User:Laura Renaud/sandbox

Realistic conflict theory (RCT), or realistic group conflict theory (RGCT) is a social-psychological model of intergroup relations. The theory was officially named by Donald Campbell, but has been articulated by others since the middle of the 20th century. . The Robbers Cave experiment by Muzafer Sherif represents the most widely known demonstration of RCT. The theory explains that intergroup hostility arises as a result of conflicting goals and competition over limited resources. In short, disliking an outgroup and any subsequent conflict between groups occurs because of real or perceived threat of an outgroup on the ingroup. Groups may be in competition for a real or perceived scarcity of resources such as money, political power, military protection, or social status. In addition to negative attitudes toward the outgroup, according to RCT, threat from an outgroup enhances intragroup cooperation, leading to heightened identification with the ingroup (Tajfel). The theory was, in part a reaction to the existing assumptions about intergroup conflict made based on intragroup or intra individual characteristics. RCT offers an explanation for feelings of prejudice and discrimination toward other groups because people tend to dislike members of out-groups seen as competing with their own group for needed resources.

Rise of the theory
Campbell recognized the tendency at the time for social psychologists to reduce all behavior to hedonistic goals. He criticizes the psychologists that place food, sex, and pain avoidance as central to all human processes and those that formulate human behavioral theories on the basis of animal research. Campbell did not see the individualistic assumptions as explanations for intergroup relations. Other researchers of the time recognized a similar problem of overlooking the importance of the collective process. Sherif notes that this type of approach ignores the essence of social psychology and the importance of interchanges between groups when analyzing intergroup relations. The alternative explanation to such a point of view is one that takes into account the real sources of conflict between groups, incompatible goals and competition over limited resources. Research by Sherif represent the best initial illustrations of the RGCT.

Robbers Cave Study
In his classic study, the Robbers Cave Experiment, Muzafer Sherif experimentally examined intergroup behavior. His research provides a clear example of the principles of realistic conflict theory. The research was conducted in a 200 acres summer camp in Robbers Cave State Park, Oklahoma. Researchers posed as camp personnel observed 22 eleven and twelve year old boys during the three-week summer camp. The boys were selected on the basis that they had no personal ties to each other, were deemed mentally stable, and were from families with similar socioeconomic backgrounds. The participants were unaware that they were under constant observation and parents were asked not to visit their children throughout the duration of the camp.

The experiment was divided into three stages: 1)	In-group formation 2)	Friction phase 3)	Integration Phase

Stage 1: In-group formation Upon arrival, the boys were separated into two, pre-determined cabins based on similar strength, size, athletic skills and other characteristics. Each cabin had no knowledge of the other’s presence at the camp at the beginning of the week and camp activities were fulfilled in separate facilities or during separate times. Activities were selected to promote group cohesion and cooperation and camp staff made an effort to avoid competitive activities. Natural leaders emerged, a general hierarchy established, and group names, “The Rattlers and The Eagles” were chosen. At the end of this stage, a visual of the other group at the baseball diamond was made.

Stage 2: Friction phase A tournament, consisting of baseball games, tug of war, touch football, tent pitching, cabin inspection, skits and songs, and a treasure hunt was held between the Rattlers and Eagles. It was determined that the overall winning group of the tournament would win a trophy, a knife, and medals. The prizes were highly valued and of great interest to the boys. During this phase, Sherif witnessed significant derogation, name-calling, and a desire to avoid association with the out-group. In both groups, negative attitudes toward the out-group accompanied by favor towards the in-group was typical.

Stage 3: Reducing Friction A series of contact situations were imposed upon the boys in which both groups were in the same place at the same time. There was no difference in the type of interaction observed between the Rattlers and the Eagles during these contact activities. Sherif introduced interaction activities, in which a problem required cooperation from both groups in order to solve and allow both groups to prosper. The challenges included a water shortage problem, a "broken down" camp truck that needed enough "man" power to be pulled back to camp, and finding a movie to show. Eventually, tensions between groups were reduced, the ratings of the outgroup became more favorable and by the trip home, all the boys on the bus sang songs together and several boys from opposing groups exchanged addresses.

