This is a compulsory theory so everyone learns it and the Examiner will expect you to know it in detail. While the Exam could ask general questions about the theory's ideas or evaluation, it could also ask specific questions, like, How does Realistic Conflict explain genocide? or, What explanations does Realistic Conflict give of sexism? or, What makes Realistic Conflict Theory useful (or useless) in the real world? Make sure you can explain the STRENGTHS of this theory as well as the weaknesses.

SHERIF (1966)
CONFLICT OVER RESOURCES EXPLAINS PREJUDICE

This theory was developed by Muzafer Sherif, an American psychologist who carried out the famous “Robbers Cave” study into group conflict.

The theory is a “Realist” theory because it proposes that conflict between groups isn’t based on something irrational but on an actual need for resources. It’s a “conflict” theory because it rejects the idea (common in the ‘60s) that groups could share and cooperate.

This theory is significant for students in other ways:

• It underlies Sherif’s “Robbers Cave” study, which is a Classic Study for the Social Approach.
• It opposes Social Identity Theory, which suggests conflict is not “realist” but is based on irrational needs for identity. SIT proposes that people might make choices that cost them what they need, in order to defeat out-groups.
• It illustrates features of the Social Approach, since it shows how decisions that people think are personal to them are actually expressions of their group identity and their group needs
  
• It ties in to your Key Question in Social Psychology, since it helps explain prejudice and how to reduce it
  

WHAT IS INTERGROUP CONFLICT?

It’s widely recognised that people tend to identify with their groups. They also tend to have negative views about some other groups – “outgroups”. But why do some outgroups attract hostility and discrimination but others are treated neutrally or even admired? For example, the British have some negative stereotypes about the French (eating frogs!) and the Germans (no sense of humour!) but not the Dutch or the Danes. This is what Realistic Conflict Theory (RCT) tries to explain.

Realistic conflict theory states that whenever there are two or more groups that are seeking the same limited resources, this will lead to conflict, negative stereotypes and beliefs, and discrimination between the groups. The conflict can lead to increasing animosity toward the groups and can cause an ongoing feud to develop.

In the case of Britain, France and Germany, these are all European countries that used to compete for imperial colonies and still compete for power in Europe. There are only so many colonies or European jobs/money to go round, so these are limited resources. Countries like the Netherlands and Denmark never competed with us for power, control or wealth, so we don’t have negative stereotypes or cruel jokes about them.

Conflict, negative stereotypes and beliefs, and discrimination between groups can be reduced in situations where two or more groups are seeking to obtain some superordinate goals. Superordinate goals are mutually-desirable goals that cannot be obtained without the participation of two or more groups.

• Cruel jokes about unemotional Germans and frog-eating French have grown less common since the creation of the EU, with British, French and German people trading and working together. They have more superordinate goals so the prejudice has decreased.
  
• After the 2015 Paris attacks, British football fans sang the French national anthem in Wembley. The superordinate goal of defeating ISIS meant that negative stereotypes about the French disappeared.
• It isn’t important that there should be actual conflicts over resources so much as perceived conflict. For example, there are people with prejudice against immigrants because they believe “they are coming over here to take our jobs”. This is quite separate from whether immigrants actually do take jobs that British workers want. Immigrants might take jobs like fruit-picking that British workers don’t want to do.
  
• Another related idea is the Zero-Sum Fate. This is the idea that if one side gains, someone else has to lose out. Some times this might be true, but not always. Realistic Conflict occurs when people believe that an out group can only benefit at their expense. So, if they see out group members doing well, they conclude that they must be losing out somehow.
  

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.

EVALUATING REALISTIC CONFLICT THEORY (AO3)
CODA

Credibility

There’s a lot of research in support of Realistic Conflict, especially the “Robbers Cave” study and also a lot of attitude surveys like the Michigan National Election Studies. It is also backed up by common sense (face validity). Football fans tend to have negative stereotypes about rival teams, but no particular view about teams much lower (or higher) in the league that aren’t in competition with their team.

Extremists who try to whip up prejudice often claim that outgroups represent a threat to people’s jobs, education, money or privileges. In other words, they try to create a perception (which may not be true) that resources are scarce and the outgroup are competitors. This is exactly what RCT would predict.
 
Objections

The “Robbers Cave” study was carried out on American schoolboys, not on adults. Testosterone and upbringing might make schoolboys especially likely to form tribes and be competitive. There’s a danger in generalising from them to adult behaviour.

Attitude surveys suffer from a “chicken and egg” problem of validity. Which comes first, the prejudice or the perception of competition? Bigoted people will often create the idea of competition to justify their prejudices, but the prejudices may in fact come first. This is the insight from Social Identity Theory.

