Realistic Conflict Theory

Realistic Conflict Theory: Psychology

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.

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.

Fig. 1. What would happen if these sisters only had one water bottle between them?

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.

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.

Realistic Conflict Theory vs Social Identity Theory

Before we continue learning about the realistic conflict theory, it’s important to understand its differences from the social identity theory.

Social identity theory says prejudice happens when we choose to view other groups unfavourably to ascertain that our group remains better. Social identity theory’s main difference from realistic conflict theory is that it states that intergroup conflict can still happen even when there’s no competition for limited resources.

Both of these theories are viable explanations for why prejudice happens. They are focused on the cognitive reasoning behind prejudice, saying that it’s based on how we view others or ourselves.

Muzafer Sherif’s Realistic Conflict Theory and Prejudice

Have you ever thought about how, even though some social psychology principles seem straightforward, someone developed them? Muzafer Sherif was the Turkish-American psychologist who developed this theory, the realistic conflict theory. He was not only influential in his work in conflict theory, but he also is one of the psychologists who helped found the field of social psychology.

Sherif was looking at conflicts between groups when he first theorised realistic conflict theory. His famous study, the Robbers Cave experiment, helped launch Sherif and his theory onto centre stage.

Realistic Conflict Theory Example

The Robbers Cave experiment was not only the first major experiment studying realistic conflict theory but is also one of the ones that best demonstrate the theory.

The Robbers Cave study was one of the first studies to examine intergroup relations at three levels: group formation, inter-group conflict, and conflict reduction. The sample consisted of 22 white boys, approximately 11 years of age, from similar socioeconomic backgrounds and Protestant families.

There were a couple of key phases to the experiment. The first was the ingroup formation phase. During this time, the boys were randomly divided into groups: the ‘Eagles’ or the ‘Rattlers’. During the first week, each group spent time getting to know each other through group activities such as creating a flag for their group, hiking, or swimming. The goal was for each member to form an attachment with their group.

Fig. 2. One of the bonding exercises was swimming together.

Competition Over Limited Resources

To see if competition for rewards would lead to conflict, the researchers designed the inter-group conflict phase, in which two groups competed against each other in a series of contests such as tug-of-war. The winning team received a reward. Inter-group competition is an example of negative interdependence, a condition in which victory for one group means a loss for the other.

After competing against each other, the boys became verbally and physically aggressive toward the other group, the out-group. The boys threw food at them, called each other names during mealtime, or even burned flags of the out-group. These results show that competition leads to intergroup conflict and prejudice toward others.

Collaboration and Superordinate Goals

To bring Rattlers and Eagles together, the researchers set tasks that required cooperation between the groups to achieve a common goal that both groups desired. Superordinate goals create a state of positive interdependence – both groups must work together to succeed.

One of the superordinate goals used in the experiment was to get the truck delivering a movie out of a ditch. Both groups were interested in seeing the movie, so they had to join forces and work together to pull the truck out of a ditch using a rope.

Realistic Conflict Theory Strengths and Weaknesses

Just like all theories, realistic conflict theory has its benefits and drawbacks.

Strengths

Realistic conflict theory has been demonstrated in studies such as the Robbers Cave study. We can apply the understanding we get from realistic conflict theory to conflicts in general. We know that scarcity of resources can lead to group conflict so one way to reduce conflict is to increase resources. This can be employed in a school class or sports practice. If you’re in maths class and there are not enough calculators for every student, there will be fighting between the students. However, if there are enough calculators, there will be no conflict.

Weaknesses

In general, mutually exclusive goals exacerbate intergroup conflict. But the question of whether group identity alone can explain prejudice between groups remains. The two previously hostile groups might now coexist with almost no prejudice, having achieved a common goal. However, it is possible the common goal worked because it created an overarching (shared) group identity. In this case, the nature of the goals would not be as crucial in explaining prejudice as the boundaries of the group identity.

In some cases, overarching goals alone do not reduce conflict between groups. When efforts to achieve a common goal are unsuccessful, conflict can intensify. When groups cooperate but fail to achieve the common goal, it is common for the in-group to blame the out-group for the failure.