EDEXCEL Social Psychology Essay Plans
Realistic Conflict Theory (Sherif, 1966)
AO1: Intergroup competition: Prejudice and conflict arise when two or more groups compete for
limited resources (e.g., jobs, power, territory).
-VE Interdependence: When groups have opposing goals, this interdependence creates tension,
leading to hostility and discrimination.
Zero-sum Situation: One group's gain = another group’s loss (e.g., only one group can win a
prize), increasing competition and aggression.
+VE Interdependence and Superordinate Goals: Conflict can be reduced if groups work together
towards shared goals that cannot be achieved without cooperation. Mutually beneficial (if one
group succeeds, the other does too).
AO3:Strength: Supporting evidence from Sherif’s Robbers Cave Study: Demonstrates how
intergroup competition increases hostility and how cooperation towards shared goals reduces
prejudice.Increases internal validity because the setting was controlled but naturalistic (a camp,
not a lab).
However, weakness: Alternative theory → Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1970): Argues mere
categorisation into groups is enough to cause discrimination – competition isn’t
necessary.Challenges Sherif’s view that conflict must arise from competition for limited
resources.
Application: Aronson (1977) used the jigsaw technique in schools. Diverse students worked on a
shared graded project = superordinate goal. Success depended on group cooperation (all got
same grade).Promoted empathy, reduced prejudice in multicultural classrooms. Shows
superordinate goals can be used to prevent early prejudice in real-world settings.
Minimal Groups Studies (Tajfel et al, 1970)
AO1: Aim: To investigate whether mere group membership (without competition) is enough to
produce in-group favouritism and discrimination against out-groups.
Procedure: 48 schoolboys (aged 14–15) from Bristol, randomly assigned to minimal groups
based on arbitrary tasks (e.g., preference for paintings by Klee or Kandinsky). No face-to-face
contact; only aware of group names.Task: Allocate rewards (points/money) to anonymous
in-group and out-group members using matrix systems.
Findings:Boys favoured in-group members by allocating more points to them. Even when it
meant getting less overall reward, boys would maximise difference between groups to benefit
in-group.
Conclusion: Mere categorisation into groups is sufficient to trigger discrimination, even without
conflict or competition.
Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979,1986)
AO1: SIT → the strong desire to ‘belong’ to a group and will seek membership, validation and
acceptance by others within that group. It is believed that prejudice and discrimination can arise
purely from group membership, even when no real conflict exists. This is shown through stages:
, 1) Social Categorisation:We naturally and automatically categorise people (including
ourselves) into groups (we have little control over this).These categories form in-groups
(the group we belong to) and out-groups (groups we don't belong to). In other words: ‘us’
versus ‘them’ mentality, leading to stereotyping.
2) Social Identification: making social categorisation an important part of your self-concept
(how you view yourself). Leads to outward changes (eg. alter behaviour to fit with ingroup
norms) and inward changes (eg. shift in a person’s thinking). They feel emotionally tied to
the group and forms part of an individual's personal identity (eg. I’m a psychology student)
3) Social Comparison: boosting self-esteem by engineering a positive social comparison
(ingroup=superior; outgroup=inferior). Resulting to in-group favouritism and out-group
discrimination, EVEN without real competition. These processes can lead to:
PREJUDICE: perception of outgroup as inferior
DISCRIMINATION: treating outgroup members differently based on unfavourable views of the
group
AO3:Strength: is supporting evidence: Tajfel et al. (1970) minimal group experiment: boys
gfavoured in-group members by allocating more points to them. Even when it meant getting less
overall reward, boys would maximise difference between groups to benefit in-group. This shows
that simply being part of a group can lead to in-group favouritism, even when the group is
meaningless.
However, weakness: cultural bias: Wetherell (1982) replicated Tajfel et al’s minimal groups study
and found that SIT may not apply universally. In New Zealand, Polynesian children were more
fair and generous in minimal group tasks than white children, suggesting individualist cultures
may be more prone to in-group bias.
Application: suggests way to reduce prejudice: Fein & Spencer (1997) found that people with low
self-esteem were more likely to discriminate against out-groups, but self-affirmation reduced this.
→ Suggests that boosting self-worth or shared identity can reduce prejudice in real-world settings
(e.g., schools, workplaces).
Factors Affecting Prejudice (Individual Differences)
AO1: Authoritarian Personality (Adorno et al. 1950) proposes that harsh parenting leads to a
personality type that is submissive to authority and hostile to those seen as inferior. These
individuals displace their anger onto minority groups, making them more likely to show prejudice.
Authoritarian Personality (Allport,1954): Agreed with adorno but also thinks that conditional love
creates lack of confidence, empathy and only able to think in black or white, so ultimately has a
fear of difference. Not necessarily prejudiced but are receptive to political arguments targeting
inner fears and insecurities, explaining prejudiced behaviour.
Right-wing authoritarianism (Altemeyer, 1988): ppl have a socially learned set of beliefs (not from
parents), believes world is dangerous and threatening (creates fear and uncertainty), so are more
likely to show prejudice towards those who violate perceived norms or threaten societal structure.
Social Dominance Orientation (Pratto et al,1994): preference of hierarchy, where their own group
dominates others, sees world as a competitive jungle (ppl fight for power and limited resources,
different from RWA), so discriminate to maintain status. More common in men bc more exposure
to competition.