Differences

Tajfel & Turner’s Social Identity Theory (1979) stands in stark contrast to RCT. SIT claims that prejudice is natural and instinctive and happens immediately, as soon as you categorise yourself as belonging to an ingroup (social categorisation) and notice other people belonging to an outgroup (social comparison). This prejudice has nothing to do with competition over resources.

SIT is backed up by Tajfel’s “Minimal Group” studies (1970) where boys showed outgroup discrimination even though they weren’t in competition with the outgroup – they would choose options from the matrix booklets that offered scarce resources (in points) in order to create competition rather than the options that would give their ingroup more points.

As with “Robbers Cave”, this is a study of schoolboys that may not generalise to adult behaviour. Unlike “Robbers Cave”, assigning points from matrix booklets was deeply artificial and may lack ecological validity.

There are other theories that explain prejudice as well. Theodor Adorno (1950) argues that some people have an “Authoritarian Personality” that is threatened by people who are different and enjoys disciminating against outgroups that have less status. Adorno’s research involved questionnaires (the “Fascism Scale”) and interviews to get quantitative and qualitative data. Again, this is a theory that suggests groups do not need competition in order for prejudices to form.

Applications

The idea of superordinate goals has a clear application for reducing prejudice and discrimination. The ingroup and outgroup need to work together towards something that is valued by both of them; then they see each other as members of the one group, with a shared goal of achieving resources through cooperation. This is how Sherif defused prejudice in “Robbers Cave”.

Allport’s Contact Hypothesis applies here, because prejudice will be reduced if group members get to mingle freely with the outgroup and question their own stereotypes.

It is important that leaders and authority figures support this mingling.

This is the base of multicultural education that brings children into contact with other children of different ethnicity. Schools often have days where they celebrate the religion, food and dress of minorities.

EXEMPLAR ESSAY
HOW TO WRITE A 8-MARK ANSWER

Evaluate the Realistic Conflict Theory of prejudice. (8 marks)

• A 8-mark “evaluate” question awards 4 marks for AO1 (Describe) and 4 marks for AO3 (Evaluate). Don't forget the conclusion.
  

Description
Realistic Conflict Theory (RCT) was developed by Sherif. It says that there is conflict between groups rather than cooperation and this happens for real reasons, like a lack of resources to go round. When competition occurs, prejudice forms.
Scarce resources may be water and food but also things like money, jobs, places in schools or even social resources (like friends). This might explain “bitchiness” in school friendship groups.
John Duckitt goes a bit further, suggesting that conflict can happen even when an outgroup has lower status and isn’t really a competitor over resources. This is because the low-status group might resent the high-status group but the high-status group doesn’t think this is justified.
Conflict can be reduced if the ingroup and outgroup work together towards superordinate goals. This is when they start cooperating rather than competing to achieve the resources they want.

Evaluation
RCT is supported by studies like Sherif’s “Robbers Cave” study, which showed groups of boys getting into conflict when they were put into competition. Sherif used superordinate goals to remove the competition and the boys became friendly again.
This has a clear application because RCT says you can reduce prejudice by getting people from different groups to meet and work together in a spirit of cooperation. Allport’s Contact Hypothesis says if groups mingle they will lose their stereotypes.
Social Identity Theory has a completely different view. It says prejudice happens automatically when groups form and doesn’t require any competition.
SIT is supported by Tajfel’s Minimal Groups study where the boys discriminated against the outgroup even though they didn’t have to. They did this by assigning points in an unfair way.

Conclusion
RCT suggests there is a real reason for group conflict (or at least group members believe there is a real reason) but SIT suggests there is something instinctive and irrational about prejudice. RCT ignores this irrational side to human nature which is studied by Tajfel, Adorno and Milgram.

Apply Social Identity Theory.

• A 4-mark “apply” question awards 4 marks for AO2 (Application) and gives you a piece of stimulus material.

Ashlinn, Bailee and Raven are three friends who fall out when a new girl, Lilo, joins their school. Lilo and Raven have a sleepover party together, but Ashlinn and Bailee go on social media and start untrue rumours about them. Lilo and Raven respond by spreading their own cruel gossip about Ashlinn and Bailee. Eventually, the Headmistress has to intervene and call all four girls to her office.

Using your knowledge of psychology, explain the conflict between the girls and what the Headmistress can do about it. (4 marks)

Social Identity Theory (SIT) would explain that the teenagers have different social identities and view each other as belonging to outgroups.
Because of Social Comparison they discriminate against outgroups, which explains the name-calling. They do this because their self-esteem is tied in with their group being best.
The college staff could get the teenagers to focus on how they all love the same film so really they all belong to the same ingroup. Then the werewolf-fans wouldn’t threaten the vampire-fans self-esteem.
The staff could give the teenagers a different outgroup to focus on, like a competition against another college. Then the other college would be the outgroup and the teenagers would “pull together” and see themselves as one big ingroup.