Realistic Group Conflict Theory

1
Realistic Group Conflict Theory

• PSY 203s
• Dr. Chiwoza R. Bandawe

2
Background

• Muzafer (and Carolyn) Sherif
• Found psychology myopic in understanding human
  social behaviour
• Rejected individualistic view of prejudice
• Cannot extrapolate individual to group
• Argued that prejudice is a group phenomenon
  Dynamics between whole groups

3
Individualistic Theories

• Individual is prejudiced against Group X
• Negative stereotypes beliefs
• Internal hostile feelings
• Hostile behaviour towards Group X

4
Realistic Group Conflict Theory

• Basic premise Groups have their own reality
• Reality determined by material conditions that
  exist
• Competition (for limited resources) negative
  relations
• Cooperation reciprocal interactions positive
  relations

5

• Whenever there are not enough resources to meet
  the needs of two or more groups, there is a
  realistic probability that intergroup relations
  will deteriorate Carr (2003)
• Intergroup attitudes, perceptions, images arise
  from context in which intergroup behaviour occurs.

6
Robbers Cave Experiments

• Demonstrated Realistic Group Conflict Theory with
  regard to prejudice stereotypes
• Detailed study of group structure and intergroup
  relations
• Three different experiments 1949, 1953 and 1954
• Groups of unacquainted 11-12 year old boys

7
The Experiments

• Experiments situated as summer camp
• First in Connecticut
• Moved to Oklahoma (Robbers Cave site)
• Participant Observation studies

8
General format of experiments

• Participants 11-12 year old boys
• Homogenous background white, protestant, lower
  middle class SES, same level of pubescence,
  mentally normal
• Researchers were camp counsellors
• Hidden microphone and cameras
• Parents gave permission, boys unaware they were
  participating in experiment

9
Stages of experiment

• Stage 1 Free friendship formation
• Stage 2 Division into groups
• Stage 3 Group formation
• Stage 4 Intergroup competition
• Stage 5 Cooperation for a superordinate goal

10
Experiment 1 1949

• Connecticut Site

11
Stage 1

• Free friendship formation

12

• 24 boys arrive at campsite
• All activities camp wide
• Maximum freedom of choice of
• friends
• bunks
• Seats
• athletic teams

13

• Researchers established
• Friendship choices
• Boys strength at various activities
• Favoured activities

14
Stage 2

• Division into groups

15

• Cut across friendship lines
• Equal strengths
• Housed separately
• Different eating tables
• Different activities
• Identified by colours - red blue

16
Stage 3

• Group formation

17

• Time spent exclusively in group activities
• Taken for hikes, cook-outs, swimming, canoe
  rides. These activities required group
  cooperation.

18
Development of groups

• Names - Red Devils and Bull Dogs
• Hierarchical structure emerged
• Leaders surfaced
• Flags, emblems, jargon
• Nicknames
• Special places
• Ingroup cohesion specified way of doing things
  nude swimming, cursing

19
Friendship choices





20
Stage 4

• Intergroup Competition

21

• Introduced competitions
• Sports athletic competitions Tug of war,
  baseball
• Camp games
• Winners were rewarded pocket knife, trophy
• Initially there was good sportsmanship

22

• As competition grew more intense sportsmanship
  declined
• Accusations of cheating, unfairness
• Fairness and justice were notions that the boys
  interpret and reinterpret in ways that were
  advantageous to the ingroup Taylor Moghaddam
  (1987, p.40)

23

• Negative outgroup attitudes
• Outgroup were Sneaky, stinkers and smart
  alecks
• Losing group blamed the leader. Wanted leaders
  who were warlike and aggressive.