Realistic Conflict Theory (Sherif, 1966)
AO1: Intergroup competition: Prejudice and conflict arise when two or more groups compete for
limited resources (e.g., jobs, power, territory).
-VE Interdependence: When groups have opposing goals, this interdependence creates tension,
leading to hostility and discrimination.
Zero-sum Situation: One group's gain = another group’s loss (e.g., only one group can win a
prize), increasing competition and aggression.
+VE Interdependence and Superordinate Goals: Conflict can be reduced if groups work together
towards shared goals that cannot be achieved without cooperation. Mutually beneficial (if one
group succeeds, the other does too).
AO3:Strength: Supporting evidence from Sherif’s Robbers Cave Study: Demonstrates how
intergroup competition increases hostility and how cooperation towards shared goals reduces
prejudice.Increases internal validity because the setting was controlled but naturalistic (a camp,
not a lab).
However, weakness: Alternative theory → Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1970): Argues mere
categorisation into groups is enough to cause discrimination – competition isn’t
necessary.Challenges Sherif’s view that conflict must arise from competition for limited
resources.
Application: Aronson (1977) used the jigsaw technique in schools. Diverse students worked on a
shared graded project = superordinate goal. Success depended on group cooperation (all got
same grade).Promoted empathy, reduced prejudice in multicultural classrooms. Shows
superordinate goals can be used to prevent early prejudice in real-world settings.
Minimal Groups Studies (Tajfel et al, 1970)
AO1: Aim: To investigate whether mere group membership (without competition) is enough to
produce in-group favouritism and discrimination against out-groups.
Procedure: 48 schoolboys (aged 14–15) from Bristol, randomly assigned to minimal groups
based on arbitrary tasks (e.g., preference for paintings by Klee or Kandinsky). No face-to-face
contact; only aware of group names.Task: Allocate rewards (points/money) to anonymous
in-group and out-group members using matrix systems.
Findings:Boys favoured in-group members by allocating more points to them. Even when it
meant getting less overall reward, boys would maximise difference between groups to benefit
in-group.
Conclusion: Mere categorisation into groups is sufficient to trigger discrimination, even without
conflict or competition.
Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979,1986)
AO1: SIT → the strong desire to ‘belong’ to a group and will seek membership, validation and
acceptance by others within that group. It is believed that prejudice and discrimination can arise
purely from group membership, even when no real conflict exists. This is shown through stages:
, 1) Social Categorisation:We naturally and automatically categorise people (including
ourselves) into groups (we have little control over this).These categories form in-groups
(the group we belong to) and out-groups (groups we don't belong to). In other words: ‘us’
versus ‘them’ mentality, leading to stereotyping.
2) Social Identification: making social categorisation an important part of your self-concept
(how you view yourself). Leads to outward changes (eg. alter behaviour to fit with ingroup
norms) and inward changes (eg. shift in a person’s thinking). They feel emotionally tied to
the group and forms part of an individual's personal identity (eg. I’m a psychology student)
3) Social Comparison: boosting self-esteem by engineering a positive social comparison
(ingroup=superior; outgroup=inferior). Resulting to in-group favouritism and out-group
discrimination, EVEN without real competition. These processes can lead to:
PREJUDICE: perception of outgroup as inferior
DISCRIMINATION: treating outgroup members differently based on unfavourable views of the
group
AO3:Strength: is supporting evidence: Tajfel et al. (1970) minimal group experiment: boys
gfavoured in-group members by allocating more points to them. Even when it meant getting less
overall reward, boys would maximise difference between groups to benefit in-group. This shows
that simply being part of a group can lead to in-group favouritism, even when the group is
meaningless.
However, weakness: cultural bias: Wetherell (1982) replicated Tajfel et al’s minimal groups study
and found that SIT may not apply universally. In New Zealand, Polynesian children were more
fair and generous in minimal group tasks than white children, suggesting individualist cultures
may be more prone to in-group bias.
Application: suggests way to reduce prejudice: Fein & Spencer (1997) found that people with low
self-esteem were more likely to discriminate against out-groups, but self-affirmation reduced this.
→ Suggests that boosting self-worth or shared identity can reduce prejudice in real-world settings
(e.g., schools, workplaces).
Factors Affecting Prejudice (Individual Differences)
AO1: Authoritarian Personality (Adorno et al. 1950) proposes that harsh parenting leads to a
personality type that is submissive to authority and hostile to those seen as inferior. These
individuals displace their anger onto minority groups, making them more likely to show prejudice.
Authoritarian Personality (Allport,1954): Agreed with adorno but also thinks that conditional love
creates lack of confidence, empathy and only able to think in black or white, so ultimately has a
fear of difference. Not necessarily prejudiced but are receptive to political arguments targeting
inner fears and insecurities, explaining prejudiced behaviour.
Right-wing authoritarianism (Altemeyer, 1988): ppl have a socially learned set of beliefs (not from
parents), believes world is dangerous and threatening (creates fear and uncertainty), so are more
likely to show prejudice towards those who violate perceived norms or threaten societal structure.
Social Dominance Orientation (Pratto et al,1994): preference of hierarchy, where their own group
dominates others, sees world as a competitive jungle (ppl fight for power and limited resources,
different from RWA), so discriminate to maintain status. More common in men bc more exposure
to competition.
