Online video 2 RGCT
Blumer about authoritarian personality
So how does it come that whole groups can be part of prejudice or discrimination
towards a certain group (think about germans against jews)
> But: prejudice is fundamentally a matter of relationship between racial groups
(Blumer 1958)
When you talk about prejudice, it is not about individuals who have problems with
other individuals, but it is always about conflicts between groups. between status
that groups have.
Robbers Cave Experiment
When the groups knew there was another group where they would challenge against,
the group dynamics changed quickly> more cohesive and all the existing conflicts in
the group disappeared.
It was about we need to beat the other ones!! (especially when winning prices)
How does conflict between groups emerge? (goal of this experiment)
➢ That’s basically the basis of Sherif’s conflict theory. That as soon as you have
competition between groups, there are two consequences.
1. In-group: solidarity, positive stereotypes (we are better than the others, we
against them)
2. Out-group: hostility, negative stereotypes (they suck, they are bad, we.
Need to beat them)
This little experiment (robbers cave experiment) approved all the old approached
wrong. Prejudice was not a personality issue> kids were randomly added to groups.
No need for a strong leader (authority) who wants to dominate others.
What is needed for prejudice and conflicts to emerge?
➢ Social categorization
- On basis of shared characteristics (rattlers vs eaglers)> leads to:
- In-group-favoritism (“we” against “them”)
➢ Competition over resources (trophies’ like the pocketknife’s they could win)
- Outgroup-derogation (outgroup-homogeneity)
This is different than Social Identity Theory> only about the first part: social
categorization.
Phase 3: integration
Get to know activities of both groups (watch a movie etc/ eat together)> ended in
food fights. How can we solve the problem we created? They created problems that
effected both groups. Blocked the water tank>both camps were affected by this>
shared activities on urgent problems> fixed water reservoir.
,Sheriff on conflict reduction
➢ Conflict theory predicts when group conflicts will occur
- Group competition over scarce (schaarse) resources
➢ Conflict theory also suggests how conflicts can be solved
- Work on common (important) goal
- Goal can only be reached through cooperation
Realistic Conflict Theory
- Groups compete for scarce resources in every society
- Conflict develops if one group wants something that another group already
has (zero-sum fate)
- Conflict depends on whether the goals of the groups are in conflict or
shared
- Group competition leads to stronger in-group solidarity and out-group
hostility
What’s realistic about the competition?
➢ Coser (1956): the functions of social conflict
Realistic conflicts:
- A particular object (scarce resource) wants to be achieved
- Aggression is directed at the competitor for that object
- There are functional alternatives to the means (if there is a true object that
you want to achieve, there are different ways to achieve this)
➢ E.g. organizing a protest, a strike or collect signatures
➢ It doesn’t matter if it is objectively a means that will help to achieve the goal
that you have. As long as people believe that the means that they are using
leads to the object it is called a realistic conflict.
Nonrealistic conflicts:
- Aggression is the means that people want to achieve
- Aggression is not directed at anyone in particular
- There are functional alternatives to the object
➢ E.g. anti-semitism
Real-life: often a mix of both (scapegoat theory)
Examples:
1. People vote for right-wing party because they are afraid that immigrants take
their jobs = Realistic conflict (ppl have a clear goal; afraid of immigrants to
take their job; object is save jobs, means is voting> but could have chosen
other means).
2. Protesters in Louisiana vandalize cars after an unarmed black man was shot by
the police = Non realistic conflict (bc vandalizing a random car on the streets
doesn’t achieve anything getting closer to the goal they might have)
,Axiom of RCGT
- There are reasons for competition in every society over scarce resources
- This includes material resources (money, jobs), privileges (power, status),
and cultural resources (values, norms).
Empirical data NL
- Economic threat
- Cultural threat
To what extent is the competition real or only perceived?
Real vs perceived competition
Perceived competition and threat
- Is actual (objective) competition necessary for perceived competition and
threat?
