Realistic conflict theory

Realistic conflict theory (RCT), or realistic group conflict theory (RGCT) is a social-psychological model of intergroup conflict.^[1] The theory explains that intergroup hostility arises as a result of conflicting goals and competition over limited resources.^{[2] [3]} Groups may be in competition for a real or perceived scarcity of resources such as money, political power, military protection, or social status.^[2] Feelings of resentment arise because groups see the competition over resources as having a zero-sums fate, in which only one group is the winner and the other, loses.^[4] The length and severity of the conflict is determined by the perceived value and shortage of a given resource. According to RCT, positive relations can be restored only if superordinate goals, or goals that can only be achieved through the combined efforts of both groups, are in place.^[2] In addition to negative attitudes toward the out-group, threat from an out-group enhances intragroup cooperation, leading to heightened in-group identification.^[5] The theory was officially named by Donald Campbell, but has been articulated by others since the middle of the 20th century.^[5][6][7] The Robbers Cave experiment by Muzafer Sherif represents the most widely known demonstration of RCT.^[8] The theory was in part a reaction to the existing assumptions about intergroup conflict made based on intragroup or intraindividual characteristics. ^[9] RCT offers an explanation for feelings of prejudice and discrimination toward other groups because people tend to dislike members of out-groups seen as competing with their own group for needed resources. ^[8]

Conception

Classic Experiments

Robbers Cave Study

In his classic study, the Robbers Cave Experiment, Muzafer Sherif experimentally examined intergroup behavior.^[10][4] His research provides a clear example of the principles of realistic conflict theory.^{[8] [4]} The research was conducted in a 200 acres summer camp in Robbers Cave State Park, Oklahoma. Researchers posed as camp personnel observed 22 eleven and twelve year old boys during the three-week summer camp.^[11] The boys were selected on the basis that they had no personal ties to each other, were deemed mentally stable, and were from families with similar socioeconomic backgrounds. The participants were unaware that they were under constant observation and parents were asked not to visit their children throughout the duration of the camp.

The experiment was divided into three stages:^[10]

1) Ingroup formation

2) Friction phase

3) Integration Phase

Stage 1: Ingroup formation. Upon arrival, the boys were separated into two, pre-determined cabins based on similar strength, size, athletic skills and other characteristics. Each cabin had no knowledge of the other’s presence at the camp at the beginning of the week and camp activities were fulfilled in separate facilities or during separate times. Activities were selected to promote group cohesion and cooperation and camp staff made an effort to avoid competitive activities. Natural leaders emerged, a general hierarchy established, and group names, “The Rattlers and The Eagles” were chosen. At the end of this stage, a visual of the other group at the baseball diamond was made.

Stage 2: Friction phase. A tournament, consisting of baseball games, tug of war, touch football, tent pitching, cabin inspection, skits and songs, and a treasure hunt was held between the Rattlers and Eagles. It was determined that the overall winning group of the tournament would win a trophy, a knife, and medals. The prizes were highly valued and of great interest to the boys. During this phase, Sherif witnessed significant derogation, name-calling, and a desire to avoid association with the outgroup. In both groups, negative attitudes toward the outgroup accompanied by favor towards the ingroup was typical.

Stage 3: Integration phase. Boys were put in a series of contact situations, in which both groups were in the same place at the same time. There was no difference in the type of interaction observed between the Rattlers and the Eagles during these contact activities. Sherif introduced interaction activities, in which a problem required cooperation from both groups in order to solve and allow both groups to prosper. The challenges included a water shortage problem, a "broken down" camp truck that needed enough "man" power to be pulled back to camp, and finding a movie to show. Eventually, tensions between groups were reduced, the ratings of the outgroup became more favorable and by the trip home, all the boys on the bus sang songs together and several boys from opposing groups exchanged addresses.

Sherif made several conclusions based on the three-stage Robbers Cave Experiment.^{[10] [4]} First, he determined that since participants were chosen because of their similarities, individual differences are not necessary or responsible for the rise of intergroup conflict. Sherif also said that hostile and aggressive attitudes toward an outgroup arise when groups compete for resources that only one group can attain.^[11] Further, Sherif concluded that contact with an outgroup is an insufficient condition to reduce negative attitudes.^[10] Finally, he said that friction between groups can be reduced and positive intergroup relations achieved, only in the presence of a superordinate goal, which promotes united, cooperative action.^[4]

Other Notable Research

Other experimental research has experimentally given support to the Sherif study and theory of RCT.^[2] Avigdor paired groups of ten-year-old girls in opposing "friendship clubs" and had them perform cooperative or competing activities.^[12] The cooperative activity, to put on a play, had the uniting component of a common goal, earning money to buy club jackets. ^[10] Girls in both competing and cooperating situations rated the other girls in the group as favorable or unfavorable on a list of 32 characteristics. Girls in the cooperative activity group rated the girls in the other friendship club as more favorable than the ratings of the competing activity group showed. In another experiment, Rabbie and Horwitz found that physical competition and prior interaction is not a necessary condition for discriminatory behavior.^[13] In their investigation, participants were brought into the lab and divided at random into assigned color groups. Researchers announced that they had a limited number of rewards to distribute to participants. In this case the reward was a free transistor radio and it was awarded to individuals based on the flip of a coin. In accordance with the RCT model, merely the creation of groups did not create a difference in perceptions of the outgroup, but the perception of limited resources created a significant preference for the ingroup and disfavor toward the outgroup.

