Realistic Group (Theory) Experiment

Conflict And Prejudice

Limited resources it leads to conflict, prejudice and discrimination between groups who seek

that common resource. Once hostility has been aroused, it is very difficult to return to normal

relations and an ongoing feud can arise.

Negative attitudes and prejudice arise when groups compete for scarce resources and their interests are incompatible (e.g., one group gains and the other group loses). However, tolerance and fairness prevail in situations in which group interests are compatible and complementary (e.g., one group gains only with the assistance of another group).

Realistic Conflict Theory (Sherif):

Groups become prejudiced toward one another because they are in competition for material

resources and/or political power.

Robber's Cave Experiment (Sherif & Sherif, 1954)

Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma

Participants: 20 boys, 11-12 years old None knew each other prior to study

Three phases, 1 week each

Muzafer and Carolyn Sherif (1954) studied the origin of prejudice in social groups in a classic study called the Robbers Cave Experiment.

The field research was conducted in a 200 acre (0.8 km²)summer camp which was completely surrounded by Robbers Cave State Park

Procedure

1. Named a camp janitor. 2. Screened a group of 22 twelve year-old boys with similar backgrounds. 3. Participants were 11-12 years old boys. 4. They were picked up by two buses carrying 11 boys each. Neither group knew of

the other's existence. 5. The boys were assigned to two living areas far enough apart that each group

remained ignorant of the other's presence for the first few days. 6. The Sherifs had broken up pre-existing friendships to the extent they could, so

that each boy's identification with his new group could happen faster. 7. Asked to choose names for their groups, one chose "The Rattlers", the other

"The Eagles." 8. Within two or three days, the two groups spontaneously developed internal

social hierarchies.

PHASES OF EXPERIMENT

1. In-group formation, 2. A Friction Phase, which included first contact

between groups, sports competitions, etc. 3. An Integration Phase (reducing friction).

Phase I (week 1) IN-GROUP BUILDING PHASE

1. At first groups were separated, no knowledge of each other.

2. Normal camp activities 3. Ingroup identity creation: each group

developed norms, leaders emerged, the Rattlers and Eagles

Phase II (week 2) FRICTION BETWEEN TWO GROUPS

1. Groups aware of one another. At first no conflict2. Competition introduced. Prizes: pocket knife, medal, cash 3. Effect of competition-*Intergroup conflict Name calling pig,

cheater Saw own group positively We're brave And outgroup negatively They are sneaky, stinkers Seizing and burning other team's flag Cabin raids, stealing jeans. Losing team stole the prizes Held noses while passing members of other camp Caught hiding rocks in their socks.

4. Increase in preference for in-group members, negativity within group declined. Inter-group hostility and in-group solidarity

Phase III (week 3) INTEGRATION OF TWO GROUPS

1. Reversing the hostility was ore difficult than creating it. 2. Non-competitive contact failed to reduce conflict rather opportunities

were searched to fight each other3. Friction between two groups lessened through the task – cooperation

between the groups4. Superordinate goal introduction: mututwally shared goal only achieved

through intergroup cooperation. Water supply broke. Camp truck broke down. Groups came together to fix them.

5. Effects of superordinate goal: Negative stereotypes declined. Increase in outgroup friendships. Groups decided to put on entertainment program together. Groups insisted on riding home together on same bus. Rattlers used prize money to buy malts for everyone.

INTERGROUPOR

MAJORITY VS MINORITY CONFLICT

• Group formation• Intra group relation develops• Real or perceived conflicting goal…that can be achieved only at

expense of other group• Generate intergroup competition• Engage in reciprocally competitive/frustrating acts• Selective misperception of other group• Intergroup hostility emerge automatically• Develop negative stereotype by each group• Enmity towards other group

• Studies also show competition promotes aggression (Bonta, 1997).

• Before conflict of interest, negative reactions to out group was also noticed…indicating mere presence of out group sufficient to trigger intergroup discrimination (Biliig, 1976)

• Sherif's works (see, for instance, 1953) have also emphasized the need for a society to achieve cohesion, and the tendency of majority groups to see minorities as an anomaly, or an obstacle to bring about that cohesion.

• In some situations, in some cases, certain individuals' desire to become members of the dominant group is met with resistance.

• Both situations lead to majority- minority conflict.

• There is also (Sherif, 1953) frequent incongruence between one's 'reference group' and 'membership group (Sherif, 1953):'

• A reference group is a group to which the individual relates him/herself as a member, or to which s/he aspires to relate him/herself psychologically.

• A membership group, on the other hand, is a group of which the individual is (in actuality) willingly or unwillingly a member.

Quite frequently, some people's reference group happens to be different from their membership group.

• IF REFERENCE GROUP IS DIFFERENT:• They are considered troublemakers by the latter, for

they behave according to the norms of the former (Reference group).

• The loyalty of such individuals lies with their reference group, and, hence, they are distrusted by their membership group .

This incongruence can be observed in almost every conflict between a majority and an ethnocultural minority.

Tajfel (1981) and Billig (1976) have successfully argued that just the existence of a majority versus a minority (or even the existence of two groups irrespective of their relative sizes) is enough for the formation of prejudices and in-group biases.

Furthermore, some experimental studies concluded that even when two groups enjoy friendly or cooperative relations, they might still seek ways to derogate each other by making judgments favoring the in-group (Druckman, 1994).