- Thomas theorem: “If men define situations as real, they are real in their
consequences”.
- Coser: “If men define a threat as real, although there may be little or
nothing in reality to justify this belief, the threat is real in its
consequences”.
➢ It doesn’t matter how many immigrants live in your neighborhood; if you
perceive it to be a lot, people tend to be more prejudiced
➢ It is more peoples perception that matters, than the actual objective
situation
Real competition> perceived competition> perceived threat> prejudice and conflict
➢ Explains why not everybody in a group is equally prejudiced because the
perception of competition really varies between people
Which circumstances intensify competition? Who is most likely to perceive
competition?
Group threat
- Blumer identifies four basic feelings underlying prejudice (only if all four of
them if given, then people react with prejudice)
1. Feeling of superiority
2. Subordinate group is different and alien
3. Propriety claim to priviliges and advantages
4. Fear and suspicion that subordinate group threatens the position of the
superior group
, Crucial: “the sense of group position”
➢ So the group is concerned with the position of their own (??)
➢ So if you feel that your group is being attacked> react with prejudice
RGCT: group position interpretation
- RCGT is concerned with the comparison of own group’s position with the
position of the out-group
- RCGT is not concerned with the comparison of individuals with other
individuals
➢ Challenges at the macro (societal) of meso (group) level affect perceived
competition
RGCT: individualistic interpretation
- Why do some group members develop more prejudice than others?
- People might actually not care about the position of the group as a whole
but only about their individual interests
• To what extend do you feel threatened yourself?
• The out-group is a threat to one’s own position
Deriving hypotheses (important!!)
From a theoretical model to various testable hypotheses
Prejudice and conflict are the result of actual and perceived competition and threat.
Hypothesis on the macro/meso (group) level
- Competition and threat depend on context conditions
- Leads to hypothesis about neighborhoods, regions, countries
Hypothesis on the individual (micro) level
- Competition and threat depend on an individual’s condition
- Leads to hypothesis about social categories
Blumer about authoritarian personality
So how does it come that whole groups can be part of prejudice or discrimination
towards a certain group (think about germans against jews)
> But: prejudice is fundamentally a matter of relationship between racial groups
(Blumer 1958)
When you talk about prejudice, it is not about individuals who have problems with
other individuals, but it is always about conflicts between groups. between status
that groups have.
Robbers Cave Experiment
When the groups knew there was another group where they would challenge against,
the group dynamics changed quickly> more cohesive and all the existing conflicts in
the group disappeared.
It was about we need to beat the other ones!! (especially when winning prices)
How does conflict between groups emerge? (goal of this experiment)
➢ That’s basically the basis of Sherif’s conflict theory. That as soon as you have
competition between groups, there are two consequences.
1. In-group: solidarity, positive stereotypes (we are better than the others, we
against them)
2. Out-group: hostility, negative stereotypes (they suck, they are bad, we.
Need to beat them)
This little experiment (robbers cave experiment) approved all the old approached
wrong. Prejudice was not a personality issue> kids were randomly added to groups.
No need for a strong leader (authority) who wants to dominate others.
What is needed for prejudice and conflicts to emerge?
➢ Social categorization
- On basis of shared characteristics (rattlers vs eaglers)> leads to:
- In-group-favoritism (“we” against “them”)
➢ Competition over resources (trophies’ like the pocketknife’s they could win)
- Outgroup-derogation (outgroup-homogeneity)
This is different than Social Identity Theory> only about the first part: social
categorization.
Phase 3: integration
Get to know activities of both groups (watch a movie etc/ eat together)> ended in
food fights. How can we solve the problem we created? They created problems that
effected both groups. Blocked the water tank>both camps were affected by this>
shared activities on urgent problems> fixed water reservoir.
