Social Psychology - Realistic Conflict Theory and Robbers Cave Experiment
Realistic Conflict Theory (Sherif, 1966)
Intergroup conflict arises from competition for limited resources.
Competition leads to hostility, negative attitudes, prejudice, and discrimination.
In-group solidarity increases.
Prejudice can be reduced by establishing superordinate goals requiring cooperation.
Key Features:
Competition magnifies differences between groups.
Negative interdependence: Only one group can reach a goal, creating conflict.
Superordinate goals require cooperation and benefit both groups.
Positive interdependence: Neither group can succeed without the other.
Evidence:
Ember and Ember (1992): Intergroup hostility increases with competition for resources.
Hovland and Sears (1940): Negative correlation between cotton prices and lynchings (-0.72).
Dollard (1938): Prejudice increases with job scarcity.
Strengths:
Supported by the Robber's Cave study.
Empirical research supports RCT.
Weaknesses:
Social Identity Theory offers an alternative explanation.
Ethical concerns: Theory could be manipulated to create prejudice.
Reductionist: Ignores biological factors.
Application:
Explains prejudice and discrimination in real-life scenarios.
The Robbers Cave Experiment (Sherif et al, 1961)
Aim: To examine intergroup relations, in-group behavior, and hostility toward out-groups; to study if superordinate goals can overcome prejudice.
Participants: 22 male participants aged 11 – 12 years old.
Methodology: Field experiment in a Boy Scouts Camp.
Experimental Design: Matched pairs design
Procedure:
Stage 1: In-group formation (Rattlers and Eagles).
Stage 2: Inter-group friction through competition.
Stage 3: Inter-group integration via superordinate goals.
Results:
Friendships: Increase in out-group friendships by stage 3.
Qualitative: Shift from negative to more positive perceptions of the out-group.
Conclusion:
Competition for limited resources leads to prejudice.
Cooperation towards superordinate goals reduces hostility.
Evaluation:
Generalisability: Limited sample (androcentric, ethnocentric).
Reliability: Field experiment lacks standardized procedures.
Application: Explains real-world in-group/out-group prejudice.
Validity: High ecological and task validity.
Ethics: Deception, presumptive consent.