Realistic Conflict Theory

Question 1

What is realistic conflict theory?

Answer 1

An explanation of prejudice which sees competition for limited resources as key determinant.

Question 2

Describe Inter group competition?

Answer 2

Sherif suggested that the key to prejudice is competition in any forms he it power or to be crowned as victors in a pub quiz.

Question 3

Describe negative interdependence

Answer 3

Negative interdependence occurs in situations when both groups are seeking an important goal but only one can achieve it. Interactions with members of the opposing team will become hostile and interactions with one’s own group will become increasingly cooperative:

Question 4

Describe positive interdependence and superordinate goals

Answer 4

Sherif argued that prejudice rises through inter group conflict for limited resource however through working together to accomplish a common goal then that prejudice can be reduced.

Question 5

What is the supporting evidence of RCT?

Answer 5

Robbers cave study- sherif
In stage 2 the researchers created inter group competition in the form of a sporting competition where only one group could win. They showed negative interdependence and violence to the out group.

Question 6

What is the opposing evidence against RCT?

Answer 6

Although it is a field experiment which means good ecological validity. The original paper shows how the boys needed provoking to show negative interdependence. (The researchers ransacking the cabins)

Question 7

What is a different theory to RCT?

Answer 7

Social identity theory- Tajfel et al
SIT claims that prejudice is natural and instinctive and occurs as soon as you identify with an in group. This prejudice has nothing to do with limited resources.

Question 8

What is an application of RCT?

Answer 8

The idea of superordinate goals can help reduce prejudice and discrimination. The ingroup and outgroup need to work together that they both value. This can be used in schools by teaching multicultural education that introduces other ethnicities to children.

Question 9

What was the aim of the robbers cave study?

Answer 9

Sherif set up his study to explore how competition for limited resource can lead to unfavourable stereotyping and prejudice towards an outgroup and encourage ingroup solidarity.

Question 10

What type of experiment was robbers cave?

Answer 10

Field experiment

Question 11

What was the independent variable of the robbers cave study?

Answer 11

Wether the atmosphere at the camp was one of cooperation or competition.

Question 12

What were the dependent variables of the robbers cave study?

Answer 12

The number of friends identified in the outgroup

Question 13

What was the sample of the robbers cave study?

Answer 13

22 middle class Protestant boys from Oklahoma USA. None of the boys knew each other beforehand.

Question 14

Describe the procedure of the robbers cave study?

Answer 14

The boys were divided into 2 groups and were given different bunkers
They then started the three stages
Stage 1=formation 
Stage 2= friction
Stage 3= reducing friction

Question 15

What was stage 1 of the robbers cave experiment?

Answer 15

Group formation- the boys took part in non-competitive activities to bond. They were given names (rattlers and eagles). Activities included canoeing and building campfires.

Question 16

What was stage 2 of the robbers cave study?

Answer 16

Friction- the two groups were introduced and the researchers created a tournament with prizes for the winner (pocket knife). Competition included tug of war and baseball.

Question 17

What was stage 3 of the robbers cave study?

Answer 17

Reducing friction- into rial tasks involved social contact e.g: watching a film together.later superordinate goals were introduced (mending a broken water supply)

Question 18

What were the findings after stage 1 in the robbers cave study?

Answer 18

The groups called themselves by their names (rattler and eagles) and formed their own norms rattlers= swore
Eagles= anti-swearing

Question 19

What were the findings of stage 2 of the robbers cave study?

Answer 19

Hostility developed rapidly there was name-calling and even a physical fight. One group burnt the others flag. Ranked scales showed more ingroup favouritism and only 6.4% of rattlers friends were eagles and 7.5% of eagles friends were rattlers

Question 20

What were the findings of stage 3 of the robbers cave study?

Answer 20

Superordinate goals initially didn’t make much of an impact but after fixing the truck they made dinner together. Friendships scores increased to an average of 29.8

Question 21

What was the conclusion of the robbers cave study?

Answer 21

Inter group competition leads to ingroup favouritism but also to outgroup hostility. Increased social contact is not enough to reduce prejudice but a series of superordinate goals can reduce prejudice effectively.

Question 22

Evaluate G of the robbers cave study

Answer 22

22 boys is not a large sample any anomalies like unusual characteristic (violent bully) would skew the results. However sherif went to lengths to try and screen the boys before removing any troubled backgrounds.
Only boys were used so this study cannot be generalised to girls.

Question 23

Evaluate R of the robbers cave study

Answer 23

The observers were only with the boys for 12 hours of the day so they couldn’t see or overhear anything that went on during the night.
However Sherif combatted this by using a numbered scoring system for the boys allowing him to collect quantitive data.

Question 24

Evaluate the A of the robbers cave study

Answer 24

This study shows how competition creates hostility towards our groups this suggest the discrimination could be reduced if jobs housing and education were spread more fairly.
Also shows how prejudice can reduce if groups are made to interact and work together.

Question 25

Evaluate the V of robbers cave study?

Answer 25

Sherif used several different research methods (observing, tape recording, tests) meaning his data was both quantitative and qualitative = more validity= more credibility
The study has good ecological validity as these were real boys at a real summer camp doing real activities. Even the specially created tasks were realistic.

Question 26

Evaluate the E of the robbers cave study

Answer 26

The boys did not give valid consent and weren’t debriefed afterwards. This means their autonomy and dignity were ignored. However their parents did consent to them being used for a psychology project but they didn’t have a lot of information about what their children were getting up to.