L2 - RGCT and Social Identity Theory

Question 1

Learning outcomes

Answer 1

• Describe the seminal Robber’s Cave Experiment
• Outline th ekey components of Realistic Group Conflict Theory
• Explain the findings of the Robber’s Cave Experiment using RCGR.

Question 2

Realistic Group Conflict Theory (RGCT)

Answer 2

• It is an evolutionary and economic perspective to explain why group conflict emerges.
• Realistic group conflict theory is a theory in which competition over limited resources between groups will lead to prejudice, discrimination and especially group conflict.

Question 3

Real-world examples of when groups compete when resources are contested/finite.

Answer 3

• For example the conflict between Israel and Palestine overland.
• Mexico and US over Donald building a wall to protect welfare and economy of American’s welfare to prevent Mexicans from taking jobs.
• Gulf war about oil and Iraqies decided to control flow of oil in Kuwait. One country may have oil and another country wants access to that oil so they may engage in conflict and go to war

Question 4

What does this group competition lead to?

Answer 4

• This refers to when one’s own group is glorified and is superior (ingroup → the group an individual associates with) as the outgroup (a group an individual does not belong to) is vilified

Question 5

What does RGCT is centred about?

Answer 5

• The hostility that is caused by this group competition.

Question 6

What experiment supports realistic group conflict theory?

Answer 6

The Robber’s Cave Experiment by Sherrif et al. (1954)

Question 7

What did Sherif et al. (1954) The Robber’s Cave Experiment wanted to explore?

Answer 7

• Explore intergroup conflict and group cooperation (used later in the experiment) to support the realistic group conflict theory.

Question 8

Sherif et al. (1954) The Robber’s Cave Experiment

Participants

All had similar background

Answer 8

• 22 boys (average age = 12) from middle-class families
• No psychological difficulties
• Had normal physical development
• All in the same year of schooling

Question 9

Sherif et al. (1954) The Robber’s Cave Experiment

Participants

Groups

Picked up…

Answer 9

• They were divided into 2 groups of 11.
• The groups were called the Eagles and Rattlers
• The separate groups were picked up by a bus on consecutive days in the summer of 1954. Before arriving to the park, they already formed their group identity
• They were transported to separate areas of a 200 acre Boy Scouts of America camp which was surrounded by Robber’s Cave Park in Oklahoma.

Question 10

Park Cave Map

Answer 10

• The map shows the borders between Eagles and Rattlers

Question 11

The Robber’s Cave Experiment

First Phase → Group formation

Answer 11

• The two groups independently engaged in group activities that encouraged group unity such as setting up tents and preparing meals as well as common camp activities such as playing baseball and swimming.
• Cohension had developed within each group and the two groups of boys were called the Eagles and the Rattlers

Question 12

The Robber’s Cave Experiment

Second phase → Groups entering competition

Answer 12

• The Eagles and Rattlers were brought in for a tournament.
• Each group member of the winning team would receive rewards such as a pocket knife and the group that lost would receive no reward.
• Touranment was 5 days and each consisted of activities such as football, tug-of-war etc..
• This competitiveness nature of the tournament designed to encourage group to see each other as an obstacle for obtaining the reward.
• From the first competition, there was increased frequency of insults that were hurled to each other groups.
• The Eagles obtained the Rattler’s flag and burned it.
• Also food fights broke out in the dining area of the camp, raided each other’s cabins.

Question 13

The Robber’s Cave Experiment

Summary of two phases

Answer 13

• Shows how honestly between groups can occur due to the introduction of competition
• Phase 1: Boys in a summer camp was allocated to a group, either the Eagles or Rattlers and were put through group bonding activities
• Phase 2: The group groups form their teams and compete against each other for money and rewards which leads to intergroup hostility
• Phase 3: The removal of competition and the group conflicts is stopped.

