Realistic conflict theory - sheriff 1966

Question 1

How is R.C.T diff to S.I.T in explaining the cause of
prejudice?

what do both theories agree with?

Answer 1

• uses environmental factors instead of dispositional ones = the more scarce the resource is (physically/physiologically) prejudice will become more apparent
• as the resources means survival, people want t heir genetics and beliefs of others to be the same to be passed onto the next generation (so biological factors)
• a feeling prejudice and discrimination towards out group (out group negative bias)

Question 2

Define Competition and give an example

Answer 2

• 1 group needs only believe that competition exist for
  hostile feelings and discriminatory behaviour to follow

Example: fighting over supplies (food, water, shelter) or phycological/ social beliefs items (status, prestige, power)

Question 3

Define Negative interdependence

Answer 3

• a situation where 2 groups of people are both seeking to achieve good that is important for both them, yet only 1 group can acquire that good
• tends to lead to “zero sums fate”

Question 4

Define scarce resources

*the examples should already know

Answer 4

physical/physiological resources becoming less abundant

Question 5

Define Zero sums fate

Answer 5

1 party wins a necessities while the other loses it = if you add up the total wins and subtract the total losses it equals always being 0 (as 1 party can win at any time, it fosters competition between groups)

Question 6

Outline a Evolutionary link

Answer 6

resources means survival and if competing they want people of the same genetics/beliefs so it can safely passed on to the next generations

Question 7

Give the method on how it reduces prejudice/discrimination, how it worked (sherif study) and given an example in real life

Answer 7

1. super ordinate goals = creates positive interdependence: a situation where opposing forces set aside their differences and work together to tackle a new threat to both of them hence prejudice and hostility is reduced
2. sheriff orchestrated a situation such as scavenging for food/shelter, fixing a water tank and pushing a truck out of the mud
3. WW1 the main 3 forces UK, France, UK came together to fight hitler

Question 8

Strengths

Answer 8

• a further strength of RCT is its ability to predict prejudice and discrimination in the real world. for example in Rwandan the Hutus killed 800,000 tutus over 3 months and this even preceded by n economics downturn and political unrest as the 2 groups competed for political power. this sis important real world evidence for RCT showing that competition for limited physical resources like food or territory or for abstract resources such as political power can results in the most horrifying outpouring of discrimination
• sherif study supports this as it demonstrated that the rattlers and eagles was very competitive in the baseball game, tournament etc to fight over his better at each competition. furthermore this sense of wanting to show superiority to other groups they committed acts such as raiding each other camps and burning down their flag. therefore it proves to be a valid theory
• sherif further supports the theory as its the concept of super ordinate goals is effective. it is evident through at the integration phase the 2 groups needed to work together to fix a water tanks, working together to gather supplies, this didn’t work but the task involving needing to push a truck stuck in mud prevailed to reduce prejudice with it ending with both group sharing a bus home while the team that won the $10 split it to buy everyone drinks therefore it provides more than enough evidence to argue that the concept is valid

Question 9

Weaknesses

Answer 9

• There is real life evidence that when people compete for scarce resources (e.g. jobs, land etc.) there is a rise in hostility between groups. For example, in times of high unemployment there may be high levels of racism among white people who believe that black people (or asylum seekers) have taken their jobs. Dollard (1938) prejudice against German immigrants in US town increased as jobs grew scarce. Jacobs & Landau (1971) US prejudice against Chinese increased & decreased in line with prosperity & competition
• there is a difference between saying that prejudice tends to be higher when resources are scarce and saying that scarce resources are the cause of prejudice. Though realistic conflict theory states that scarce resources are a cause of prejudice, it is just a theory. There is no way to measure the exact cause of prejudice, therefore it’s hard to say if scarce resources is the cause or consequence of prejudice.
• Tyerman and Spencer conducted a similar study with English boy scouts who all knew each other before the study. They were divided into four patrols and competition remained friendly throughout and friendship ties across the groups remained. This suggests prejudice may be caused by factors other than competition.
• (can contrast ^^^) the boys knew each other so they are part of the same in-group can be deemed the criticism to be invalid