1 / 65

Realistic Group Conflict Theory

Realistic Group Conflict Theory. PSY 203s Dr. Chiwoza R. Bandawe. Background. Muzafer (and Carolyn) Sherif Found psychology myopic in understanding human social behaviour Rejected individualistic view of prejudice Cannot extrapolate individual to group

umed
Download Presentation

Realistic Group Conflict Theory

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Realistic Group Conflict Theory PSY 203s Dr. Chiwoza R. Bandawe

  2. Background • Muzafer (and Carolyn) Sherif • Found psychology myopic in understanding human social behaviour • Rejected individualistic view of prejudice • Cannot extrapolate individual to group • Argued that prejudice is a group phenomenon: Dynamics between whole groups

  3. Individualistic Theories • Individual is prejudiced against Group X • Negative stereotypes & beliefs • Internal hostile feelings • Hostile behaviour towards Group X

  4. Realistic Group Conflict Theory • Basic premise: Groups have their own reality • Reality determined by material conditions that exist • Competition (for limited resources) negative relations • Cooperation & reciprocal interactions positive relations

  5. “Whenever there are not enough resources to meet the needs of two or more groups, there is a realistic probability that intergroup relations will deteriorate”Carr (2003) • Intergroup attitudes, perceptions, images arise from context in which intergroup behaviour occurs.

  6. Robber’s Cave Experiments • Demonstrated Realistic Group Conflict Theory with regard to prejudice & stereotypes • Detailed study of group structure and intergroup relations • Three different experiments – 1949, 1953 and 1954 • Groups of unacquainted 11-12 year old boys

  7. The Experiments • Experiments situated as summer camp • First in Connecticut • Moved to Oklahoma (Robber’s Cave site) • Participant Observation studies

  8. General format of experiments • Participants: 11-12 year old boys • Homogenous background: white, protestant, lower middle class SES, same level of pubescence, mentally “normal” • Researchers were camp counsellors • Hidden microphone and cameras • Parents gave permission, boys unaware they were participating in experiment

  9. Stages of experiment • Stage 1: Free friendship formation • Stage 2: Division into groups • Stage 3: Group formation • Stage 4: Intergroup competition • Stage 5: Cooperation for a superordinate goal

  10. Experiment 1: 1949 Connecticut Site

  11. Stage 1 Free friendship formation

  12. 24 boys arrive at campsite • All activities camp wide • Maximum freedom of choice of: • friends • bunks • Seats • athletic teams

  13. Researchers established: • Friendship choices • Boys’ strength at various activities • Favoured activities

  14. Stage 2 Division into groups

  15. Cut across friendship lines • Equal strengths • Housed separately • Different eating tables • Different activities • Identified by colours - red & blue

  16. Stage 3 Group formation

  17. Time spent exclusively in group activities • Taken for hikes, cook-outs, swimming, canoe rides. These activities required group cooperation.

  18. Development of groups • Names - Red Devils and Bull Dogs • Hierarchical structure emerged • Leaders surfaced • Flags, emblems, jargon • Nicknames • Special places • Ingroup cohesion: specified way of doing things: nude swimming, cursing

  19. Friendship choices

  20. Stage 4 Intergroup Competition

  21. Introduced competitions • Sports & athletic competitions: Tug of war, baseball • Camp games • Winners were rewarded: pocket knife, trophy • Initially there was good sportsmanship

  22. As competition grew more intense “sportsmanship” declined • Accusations of “cheating”, “unfairness” • “Fairness and justice were notions that the boys interpret and reinterpret in ways that were advantageous to the ingroup” Taylor & Moghaddam (1987, p.40)

  23. Negative outgroup attitudes: • Outgroup were: “Sneaky, stinkers and smart alecks” • Losing group – blamed the leader. Wanted leaders who were warlike and aggressive.