,Sheriff on conflict reduction
➢ Conflict theory predicts when group conflicts will occur
- Group competition over scarce (schaarse) resources
➢ Conflict theory also suggests how conflicts can be solved
- Work on common (important) goal
- Goal can only be reached through cooperation
Realistic Conflict Theory
- Groups compete for scarce resources in every society
- Conflict develops if one group wants something that another group already
has (zero-sum fate)
- Conflict depends on whether the goals of the groups are in conflict or
shared
- Group competition leads to stronger in-group solidarity and out-group
hostility
What’s realistic about the competition?
➢ Coser (1956): the functions of social conflict
Realistic conflicts:
- A particular object (scarce resource) wants to be achieved
- Aggression is directed at the competitor for that object
- There are functional alternatives to the means (if there is a true object that
you want to achieve, there are different ways to achieve this)
➢ E.g. organizing a protest, a strike or collect signatures
➢ It doesn’t matter if it is objectively a means that will help to achieve the goal
that you have. As long as people believe that the means that they are using
leads to the object it is called a realistic conflict.
Nonrealistic conflicts:
- Aggression is the means that people want to achieve
- Aggression is not directed at anyone in particular
- There are functional alternatives to the object
➢ E.g. anti-semitism
Real-life: often a mix of both (scapegoat theory)
Examples:
1. People vote for right-wing party because they are afraid that immigrants take
their jobs = Realistic conflict (ppl have a clear goal; afraid of immigrants to
take their job; object is save jobs, means is voting> but could have chosen
other means).
2. Protesters in Louisiana vandalize cars after an unarmed black man was shot by
the police = Non realistic conflict (bc vandalizing a random car on the streets
doesn’t achieve anything getting closer to the goal they might have)
,Axiom of RCGT
- There are reasons for competition in every society over scarce resources
- This includes material resources (money, jobs), privileges (power, status),
and cultural resources (values, norms).
Empirical data NL
- Economic threat
- Cultural threat
To what extent is the competition real or only perceived?
Real vs perceived competition
Perceived competition and threat
- Is actual (objective) competition necessary for perceived competition and
threat?
- Thomas theorem: “If men define situations as real, they are real in their
consequences”.
- Coser: “If men define a threat as real, although there may be little or
nothing in reality to justify this belief, the threat is real in its
consequences”.
➢ It doesn’t matter how many immigrants live in your neighborhood; if you
perceive it to be a lot, people tend to be more prejudiced
➢ It is more peoples perception that matters, than the actual objective
situation
Real competition> perceived competition> perceived threat> prejudice and conflict
➢ Explains why not everybody in a group is equally prejudiced because the
perception of competition really varies between people
Which circumstances intensify competition? Who is most likely to perceive
competition?
Group threat
- Blumer identifies four basic feelings underlying prejudice (only if all four of
them if given, then people react with prejudice)
1. Feeling of superiority
2. Subordinate group is different and alien
3. Propriety claim to priviliges and advantages
4. Fear and suspicion that subordinate group threatens the position of the
superior group
, Crucial: “the sense of group position”
➢ So the group is concerned with the position of their own (??)
➢ So if you feel that your group is being attacked> react with prejudice
RGCT: group position interpretation
- RCGT is concerned with the comparison of own group’s position with the
position of the out-group
- RCGT is not concerned with the comparison of individuals with other
individuals
➢ Challenges at the macro (societal) of meso (group) level affect perceived
competition
RGCT: individualistic interpretation
- Why do some group members develop more prejudice than others?
- People might actually not care about the position of the group as a whole
but only about their individual interests
• To what extend do you feel threatened yourself?
• The out-group is a threat to one’s own position
Deriving hypotheses (important!!)
From a theoretical model to various testable hypotheses
Prejudice and conflict are the result of actual and perceived competition and threat.
Hypothesis on the macro/meso (group) level
- Competition and threat depend on context conditions
- Leads to hypothesis about neighborhoods, regions, countries
Hypothesis on the individual (micro) level
- Competition and threat depend on an individual’s condition
- Leads to hypothesis about social categories