24
Introduction of frustration

• Party where half cakes were damaged
• Red Devils arrived first took undamaged goods
• Bull Dogs arrived shortly afterwards
• Assumed damage done by Red Devils
• Warfare Dorm raids

25
Experiment 3 1954

• Robbers Cave site

26

• Similar structure to previous experiments
• Participants
• 22 boys
• 11 years old
• Middle class
• Higher than average intelligence

27

• No stage of free friendship formation (Stage 1
  omitted)
• 2 groups of boys were brought separately to the
  campsite (Stage 2 Division into groups omitted)
• Housed separately in different areas

28
Stage 3

• Group formation

29
Stage 4

• Intergroup competition
• Rattlers vs. Eagles

30
Bean Toss Task

• Beans scattered in a field
• All boys had to collect as many as they could in
  one minute
• Placed in a bag with mouth tied so could not be
  counted
• Submitted for judgment

31

• Projector showing contents of bag for 5 seconds
• Same amount (35) each time
• Each group overestimate number of ingroup and
  underestimated number of outgroup

32
Overt Behaviours

• Not speaking to each other
• Raiding dorms
• Throwing food at each other
• Boys were seen by outsiders as wicked, disturbed
  and vicious Sherif (1966)
• Competition for limited resources began once they
  became aware of other group

33
Stage 5

• Cooperation between groups

34
Cooperative situations

• By use of Superordinate goals
• Goals with a compelling appeal for members of
  each group, but that neither group can achieve
  without participation of the other (Sherif,
  1966, p.49)
• Goal was to establish conditions under which
  prejudice and stereotypes may be eliminated

35

• Tasks required groups acting in concert to
  achieve goal
• Supplemented tasks with a preacher who preached
  on tolerance, forgiveness and cooperation
• Brought the groups together for mutually
  pleasurable experience
• These did not help or eliminate tension

36
1. Water Tank problem

• No water coming from taps
• Left to boys to sort out
• Checked water tank
• Discovered pipes blocked with sacking
• Cooperated in establishing problem, taps
  unblocked
• Outcome Did not eliminate friction

37
2. Hiring of movie

• Staff put up half the money
• Required whole group to contribute
• Outcome
• Film (Treasure Island) shown
• Seating choices still along group lines

38
3. Food truck breakdown

• Camp out at Cedar lake
• Groups separate
• Truck stalled
• Required both groups to turn truck

39

• Outcome Day 1
• Groups on separate pulling ropes
• Prepared food together
• Outcome Day 2
• Groups intermingled on both pull ropes

40

• Repeated cooperation
• Increased friendliness toward outgroup Name
  calling disappeared.
• Reduction of unfavourable stereotypes toward
  outgroup
• Trip home Sat together and sharing of prizes won

41
Supporting Evidence

• Competition for limited and valued resources
  elicits hostile intergroup behaviour
• Blake Mouton (1961, 1962) Managers
  administrators in the lab given tasks. Created
  competition

42
Replications

• Diab (1970) Lebanon
• Evidence of intergroup hostility
• Same enrolment assessment procedure as Sherif.
• 11 year old boys
• Violence occurred in competition phase
• Stabbing, police had to intervene

43

• Tyerman Spencer (1983)
• UK Scout troop
• Knew each other well
• Competitions led to mild outgroup hostility
• Sermons had strong effect in reducing hostility

44

• Ageev (cited in Platow Hunter, 2001)
• Russian youth at a Pioneer Youth Camp
• Competitive sporting activities heightened
  ingroup favouring attitudes
• Found decrease in ingroup favouritism/ outgroup
  hostility when groups cooperated on agricultural
  activities

45
Analysis of real groups

• Ember (1981)
• Studies 26 small scale communities
• Violence became more common as population
  pressures, famine or severe food shortage
  increased
• Divale Harris (1976)
• Similar results among Fore of New Guinea

46
Contradictory findings

• Competition without intergroup bias
• Rabbie Wilkens (1971) Dutch teenagers. Work
  independently rate their work. Hostility to
  outgroup still manifested even though they were
  not in competition