Question 14

The Robber’s Cave Experiment

Phase 3 Integration Phase

Did not work

Answer 14

• Researchers brought all the boys in Eagles and Rattlers into one unified group two days after the competition ended. They brought the group together and put them in non-competitive settings in order to dissipate the friction and group conflict.
• However, this did not work as this failed to reduce hostility and conflict.
• This intended to remove the friction and conflict between these groups.

Question 15

The Robber’s Cave Experiment

Phase 3

Combined Tasks

Answer 15

• The researchers during this integration phase had to introduce new tasks with super-ordinate goals. These are goals that exceed the interest of any one group and that can be completed more readily by two or more groups working together to achieve good results on that goal.
• For example, both groups give and distrubitue money towards watching a money
• Unblockign a pipe to provide drinking water for the whole camp.

Question 16

Critical thinking

The Robber’s Cave result suggest that conflict is due to competition but is this convincing?

Answer 16

• What about gender?
• What about age?
• What about other cultures?
• Are there any alternatives that are robust?

Question 17

Limitation of the Robber’s Cave Experiment

Answer 17

• Hostility can occur even in the absence of group competition.
• For example, during phase 1 of group bonding phase, when the two groups were kept apart, they were allowed to get within an earshot (other group was able to be heard~
• Due to this, groups became increasingly territorial referring to the basket field as “ our dimaond” instead of “the diamond”.
• Soon after phase 2 began, both groups wanted to “challenge them”
• Since these took place before competition was arranged by experimenters show that intergroup hostility can develop due to the mere existence of another group.
• These findings are not explained by RGCT.

Question 18

The social identity approach

alternative to RGCT

What is social identity approach?

Answer 18

• This is reffering to a group of related theories revolving around the self and how we categorise ourselves into groups.

Question 19

What is a key theory in the social identity approach?

Answer 19

Social identity theory (SIT) by Henri Tajfel (1971)

Question 20

What is social identity theory? (SIT)

Answer 20

• This refers to the idea that an individual’s self-concept and self-esteem is obtained not only from personal achievements and personal identity but also from the status and achievements of the different groups to which the individual belongs
• (Tajfel & Turner, 1979)

Question 21

Example of SIT

Answer 21

• For example, being an American is an important self-concept for the majority of Americans and associated with the pride and accomplishments of American scientists, athletes and entertainers.

Question 22

Tajfel wanted to understand the minimal condition in which group prejudice and bias could occur

For example, minimal group

Answer 22

• Based on this paradigm, groups were created on arbitrary and meaningfulness criteria.
• Then examined the behaviour of how these ‘minimal groups’ to each other.
• In this paradigm, the participants would perform a rival task and then be separated into groups.
• For example, in one of the tasks, participants had to estimate the number of dots projected briefly on the screen
• Some of the participants were told that they belonged to a group of ‘overestimates and others told that they belonged to a group of ‘underestimates.
• In reality, the participants were randomly assigned to groups, they learned they were assigned to a group but never learned who else was in the group.
• Being part of group was down to the category of arbitrary and members of groups did not know who the other members were.
• After they learned their group members, participants were taken into separate cubibcles and indicated to assign points (redeemable for money) to the rest of the participants.
• Numerous of experiment using this minimal group paradigm shown that majoirty of participants assign more points of their ingroup over their outgroup therefore maximising the relative gain for their group members.
• The participants tned to favour their minimal in group.

Question 23

Conditions for minimal group paradigm is that

Answer 23

• There must not be any face-to-face contact
• Participants must never learn what groups other people belong too
• The group allocation must be based on meaningless and arbitrary criteria.
• Responses should not be justified by a strategic motive For example, If participant give points to another group then they should get more points.
• The responses must have important and valuable.

Question 24

Understanding Social Identity Theory

1.

Group categorisation

Answer 24

• Bias can emerge even when the absence of intergroup conflict as proposed by RGCT, all that is need is a clear group categorisation of ingroup and outgroup.

