In the Robbers Cave experiment, intense hostility between two groups of boys emerged rapidly. What was the primary cause, according to realistic conflict theory?
AThe boys had prior negative interactions before the camp began
BThe groups contained boys with authoritarian or aggressive personality traits
CThe groups were placed into zero-sum competitions where one group's gain was the other's loss
DThe groups were too different in background and culture to cooperate
The design carefully controlled for prior contact and personality differences — the boys were strangers, selected for psychological normalcy. Hostility emerged specifically after zero-sum competitions (tug-of-war, baseball) were introduced. This is realistic conflict theory's central empirical claim: competitive structure alone reliably produces intergroup hostility, regardless of who the individuals are or whether they have any prior history.
Question 2 Multiple Choice
Sherif found that bringing the hostile groups together for pleasant shared activities — meals, movies — failed to reduce their conflict. What actually reduced hostility?
AIncreased contact gradually broke down stereotypes through familiarity over time
BSeparating the groups and allowing a cooling-off period dissipated the hostility
CIntroducing superordinate goals that required both groups to cooperate and that neither could achieve alone
DHaving camp authorities enforce rules of respectful conduct between the groups
Sherif explicitly tested the contact hypothesis and found it failed — shared pleasant activities in a context of ongoing competition sometimes increased tension. What worked was introducing problems that required both groups to cooperate for goals neither could achieve alone (e.g., fixing a 'broken' water supply, pooling money to rent a truck). These superordinate goals transformed the incentive structure from zero-sum to positive-sum. Realistic conflict theory predicts that the fix must be structural — not attitudinal.
Question 3 True / False
According to realistic conflict theory, intergroup prejudice and hostility are primarily caused by psychological traits of group members, such as authoritarian personalities or innate in-group favoritism.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
Realistic conflict theory is explicitly a structural account — it locates the cause of hostility in the objective competitive relationship between groups, not in individual psychology. Sherif's boys were selected for psychological normalcy, and hostility appeared within days of structural competition being introduced. The theory does not deny that personality matters, but insists that competitive structure is sufficient to produce hostility independently of individual characteristics.
Question 4 True / False
Even perceived competition over a scarce resource can produce intergroup hostility, even when no real scarcity exists.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: True
Realistic conflict theory extends beyond material scarcity to include perceived scarcity. If groups believe they are competing over a finite resource — including symbolic resources like social status, political power, or recognition — they respond to the *perception* of zero-sum competition with hostility. This is why prejudice can persist in conditions of material abundance: if group status is perceived as a scarce, competitive resource, realistic conflict dynamics still operate.
Question 5 Short Answer
Why does merely increasing contact between hostile groups not reliably reduce intergroup conflict, according to realistic conflict theory?
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: Realistic conflict theory locates the cause of hostility in competitive structure — zero-sum conditions where one group's gain is the other's loss. Contact alone does not change this structure. If two groups remain in direct resource competition, bringing them together for pleasant activities leaves the underlying incentive structure intact, and contact under competitive conditions can actually intensify hostility by increasing awareness of the rival group. What reduces conflict is transforming the structure itself: introducing superordinate goals makes both groups' success interdependent, converting zero-sum conditions into positive-sum ones.
This identifies the theory's specific, testable prediction about intervention. Contact helps only when it changes the structural incentives — otherwise it is irrelevant at best. The Robbers Cave data directly demonstrate both halves: contact under competition failed, structural transformation via superordinate goals succeeded.