47
Implications of RGCT

• Recap Findings
• 1. Material competition between groups leads to
  intergroup prejudice behaviours that are
  discriminatory
• 2. Groups opt to compete rather than cooperate
• 3. Cooperating for superordinate goal leads to
  prejudice reduction

48
Problems with the Realistic Group Conflict Theory
49
Problem 1. Other social psych variables

• Other variables need to be taken into account to
  explain intergroup discrimination. These
  variables can increase intergroup discrimination
  independently or in different combinations
• Actual or anticipated intragroup interaction
• Actual or anticipated intergroup interaction
• Actual or anticipated loss in competitions

50

• Worchel et al (1978) If intergroup encounter
  fails to achieve superordinate goal, blame is
  attributed to outgroup. Hostility exacerbated
• Brown Wade (1987) Group identification
  essential in reducing intergroup hostility.
  Blurring of boundaries impedes cooperation

51

• Strutch Schwartz (1989) Competition does not
  lead to prejudice. Israeli study showed greater
  aggression to members of their religious ingroup
• Hunter et al (1997) Disadvantaged groups can
  favour advantaged outgroup over their own ingroup

52
Implications

• 1. Conflict of group interest will not
  necessarily stimulate high levels of intergroup
  discrimination (Platow Hunter, 2001, p. 208)
• 2. Limited resources not necessary for intergroup
  discrimination to emerge (e.g. boys being
  competitive once aware of other group)

53
Problem 2 Power

• Societal groups vary in terms of power ability
  to achieve needed outcomes
• Rules ideologies can be developed and
  manipulated to legitimise differential
  distribution of resources.

54

• There can be no minimal and sufficient cause of
  discrimination apart from one which is embedded
  in, and mediated by, the social arrangement of
  power (Ng, 1982, cited in Platow Hunter, 2001,
  p.208)

55
Protest

• Control of valued resources by one group can lead
  to manipulation
• Powerless groups can challenge and question these
  rules and ideologies
• They will seek to achieve alternative forms of
  distribution
• Intergroup protest IS intergroup conflict

56
Problem 3What is meant by conflict?

• Plethora of definitions. Competition for points
  between boys playing a game vs. major war between
  two nations, life and death situations
• Mode of operationalisation of term varied.
• Extrapolations require caution

57
Problem 4Faulty assumptions

• Assumes All conflict is wrong. Some conflict may
  be necessary. Conflict has led to positive
  changes with disadvantaged groups.
• Patterns of conflict in one area can be
  extrapolated to another area
• Some conflict based on misconceptions e.g. WMD in
  Iraq

58
Problem 5Experimental subjects

• Students young boys whilst those involved in
  real conflict situations are national leaders
• Sampling of subjects key
• Groups were closed rather than open. No exit
  option
• Experimenters constitute a third group

59
Areas for further research

• growing out of RGCT

60
1. Psychology of minority groups unexplored

• Intergroup processes explored from majority group
  perspective
• What factors lead minority groups to perceive
  themselves as groups with distinct interests?
• What factors make minority groups collude with
  status quo?

61
2. Non Western perspective

• Psychology seen through Western eyes
• Developing countries poverty, reduced life
  expectancy, Soaring urbanisation, HIV/AIDS,
  Disease, illiteracy. How do these affect
  intergroup relations?
• Relations between the haves have nots its
  impact on corruption

62

• Psychologists outside academia have little
  impact, especially in areas of national
  development like social mobilisation, family
  planning, youth development, manpower planning,
  primary health care, rural development, and
  environmental hygiene design, where they should
  be playing major roles Akin-Ogundeji (1991, p.3)

63

• What contributions can African traditional
  knowledge systems make to our understanding of
  intergroup relations?
• How would intergroup relations be different in
  societies with a group oriented world view as
  opposed to individualistic societies?

64

• How can we negotiate the tensions between the
  individual and the group or community?
• To what extent do intragroup issues impinge on
  intergroup issues? E.g pull down syndrome (Carr,
  2003).