Question 25

Understanding SIT

2. Ingroup favouritism

Answer 25

• Biases do not have to be negative (even when it occurs in a given context) when it does occur.
• It tends to take the form of ingroup favouritism in which individual’s favour members of ingroup rather than their outgroup.
• whatever we do to feel better about ingroup leads to feeling better about ourselves since an individual’s self-esteem is based partly on the status of various groups the individual belongs to
• Need for positive distinctiveness to boost our group.
• Self-esteem hypothesis by Hogg and Adams as study shown that when assessing participant’s self-esteem after they exhibit ingroup favourtism, their self-esteem was higher than those who did not take that opportunity to boost their group at the expense of another (Lemyre & Smith 1985;Oakes & Turner, 1980)
  *

Question 26

Understanding SIT

3. Personal identity

Answer 26

• Importance of both personal identity and social group identity asummption

Question 27

Understanding SIT.

4. Identity

Answer 27

• This identity is fluid and lies on a continuum
• We draw upon major identities at any given time
• Prime people to drawn upon these sailent identities like showing a British flag.
• Example, may think of brother and sister and home and student at university

Question 28

Group comparisons → what if I don’t like my group?

Individual mobility can occur.

Answer 28

• If the boundaries within the group are perceived as permeable and group hierarchies are perceived as fixed, then the strategy of individual mobility can occur. This is when an individual can change groups.
• For example of football player plays for a team but doesn’t like it and thinks they can do better and possible change the team since group boundaries are permeable. However, this team is lower than another team as they don’t have financial resources. Therefore, you can change team and move.

Question 29

Group comparisons → what if I don’t like my group?

Social creativity

Answer 29

• If boundaries within a group are perceived are impermeable (cannot change group) and group hierarchies are perceived as fixed, then the social creativity strategy can occur.
• This is when low-status group members can change or emphasise subjective aspects of the group.
• Like black is beautiful campgim
• Can’t change majority view of emphasis of European hair is beautiful. Therefore, emphasise parts you like and engage in subjective aspects.
• Like rappers not rapping about cleverness but rapping about things they are important to them.

Question 30

Group comparisons → what if I don’t like my group?/group comparison

Group competition emerging

3 strategies according to SIT

Answer 30

• If the group boundaries are perceived as impermeable (possibility of changing group) then the group status and hierarchies are perceived as not fixed, then group competition occurs in which groups will compete with other groups which may lead to ingroup favouritism.
• Say to company to another company to compete that they don’t think they are the best.
• Like St Andrews don’t have the best psychology course than Newcastle, therefore Newcastle will compete with them.

Question 31

Mindmap

Answer 31

• One part is social group comparisons in Leon Festinger where you compare yourself to someone slightly above or below but you compare your group (e.g British compare themselves to other nations in order to understand whether the British system is better) to another.
• Self-esteem , feel good if your group is better
• Group categorisation (next week) , need a way to think what group you belong to.
• Postive distinctinvess: One SIT we want our groups to be unique, special which gives positive distincenvess which makes us feel special.
• Uncertainty reduction? (Hogg argue that being part of a group having clear group boundaries of ingroup and outgroup help to understand the world like understanding their group is different from others when muddle different groups then people don’t like it like non-binary like people disagree with this because of clear cut of women and men or breaking the law or not, not the middle or uncertain)

Question 32

Re-interpreting the Robber’s Cave

Answer 32

• According to Robber’s Cave when group conflict is removed, competition should be absent but it did not.
• What they had to do to remove this conflict is to create a superordinate group.
• Group membership makes sense that conflict stops when changing perceptions of the group.
• If you got a conflict between groups and possible to some else then you could stop the conflict.
• Stop conflict if changing the group identities, removing and changing them.
• Robber’s sep 3 required an emergent group identity that conflict stops.
• Wohl and Branscombe (2005) they number of American Jews and got to think about WWII, after they then asked the likelihood to forgive someone who is German after they primed to think about it. They found if you got person think of a Jew, less likely to forgive but if you think of themselves not as Jew but as humanity then they are more likely to forgive after superordinate humanity prime. Aruging as being a citizen of world, then more likely to help other countries and be more understanding , dangerous as less likely to forgive if having strong national identity and inability to take different perspectives.