Us Against Them: How Realistic Conflict Theory Explains Discrimination

UPI Study › Courses › Advanced Social Psychology › Free lessons › Lesson 5.3 Free with a free account

Us Against Them: How Realistic Conflict Theory Explains Discrimination

Advanced Social Psychology · Chapter 5: Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Intergroup ConflictSection 5.3 · lesson 27 of 8511 min · free with a free account

← Where Bias Begins: Tracing the Theories and Origins of PrejudiceNext lesson: Drawing the Line: The Psychology Behind Ingroups and Outgroups →

Earn 3 college credits for Advanced Social PsychologyRecommended for credit by NCCRS · Psychology 310 · self-paced · one payment, lifetime access
Enroll in Advanced Social Psychology · $250 →Download the syllabus (PDF)

In this lesson

Hostility as a predictable response to structure, not to character.

  • State the core proposition of realistic conflict theory
  • Summarize the three phases of the Robbers Cave study
  • Apply the theory to resource competition and labor markets
  • Evaluate the evidence that conflict is not necessary for bias

Free study notes

Get this lesson's notes by email

The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.

One email. Unsubscribe in one click.

Transcript

Everything said in the video, section by section (1,415 words). Read along, or search it.

Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Intergroup Conflict

Us Against Them

Suppose you wanted to manufacture hostility between two groups from scratch. No history. No cultural difference. No unusual personalities. Realistic conflict theory says you need only one ingredient. A resource that both groups want and only one can have. This section states that proposition and then tests it against its best evidence. The Robbers Cave study, which is one of the field's most famous field experiments. And also against its critics, because that study has taken serious damage. Then we look at what carries the theory's weight in contemporary research. And we finish with the limit, which is sharper than most textbooks admit.

The Proposition

Hostility as a Structural Prediction

Realistic conflict theory was developed most fully by Muzafer Sherif. LeVine and Campbell elaborated it in nineteen seventy-two. The proposition is simple. Intergroup hostility arises when groups compete. Compete for resources that are scarce, and valued. The central insight is structural, and that word is doing real work. Prejudice and discrimination are not merely products of disordered personalities. Nor are they merely products of cognitive biases. They are predictable responses to the objective situation groups find themselves in. Where interests are perceived as zero-sum, animosity rises. One group's gain is understood as another group's loss. Where interests are perceived as compatible, or interdependent, cooperation can emerge. Even between groups that were hostile shortly before.

The Contrast

Two Predictions the Personality Theories Cannot Make

Section five point two surveyed personality-based accounts of prejudice. Realistic conflict theory differs from all of them in two consequential ways. And both differences are testable, which is what makes them worth stating. First, any group placed in competition will develop hostility. Regardless of its members' prior personalities. You do not need authoritarians in the room to produce a conflict. Second, prejudice can be reduced by changing the structure of intergroup relations. Not only by changing what individuals think. That second prediction is the one with policy consequences. If it holds, then institutional design is itself a prejudice intervention. You are no longer restricted to persuading people one at a time.

Robbers Cave

The Setup, and Why It Was Built That Way

Sherif and colleagues built a three-week field study to test this. It ran at Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma, in nineteen fifty-four. Twenty-two boys, aged eleven and twelve. Now read the selection criteria as an argument, because that is what they are. The boys were pre-screened to be psychologically well-adjusted. So there would be no authoritarian personalities available to blame. They came from similar Protestant, middle-class backgrounds. So there was no pre-existing cultural difference between the groups. And they were strangers to one another. So there was no history of grievance to draw on. Every screening criterion removes one of the alternative explanations. Whatever hostility appeared could only come from the structure Sherif imposed.

Three Phases

Build a Group, Then Break the Peace

The study ran in three carefully designed phases. Week one was ingroup formation. Each group lived and worked separately, unaware the other even existed. Cooperative tasks built bonds inside each group. By the end of a week, strong group identity had emerged. Names. The Eagles, and the Rattlers. Flags. In-jokes. Leadership hierarchies. Week two was the friction stage. The groups were introduced, and placed in competitive tournaments. With prizes that only the winners could share. Hostility escalated rapidly, and it did not stay verbal. Name-calling. Raiding cabins. Burning flags. Refusing to share dining facilities. Week three was the integration stage. Researchers introduced superordinate goals requiring cooperation between the groups. Fixing a broken water supply was one of them. Hostility declined gradually, and cross-group friendships emerged. But note the negative result, because it is the important one. Mere contact, without shared goals, did not reduce the conflict at all.