  24. Introduction of “frustration” • Party where half cakes were damaged • Red Devils arrived first – took undamaged goods • Bull Dogs arrived shortly afterwards • Assumed damage done by Red Devils • “Warfare”: Dorm raids

  25. Experiment 3: 1954 Robber’s Cave site

  26. Similar structure to previous experiments • Participants: • 22 boys • 11 years old • Middle class • Higher than average intelligence

  27. No stage of free friendship formation (Stage 1 omitted) • 2 groups of boys were brought separately to the campsite (Stage 2: Division into groups omitted) • Housed separately in different areas

  28. Stage 3 Group formation

  29. Stage 4 Intergroup competition Rattlers vs. Eagles

  30. Bean Toss Task • Beans scattered in a field • All boys had to collect as many as they could in one minute • Placed in a bag with mouth tied so could not be counted • Submitted for judgment

  31. Projector showing contents of bag for 5 seconds • Same amount (35) each time • Each group overestimate number of ingroup and underestimated number of outgroup

  32. Overt Behaviours • Not speaking to each other • Raiding dorms • Throwing food at each other • Boys were seen by outsiders as “wicked, disturbed and vicious” Sherif (1966) • Competition for limited resources began once they became aware of other group

  33. Stage 5 Cooperation between groups

  34. Cooperative situations • By use of Superordinate goals: • “Goals with a compelling appeal for members of each group, but that neither group can achieve without participation of the other” (Sherif, 1966, p.49) • Goal was to establish conditions under which prejudice and stereotypes may be eliminated

  35. Tasks required groups acting in concert to achieve goal • Supplemented tasks with a preacher who preached on tolerance, forgiveness and cooperation • Brought the groups together for mutually pleasurable experience • These did not help or eliminate tension

  36. 1. Water Tank problem • No water coming from taps • Left to boys to sort out • Checked water tank • Discovered pipes blocked with sacking • Cooperated in establishing problem, taps unblocked • Outcome: Did not eliminate friction

  37. 2. Hiring of movie • Staff put up half the money • Required whole group to contribute • Outcome: • Film (Treasure Island) shown • Seating choices still along group lines

  38. 3. Food truck breakdown • Camp out at Cedar lake • Groups separate • Truck stalled • Required both groups to turn truck

  39. Outcome Day 1 • Groups on separate pulling ropes • Prepared food together • Outcome Day 2 • Groups intermingled on both pull ropes

  40. Repeated cooperation • Increased friendliness toward outgroup: Name calling disappeared. Reduction of unfavourable stereotypes toward outgroup • Trip home: Sat together and sharing of prizes won

  41. Three Phases of RCGT • PHASE 1: INTRAGROUP INTERACTION (Group Formation) • PHASE 2: INTERGROUP COMPETITIVE INTERACTION (Intergroup Conflict) • PHASE 3: INTERGROUP NON-COMPETITIVE INTERACTION (Intergroup cooperation)

  42. Supporting Evidence • Competition for limited and valued resources elicits hostile intergroup behaviour • Blake & Mouton (1961, 1962) : Managers & administrators in the “lab” given tasks. Created competition

  43. Replications • Diab (1970) Lebanon • Evidence of intergroup hostility • Same enrolment assessment procedure as Sherif. • 11 year old boys • Violence occurred in competition phase • Stabbing, police had to intervene

  44. Tyerman & Spencer (1983) • UK Scout troop • Knew each other well • Competitions led to mild outgroup hostility • Sermons had strong effect in reducing hostility

  45. Ageev (cited in Platow & Hunter, 2001) • Russian youth at a Pioneer Youth Camp • Competitive sporting activities heightened ingroup favouring attitudes • Found decrease in ingroup favouritism/ outgroup hostility when groups cooperated on agricultural activities

  46. Analysis of real groups • Ember (1981) • Studies 26 small scale communities • Violence became more common as population pressures, famine or severe food shortage increased • Divale & Harris (1976) • Similar results among Fore of New Guinea

  47. Contradictory findings • Competition without intergroup bias • Rabbie & Wilkens (1971): Dutch teenagers. Work independently & rate their work. Hostility to outgroup still manifested even though they were not in competition

  48. Implications of RGCT • Recap Findings: • 1. Material competition between groups leads to intergroup prejudice & behaviours that are discriminatory • 2. Groups opt to compete rather than cooperate • 3. Cooperating for superordinate goal leads to prejudice reduction

  49. Problems with the Realistic Group Conflict Theory

  50. Problem 1. Other social psych variables • Other variables need to be taken into account to explain intergroup discrimination. These variables can increase intergroup discrimination independently or in different combinations • Actual or anticipated intragroup interaction • Actual or anticipated intergroup interaction • Actual or anticipated loss in competitions

More Related