Realistic conflict theory 1966 Flashcards
Realistic conflict Theory
RCT different to Social identitiy theory and what they agree on
RCT is different to SIT as RCT states that being in a group alone cannot cause Prejudice
• but they do agree that outgroup negative bias is a factor in the cause of prejudice
Realistic conflict Theory
Competition and scarce resorces
Scarce Resorces
• this causes resentment/prejudice which can lead to creating competition/discrimination
Competition
• competition fighting for limited resources such as: water, food, mates, money, Land etc
• the length and severity of the conflict is based upon the perceived value and shortage of the given resource
Realistic conflict Theory
Zero-sums fate
Zero-sums fate
• only one group can win
• the ingroup should ALWAYS win even at the cost of the outgroup
• that can only be one if anybody else gets in their way, they will not be spared
Realistic conflict Theory
Super-Ordinate Goals
According to RCT, positive relations can only be restored for super ordinant goals in place.
Super-ordinate Goals
• when two groups work together in order to achieve the End goal or get the scarce resorce
• working together to achieve a common goal
Realistic conflict Theory
Evidence +
Sherif et al 1954-61
Sherif Support RCT is 24 (later 22 when 2 left) 11 year old boys and two groups had conflict over competition causing prejudice which was reduced by super-ordinate goals
in the friction phase where competition between the “Rattlers” and the “Eagles” groups were highest partaking in sports and tasks such as baseball
the Eagle group’s outgroup friendship choices were at 7.5%
after the intergration stage involving super-ordinate goals such as fixing a water pipe and pushing a broken lorry
Outgroup friendship choices of the Eagles group rose to 23.3%
This showed that in the friction stage there was very little friendship between the two groups after the superordinate goals in the integration stage relationships improved
This is means sherif is good evidence supporting RCT as competition was shown to cause conflict and prejudice between the two groups and superordinate goals was shown to reduce the conflict and prejudice between the 2 groups two groups
Realistic conflict Theory
evidence opose
Tyerman and spencer 1983
Tyerman and spencer 1983 produced a simular study to Sherif with competition between 4 groups on Emglish boy scouts who knew eachother before the study
However it was found that during the competition the groups were friendly to eachother and their friendship ties across the different groups remaied
thus suggesting that prejudice may be caused by factors other than competition and therefore opposing RCT
Realistic conflict Theory
How good is the research -
Sherif et al 1954-61
Sherif et al is poor research to support RCT as it has low internal validity, this is due to years later the boys being interviewd and revealing that they knew they were being watched, meaning that the results and behaviour shown was demand characteristics
and therefore would be invalid data
meaning effect in cause and effect cannot accuratly be established
meaning the study has low internal validity due to possible invalid results, and therefore it is poor evidence to support RCT
Realistic conflict Theory
How good is the Research +
tyerman and Spencer 1983
Tyerman and spencer 1983 is good research to oppose RCT
This is because it is a field study that took place at the annual Sea Scouts camp therefore due to the events happening at an annual event in real life in a real-life setting it means that the results of the study is likely to occur the applicable to real life
This therefore means the study has high ecological validity and he’s good evidence to oppose RCT
Realistic conflict Theory
Compare to social identity Theory +/-
• Social identy theory is worse than RCT this is due to social identity here being too reductionist
• with it claiming the only way for prejudice to be created is simply for two groups to exist
• while RCT argues that conflict is also needed for prejudice to occur it also states that super ordinant goals is a way to reduce Prejudice
• Therefore due to being less reductionist RCT is better than social identity theory that explain the cause of prejudice
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
• RCT does not state the processes underlying the development or maintenance of group identity it only Focuses on how groups can cause Prejudice
• Whereas SIT Focuses on both how groups cause Prejudice ( ingroup favoritism and outgroup negative bias to enhance self-esteem) and the maintenance and formation of group identity ( social categorization and social identification)
•So therefore while RCT is more detailed in how groups can cause Prejudice via conflict
• SIT is better due to both explaining how and why groups cause Prejudice and the formation and maintenance of group identity
• So SIT is the better overall explanation of group Prejudice as it is, While less detailed, a more overall view at group Prejudice
Realistic conflict Theory
Conclusion and application
• Overall RCT is a good explanation of how groups in Conflict cause Prejudice and discrimination between each other
• while the research is at times flawed due to a lack of controls in field research
• the field research still maintains a high level of ecological validity meaning it is applicable and likley to occur in real life
The theory has many applications such as:
• an application is using superordinate goals to reduce Prejudice
• Aaronson et al 1978 use the Jigsaw technique with mixed race class in groups each child receives parts of the whole assignment
• therefore they are dependent on other children in other groups to perform well to determine their grade
• inter racial liking and performance of ethic minorities increased
• out group discrimination and prejudice decreaced
• this shows how super ordinate goals such as the jigsaw technique can be used to reduce Prejudice and discrimination