What It Established

Three Propositions

Three propositions came out of those phases. First, group identity is cheap to manufacture. It can be created quickly from arbitrary assignment plus shared activity. The Eagles and the Rattlers needed one week. Second, competition over scarce rewards reliably produces hostility. Not occasionally, and not only in unusual samples. Reliably. Third, and this is the one that matters for intervention. The only manipulation that durably reduced hostility was the superordinate goal. An outcome desired by both groups that neither could achieve alone. Notice what a superordinate goal does not do. It does not ask anyone to like the other group. It makes cooperation instrumentally necessary. And the liking follows the cooperation, rather than preceding it.

In Practice

Superordinate Goals Beyond the Camp

The principle has been applied well beyond summer camps. And the mechanism transfers cleanly, which is the test of a good theory. Aronson's jigsaw classroom is the best-known application. It is a cooperative-learning technique that reduces ethnic tension in schools. It works by structuring tasks in a specific way. Each student possesses information that the others need. So nobody can complete the work by ignoring anyone. International responses to shared crises sometimes generate similar effects. Public health emergencies. Climate-related disasters. But there is a hard condition on that second case. It works only when the threat is perceived as genuinely common. Not when it is perceived as another group's problem. Reframe the same event as theirs, and the conflict comes straight back.

Middle Grove

The Replication That Failed, and Why

Robbers Cave has been re-examined extensively since. And the most instructive result in that literature is a failure. A partial replication ran at Middle Grove, in nineteen fifty-three. It failed to produce the same hostility. The explanation is what makes it interesting. Partly, the boys recognized the experimental nature of the competition. They could see the whole thing was staged. That points to an important scope condition on the theory. Competition produces hostility most reliably when the groups perceive it as real. Rather than as staged, or arranged for someone else's purposes. This is not a refutation. It is a boundary condition. And it actually makes the theory sharper. The mechanism runs on perceived reality, not on the objective arrangement of prizes.

How To Cite It

The Second Critique

There is a further objection, and this one is more uncomfortable. More recent work has argued something about the researchers themselves. That the Robbers Cave team actively encouraged some of the conflict. Which complicates the original interpretation considerably. If the experimenters helped produce the hostility, the demonstration is weaker. Weaker than it reads in the summaries, at least. So how should an advanced student handle this? Despite these critiques, the broader empirical pattern is well supported. Supported by other work, using other methods. So cite Robbers Cave as a vivid illustration of the mechanism. And cite the survey and archival evidence for the effect itself. Never let one dramatic study carry the whole claim.

Esses And Colleagues

The Instrumental Model of Group Conflict

What carries the theory's weight in contemporary research is a different model. Esses and colleagues developed it across nineteen ninety-eight and two thousand one. They call it the instrumental model of group conflict. Perceived competition predicts negative attitudes toward outgroups. Competition over jobs, over immigration, and over political influence. And the pattern holds across many national contexts. Now the finding that matters most for intervention design. The objective availability of resources matters less than you would expect. What matters is the perception that the outgroup poses a competitive threat. Those two can move independently, and often do. This is the same lesson integrated threat theory taught in the previous section. Arriving here from a completely different research tradition.

The Limit

Sufficient, but Not Necessary

Realistic conflict theory explains a great deal. But it cannot be the whole story, and the counter-evidence is decisive. Tajfel's minimal group studies produced ingroup favoritism under stripped conditions. No material interests at stake. No history of competition between the groups. And no expected future interaction of any kind. Bias appeared anyway. Section five point four takes this apart in detail. So state the relationship precisely, because the wording matters. Conflict is sufficient to generate bias. It is not necessary. A complete account has to combine two things. The structural insights of realistic conflict theory. And identity-based mechanisms that run even without real competition.

Consolidate

What a Structural Theory Buys You

Here is what a structural theory actually buys you. It directs attention to features of the social environment. Features that purely psychological theories miss entirely. Housing markets. Immigration policies. Labor competition. Electoral boundaries. None of those are states of mind, and all of them shape intergroup relations. By locating prejudice in structural conditions, the theory supplies a vocabulary. A vocabulary for intervention at the institutional level. Quota systems. Cooperative-task design. Superordinate-goal framing. Rather than working only at the level of individual minds. Five terms to carry forward. Realistic conflict theory, and the Robbers Cave study that illustrates it. The superordinate goal, which is the design lever. The instrumental model of group conflict, which carries the modern evidence. And zero-sum perception, which is the belief the whole mechanism runs on.

About Advanced Social Psychology at UPI Study

Advanced Social Psychology (Psychology 310) is a self-paced online course of 85 video lessons in 12 chapters, from attitudes, persuasion and the self to prejudice, attraction and relationships, conformity and obedience, helping, aggression and social life online. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.

Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Psychology and social science courses Every course with PRO →

Compare: Social Psychology vs Sociology

Why take it here

Why students take Advanced Social Psychology with UPI Study

How other people shape what we think and doAdvanced Social Psychology explains how people think about, influence and relate to one another: attitudes and persuasion, the self, prejudice and intergroup conflict, attraction and close relationships, conformity and obedience, helping and aggression. It is a common upper-level course in psychology and sociology degrees.
Credit at a fraction of the priceThe same 3 credits can cost $750 or more at a US college. Here it is one payment, self-paced, with lifetime access.
Finish your degree soonerTransfer credits reduce the courses you still owe, so you can graduate earlier or lighten a heavy semester.
Strengthen an applicationA completed college-level course on an official transcript shows admissions and scholarship committees you can do the work.
Study on your own scheduleNo start dates, no deadlines. Watch the lessons, practice, and take the final when you are ready.
130,000+students helped with college creditsACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Where the credit goes

Universities that work with NCCRS

Advanced Social Psychology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Thomas Edison State UniversityThomas Edison State UniversitySigned partnerUniversity of the PeopleUniversity of the PeopleSigned partnerCharter Oak State CollegeCharter Oak State CollegeSigned partnerStrayer UniversityStrayer UniversitySigned partnerColumbia Southern UniversityColumbia Southern UniversitySigned partnerIndiana TechIndiana TechSigned partnerPenn StatePenn StateWorks with NCCRSSouthern New Hampshire UniversitySouthern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRSSUNYSUNYWorks with NCCRS +many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →

Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.

FAQ

Questions students ask us

About Us Against Them: How Realistic Conflict Theory Explains Discrimination

What is realistic conflict theory?
Realistic conflict theory states that hostility between groups arises when they compete for scarce, valued resources, so one group's gain is seen as the other's loss. Muzafer Sherif developed it most fully, and LeVine and Campbell elaborated it in 1972. Its key claim is structural: prejudice can arise from the situation groups are in rather than from disordered personalities, and it can be reduced by making groups' interests interdependent instead of competitive.
What is the instrumental model of group conflict?
The instrumental model of group conflict, developed by Victoria Esses and colleagues in the late 1990s and early 2000s, holds that negative attitudes toward an outgroup grow when people see that group as a competitor for jobs, economic resources, or political influence. Much of the research concerns attitudes toward immigrants. The key ingredient is perceived competition rather than actual scarcity, so hostility can rise even when real resources have not changed.
What are the main criticisms of the Robbers Cave experiment?
The main criticisms are that an earlier attempt failed and that the researchers may have encouraged the conflict. A 1953 study at Middle Grove, New York, did not produce the same hostility, partly because the boys suspected the competition was staged. Later archival work, notably by Gina Perry, argued that staff helped provoke some of the Robbers Cave conflict. Other evidence supports the link between competition and hostility, so the study is best cited as an illustration.
What is a superordinate goal in psychology?
A superordinate goal is an outcome that two groups both want but neither can achieve alone, so cooperation becomes necessary. In Sherif's Robbers Cave study, such goals were the manipulation that durably reduced hostility between the groups. A superordinate goal does not ask people to like each other; liking tends to follow the cooperation. Shared crises can work similarly, but mainly when the threat is perceived as common rather than as another group's problem.

About the Advanced Social Psychology course

How many college credits is Advanced Social Psychology?
Advanced Social Psychology (Psychology 310) carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
How much does Advanced Social Psychology cost and what is included?
$250, paid once, with lifetime access: all 85 video lessons, a practice quiz after each, the graded work and final exam, and an official transcript when you finish. Students who want several courses choose UPI Study PRO instead.
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
UPI Study has signed partner agreements with universities such as Thomas Edison State University, University of the People and Charter Oak State College, and works with universities such as Penn State, SNHU and SUNY. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities. Use "Find my college" on this page to check yours.
How long does Advanced Social Psychology take?
It is self-paced with no deadlines. The 85 lessons total about 15 hours of video; most students add reading and practice time and finish in a few weeks to a few months, on their own schedule.
How are the exams done?
Quizzes and assignments are online in the course. The final exam is taken online with proctoring; a person on the UPI Study team checks assignments, usually within two days.
How do my credits reach my college?
When the course shows 100% complete, request the official transcript from your dashboard. It is sent to the college you name, and you can send it to more than one. Check your college first with "Find my college" on this page, or ask Athena.

Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Advanced Social Psychology.

85 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.

Enroll in Advanced Social Psychology →Download the syllabusEvery course with PRO →
Advanced Social Psychology
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →