better one and to view intergroup differences as evidence of the other group’s inferiority. Negative attitudes toward the out-group are therefore associated with the inter-group competition.
This conflict theory relies on the definitions of the in-group and out-group.
The in-group is the group of people with whom you relate. In realistic conflict theory, it is the group that you are fighting with for the resources.
The out-group is the group of people with whom you don’t relate. In realistic conflict theory, you are fighting against the out-group for resources.
Since you don’t know the out-group as well as you know the in-group, you are more likely to stereotype and negatively judge the members of the out-group, even if those are incorrect assumptions. It is the competition for resources that causes prejudice between groups.
Example;
In the Olympic Games, sports teams from different countries compete against each other. The goal here is to win the gold medal. Supporters of sports teams can often make claims against each other or even feel anger and aggression toward the supporters of the competing team because the other team’s victory would be their loss.
https://www.studysmarter.us/explanations/psychology/basic-psychology/realistic-conflict-theory/
Between the borders of Pakistan and India lies a fertile valley known as Kashmir. Since 1947, India and Pakistan have fought three wars over this valuable territory. Unfortunately, the wars have contributed to hostilities and prejudice experienced by people on both sides. These tensions can be described by the realistic group conflict theory (RGCT). RGCT is a well-established theory with robust research support from both laboratory and field studies. It is used to understand many of the local and global intergroup conflicts that besiege the world. That a solution to end conflict is incorporated within this theory makes it one of the most applicable and compelling social psychological theories existing today.
This theory emerged in the 1960s to describe how perceived competition for limited resources can lead to hostility between groups. Unlike theories that use psychological factors such as personality or value differences to explain conflict and prejudice, RGCT focuses on situational forces outside the self. When valuable resources are perceived to be abundant, then groups cooperate and exist in harmony. However, if valuable resources are perceived as scarce (regardless of whether they truly are), then these groups enter into competition and antagonism ensues between them. The resources in question can be physical (such as land, food, or water) or psychological (such as status, prestige, or power).
Supportive Research - Robbers Cave study
The 1954 Robbers Cave experiment (or Robbers Cave study) by Muzafer Sherif and Carolyn Wood Sherif represents one of the most widely known demonstrations of RCT. The Sherifs' study was conducted over three weeks in a 200-acre summer camp in Robbers Cave State Park, Oklahoma, focusing on intergroup behavior. In this study, researchers posed as camp personnel, observing 22 eleven- and twelve-year-old boys who had never previously met and had comparable backgrounds (each subject was a white eleven to twelve-year-old boy of average to slightly above average intelligence from a Protestant, middle-class, two-parent home).
The experiments were conducted within the framework of regular camp activities and games. The experiment was divided into three stages. The first stage being "in-group formation", in which upon arrival the boys were housed together in one large bunkhouse. The boys quickly formed particular friendships. After a few days the boys were split into two approximately equal groups based on random basis. Each group was unaware of the other group's presence. The second stage was the "friction phase", wherein the groups were entered into competition with one another in various camp games. Valued prizes were awarded to the winners. This caused both groups to develop negative attitudes and behaviors towards the outgroup. At this stage 93% of the boys' friendship was within their in-group. The third and final stage was the "integration stage". During this stage, tensions between the groups were reduced through teamwork-driven tasks that required intergroup cooperation.
The Sherifs made several conclusions based on the three-stage Robbers Cave experiment. From the study, they determined that because the groups were created to be approximately equal, individual differences are not necessary or responsible for intergroup conflict to occur. As seen in the study when the boys were competing in camp games for valued prizes, the Sherifs noted that hostile and aggressive attitudes toward an outgroup arise when groups compete for resources that only one group can attain. The Sherifs also established that contact with an outgroup is insufficient, by itself, to reduce negative attitudes. Finally, they concluded that friction between groups can be reduced and positive intergroup relations can be maintained, only in the presence of superordinate goals that promote united, cooperative action.
However a further review of the Robbers Cave experiments, which were in fact a series of three separate experiments carried out by the Sherifs and colleagues, reveals additional deliberations. In two earlier studies the boys ganged up on a common enemy, and in fact on occasion ganged up on the experimenters themselves showing an awareness of being manipulated. In addition, Michael Billig argues that the experimenters themselves constitute a third group, and one that is arguably the most powerful of the three, and that they in fact become the outgroup in the aforementioned experiment.
Lutfy Diab repeated the experiment with 18 boys from Beirut. The 'Blue Ghost' and 'Red Genies' groups each contained 5 Christians and 4 Muslims. Fighting soon broke out, not between the Christians and Muslims but between the Red and Blue groups.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realistic_conflict_theory
RESEARCH INTO REALISTIC CONFLICT THEORY THE FINDINGS OF STUDIES
Sherif carried out the famous “Robbers Cave” study that showed Realistic Conflict in action. This is the Classic Study in Social Psychology so you will be learning about it elsewhere.
In the 1970s, the Michigan National Election Studies survey gathered data on attitudes towards a government plan to merge schools and bus white children to schools alongside black children. In these surveys, white respondents opposed the idea of their children being schooled alongside African Americans. RCT would say this is because the white families felt that the privilege they enjoyed (wealth, better education, better career prospects) would be threatened if they had to share it with the children of black families.
If RCT is correct, you would expect negative prejudices to increase when there was a shortage of resources. Christine Brain (2015) describes the conflict between Russia and Ukraine as a conflict over who controls the supply of gas to Europe, since Russian pipelines have to pass through Ukrainian territory.
John Duckitt (1994) argues there are two types of realistic conflict, depending on whether or not the two groups have equal power. Standard Realistic Conflict is between two “peer groups” who are equal but competing. Sometimes an ingroup will be in conflict with an outgroup that has low status and isn’t a real threat. This is “domination of the outgroup by the ingroup”. The dominated group might accept their inferior status or might resent it. The powerful ingroup decides whether the rebellion is unjustified (leading to prejudice) or justified (leading to social change).
APPLYING REALISTIC CONFLICT THEORY (AO2) PREJUDICE in the real world
Cooperation between groups
If conflict comes from a conflict over scarce resources, it follows that conflict decreases when cooperation results in more shared resources. To reduce prejudice, superordinate goals can be set up. This is where the resources can only be won if the groups cooperate rather than compete.
Sherif demonstrated the power of superordinate goals to reduce conflict in the “Robbers Cave” study (1954). When the Eagles and the Rattlers had to work together to fix a water pipe and choose movies to watch, the hostility between the groups lessened.
There are real world projects to do the same thing. The European Union was formed to make a future war in Europe impossible by getting European countries to work towards superordinate goals through trade and moving labour forces. The Olympic Movement also tries to promote peace by getting countries to share superordinate goals of sporting achievement that will make them less likely to compete over resources.
Challenging Perceptions
Quite often, people perceive a competition over scarce resources when really there’s enough to go round. For example, because of falling birth rates and an ageing population, most European countries need immigrants to come and do jobs and pay taxes – there are too many jobs that need doing, not too few.
Gordon Allport (1954) proposed the Contact Hypothesis, which says that the more contact people have with outgroups, the more their prejudices will be reduced. This is called the “reconceptualization of group categories”. Allport agrees with Sherif that the groups must work together towards superordinate goals, but also with Duckitt that the groups need to have equal status when they meet.
He adds that there needs to be personal contact between the groups – they have to mingle and get to know each other to challenge stereotypes. Another factor is the support of the authorities for the meeting – you can’t have authority figures opposing the contact.
https://www.psychologywizard.net/realistic-conflict-theory-ao1-ao2-ao3.html