History of the theory

In the 1960s, Donald T. Campbell recognized the tendency of social psychologists to reduce all human behavior to hedonistic goals.^[6] He criticized psychologists like John Thibaut, Harold Kelley, and George Homans, who emphasize theories that place food, sex, and pain avoidance as central to all human processes. ^[6] Campbell notes that these social exchange theorists oversimplify human behavior, incorrectly likening interpersonal interaction to animal behavior.^[6] According to Campbell, hedonistic assumptions do not adequately explain intergroup relations. Similarly, other researchers recognized a problem in the psychological understanding of intergroup behavior. ^{[11] [10]} For example, Sherif disapproved of the frustration-aggression postulates, authoritarian personality theory, and the contact hypothesis, which he notes overlook the importance of the collective process. ^{[14][10] [2]} Sherif notes that these approaches ignore the essence of social psychology and the importance of interchanges between groups. ^[11] An alternative explanation takes into account the real sources of conflict between groups, incompatible goals, and competition over limited resources. ^[6] RCT suggests that hostility is aimed at the source of threat to tangible resources and can be contrasted to other theories of intergroup relations such as symbolic racism, the social identity theory, and the scapegoat theory of prejudice. ^[15]

Extensions and Applications

Relationship with Social Contact Theory

Another prominent theory in the realm of social psychology is Allport’s Contact Hypothesis, which states that intergroup conflict is reduced by increasing interpersonal contact between outgroup members.^[8] Both RCT and the Contact Hypothesis can contribute to an understanding of intergroup relations.^{[16] [17]} According to the contact hypothesis, contact between groups must occur under certain conditions to effectively foster cooperation. ^[17] One condition directly relates to the RCT. Under the condition that a situation creates cooperative interdependence among group members, contact will promote positive intergroup attitudes. Further, both perceived conflict and past social contact are important influences on future attitudes toward outgroups. ^[16] A person’s willingness to engage in intergroup contact may be related to how much intergroup conflict they perceive. The less that people perceive a conflict between groups and the greater their past outgroup contact, the more they were willing to engage in future outgroup contact.

Implications on Diversity and Integration

RCT offers an explanation for negative attitudes toward racial integration and efforts to promote diversity.^[4] According to the Michigan National Election Studies surveys, most whites held negative attitudes toward school districts' attempts to integrate schools via school busing in the 1970s.^[18] A general attitude of blacks presenting a realistic threat to whites prevailed in the surveys as an explanation for white opposition to busing integration. Thus, contempt towards racial integration is due to a perception of blacks as a challenge to valued lifestyles, goals, and resources rather than symbolic racism, or prejudiced attitudes formulated during childhood. ^{[2] [18]}

Competition over limited resources in communities also presents the potential for harmful consequences in establishing successful organizational diversity. ^[7] In the workplace, increased racial heterogeneity among employees is associated with more job dissatisfaction among majority members. ^[19] Since organizations are embedded in the context of the communities to which their employees belong, the racial makeup of employees' communities affect attitudes toward diversity in the workplace.^{[7] [20]} As racial heterogeneity increases in a white community, white employees are less accepting of workplace diversity. ^[7] RCT provides a good explanation of this pattern because in communities of mixed races, members of minority groups are seen as competing for economic security, power, and prestige with the majority group.

RCT can explain discrimination against different ethnic and racial groups.^[15] Cross-cultural research shows that violence between different groups escalates in correlation to shortages in resources.^[4] The belief that resources are limited and only available for possession by one group leads to attempts to remove the source of competition.^[15] Competition can be removed by increasing the competitiveness of ones own group (e.g. skill training), decreasing the competitiveness of the outgroup (e.g. expressing negative attitudes), or by decreasing proximity to the outgroup (e.g. denying immigrant access).

An Extension of Realistic Conflict Theory

Realistic Conflict Theory originally only described the implications of competition between two groups of equal status. John Duckitt suggests that the theory be expanded to include competition between groups of unequal status. Duckitt created a scheme of types of realistic conflict and the resulting patterns of prejudice.

Duckitt points out that two types of conflict are based on direct ingroup competition. The first is ‘competition with an equal group’ and is explained by realistic conflict theory. Group-based threat leads ingroup members to feel hostile towards the outgroup which can lead to conflict as the ingroup focuses on acquiring the resource. The second type of conflict is ‘domination of the outgroup by the ingroup.’ This occurs when the ingroup and outgroup do not have equal status or a conflict is won during the initial competition. If domination occurs, there are two responses the subordinate group may have. One is stable oppression, in which the subordinates accept the dominating group’s attitudes on some focal issue and sometimes, deeper values. The subordinates submit to the dominant group to avoid further conflict. The second response that may occur is unstable oppression. This occurs when the subordinate group rejects the lower status thrust upon them, and sees the dominating group as oppressive.^[21]

The dominant group then may view the subordinates’ challenge as either justified or unjustified. If it is seen as unjustified, the dominant group will respond to the subordinates’ rebellion with hostility. If the subordinates’ rebellion is viewed as justified, the subordinates are given the power to demand change. An example of this would be the eventual recognition of the civil rights movement in the 1960s in the United States. ^{[22] [23] [24]}

References

See also

External links

• Detailed description of the Robber's Cave experiment