Sherif made several conclusions based on the three stage Robbers Cave Experiment. He concluded that individual differences are not necessary or responsible for the rise of intergroup conflict. Sherif says that the existence of two groups competing for resources that only one group is able to attain can result in hostile and aggressive attitudes toward the outgroup. Sherif concluded that contact with the other group was an insufficient condition to reducing the negative attitudes toward the other group. He said that friction between groups and positive intergroup relations can only be reduced in the presence of a superordinate goal, which promotes united cooperative action.

Other Notable Research
Other experimental research has experimentally given support to the Sherif study and theory of RCT. Avigdor paired groups of ten-year-old girls in opposing "friendship clubs" and had them perform cooperative or competing activities. The cooperative activity, to put on a play, had the uniting component of a common goal, earning money to buy club jackets. Girls in both competing and cooperating situations rated the other girls in the group as favorable or unfavorable on a list of 32 characteristics. Girls in the cooperative activity group rated the girls in the other friendship club as more favorable than the ratings of the competing activity group showed. In another experiment, Rabbie and Horwitz found that physical competition and prior interaction is not a necessary condition for discriminatory behavior. In their investigation, participants were brought into the lab and divided at random into assigned color groups. Researchers announced that they had a limited number of rewards to distribute to participants. In this case the reward was a free transistor radio and it was awarded to individuals based on the flip of a coin. In accordance with the RCT model, merely the creation of groups did not create a difference in perceptions of the outgroup, but the perception of limited resources created a significant preference for the ingroup and disfavor toward the outgroup.

Diversity and Integration
Brief et al. have recognized the potential for the harmful consequences that RCT poses in the effort for diversity in the workplace. The researchers reasoned that since organizations are reflections of the community environments of their employees, the greater the black population in a white community, the less accepting of workplace diversity. They determined that RCT provided a good explanation of this pattern because in communities of mixed races, members of minority groups are seen as competing for economic security, power, and prestige with the majority group. Lawrence Bobo also examined the implications that RCT has on issues related to diversity in analyzing the black-white relationships in the busing controversy of the 1970s. He uses an examination of the 1972 and 1976 Michigan National Election Studies. He determines that white opposition to busing is due to a feeling of real threat in whites view blacks as challenging goals and resources they possess and value, rather than prejudiced attitudes formulated during childhood (.

Relationship with Social Contact Theory
Another prominent theory in the realm of social psychology is Allport’s contact hypothesis, which states that intergroup conflict is reduced by increasing interpersonal contact between out-group members. Ruth Gaunt found that a person’s willingness to engage in intergroup contact was related to how much intergroup conflict they perceived. The less that people perceived a conflict between groups, and the greater their past out-group contact, the more they were willing to engage in future outgroup contact. The researchers concluded that both conflict and social contact are important factors in intergroup interaction.

An Extension of Realistic Conflict Theory
Realistic Conflict Theory originally only described the implications of competition between two groups of equal status. John Duckitt suggests that the theory be expanded to include competition between groups of unequal status. Duckitt created a scheme of types of realistic conflict and the resulting patterns of prejudice.

Duckitt points out that two types of conflict are based on direct ingroup competition. The first is ‘competition with an equal group’ and is explained by realistic conflict theory. Group-based threat leads ingroup members to feel hostile towards the outgroup which can lead to conflict as the ingroup focuses on acquiring the resource. The second type of conflict is ‘domination of the outgroup by the ingroup.’ This occurs when the ingroup and outgroup do not have equal status or a conflict is won during the initial competition. If domination occurs, there are two responses the subordinate group may have. One is stable oppression, in which the subordinates accept the dominating group’s attitudes on some focal issue and sometimes, deeper values. The subordinates submit to the dominant group to avoid further conflict. The second response that may occur is unstable oppression. This occurs when the subordinate group rejects the lower status thrust upon them, and sees the dominating group as oppressive.

The dominant group then may view the subordinates’ challenge as either justified or unjustified. If it is seen as unjustified, the dominant group will respond to the subordinates’ rebellion with hostility. If the subordinates’ rebellion is viewed as justified, the subordinates are given the power to demand change. An example of this would be the eventual recognition of the civil rights movement in the 1960s in the United States.