The Psychology of Us vs. Them: Realistic Conflict Theory Explained

Throughout history, humanity has witnessed the devastating consequences of conflict, from ancient wars over territory to modern-day struggles fueled by ideology and ethnicity. The stark reality is that beneath our shared existence lies a profound tendency to divide ourselves into “us” versus “them.” This ingrained inclination often manifests as hostility towards those deemed outsiders, leading to cycles of violence and hatred that seem almost inescapable.

Realistic Conflict Theory (RCT) provides a compelling lens through which we can examine this troubling aspect of human behavior. By shedding light on how competition for limited resources—be it land, wealth, or power—ignites tensions between groups, RCT not only explains the origins of intergroup conflict but also underscores its tragic persistence throughout history. From the blood-soaked battlefields of world wars to the simmering hostilities in today’s divided societies, this theory reveals how our deep-seated fears and needs can incite horrific acts against one another.

As we delve deeper into Realistic Conflict Theory, we will explore its implications for understanding both our past and present conflicts while seeking pathways toward resolution and reconciliation. In doing so, we may uncover valuable insights that could guide us toward a more harmonious future amidst our differences.

Introduction

Realistic Conflict Theory (RCT) is a cornerstone concept in social psychology that seeks to explain the mechanisms behind intergroup conflicts and prejudice. Proposed by Muzafer Sherif in the mid-20th century, the theory posits that intergroup conflicts arise when groups compete for limited resources.

Woven deep into our evolutionary history is the drive to belong to a group. Resources were limited and survival tentative.

Leonard Mlodinow wrote:

“Long before communism, democracy, or theories of racial superiority were invented, neighboring groups of people regularly fought with and even massacred each other, inspired by the competition for resources. In such an environment, a highly evolved sense of ‘us versus them’ would have been crucial to survival” (Mlodinow, 2013).

These resources can be tangible, such as land or money, or intangible, such as social status or political power. Intergroup hostility is more than an invisible bias. It is a biological function of our brains. However, research shows that intergroup conflict almost immediately follows social identity. Once individuals categorize themselves into different groups, conflict is almost inevitable. Jacques Philippe Leyens, explains that by simply placing people in a category on an arbitrary basis “appears to cause discrimination against the other category, even despite a total lack of objective competition” (Leyens, 1994, p. 56).

One can understand that if a perception of limited resources are involved, this conflict is magnified. Unscrupulous politicians vie for support by manipulating this innate fear, painting a picture of limited resources and identifying an enemy competing for those resources.

Historical Background

In the 1950s, Muzafer Sherif conducted a series of groundbreaking experiments known as the Robbers Cave Experiment, which provided empirical support for RCT. In this study, boys at a summer camp were divided into two groups and placed in competitive situations where they vied for prizes. What ensued was a series of conflicts characterized by hostility, stereotyping, and aggression, reinforcing the primary tenet of RCT: competition over scarce resources breeds intergroup conflict.

See Robbers Cave Experiment for more on this research

The Core Principles of Realistic Conflict Theory

Realistic Conflict Theory is predicated on several fundamental principles.

Competition for Limited Resources

According to RCT, when groups vie for limited resources, whether these are economic, political, or social, conflicts are inevitable. The theory assumes that intergroup tensions arise “when groups have incompatible goals or compete for the same resources” (Klonek et al., 2023). The competition creates a zero-sum situation where one group’s gain is perceived as another group’s loss, leading to tension and conflict.

This is a fundamental element to realistic conflict theory, differentiating it from other theories such as social identity theory. This element also leads to the suggested solution for intergroup conflict of establishing interdependent efforts of opposing groups toward a common, superordinate goal.

Connie T. Wolfe and Steven J. Spencer explain:

“Working cooperatively toward shared goals transformed the skills of individual group members into valued resources. So, although conflicts of interest resulted in prejudice and intense disliking between groups, action toward superordinate goals helped foster positive opinions and mutual liking” (Wolfe & Spencer, 1996).

Intergroup Hostility

The competition for resources often leads to negative attitudes and behaviors towards outgroup members. This hostility can manifest in various forms, including prejudice, discrimination, and even violence. Sherif’s experiments demonstrated that even trivial competitions could escalate into significant conflicts.

The Robbers Cave experiment created tensions through competitions.

Sherif and colleagues explain:

“As a consequence of repeated interaction between the two experimentally formed groups in competitive and reciprocally frustrating situations, and of the cumulative intergroup friction thus engendered, negative attitudes toward the out-group were formed by members of each in-group. These negative attitudes toward the out-group, crystallized in unfavorable stereotypes, were manifested by name-calling, derogation of the out-group, and the explicit desire to avoid association with the out-group” (Sherif et al., 1988, p. 147).

Robert Sapolsky explains that it is an enormous cognitive task for humans to “overcome the tendency for ingroup favoritism and to reach an empathic state for someone who is different, unappealing” (Sapolsky, 2018). Kenneth Bancroft Clark warns that because “a compulsive strain of cruelty runs through the total pattern of the personality of individuals who view human beings in terms of rigid categories, and who have an intense need to identify themselves with members of their group and to reject members of other groups.” Some individuals view their “own group as superior in every way; any demands for equality on the part of other groups” is interpreted as a threat to their own security (Clark, 1988).

Group Cohesion and Solidarity

Interestingly, RCT also suggests that intergroup competition can increase cohesion within competing groups. As groups perceive a common external threat, they become more unified, fostering a stronger sense of identity and solidarity among members.

Philip Zimbardo explains that:

“Other people are more likely to accept us when we agree with them than when we disagree, so we yield to their view of the world, driven by a powerful need to belong, to replace differences with similarities. If you make independent judgments that go against the group, your brain would light up in the areas that are associated with emotional salience (the right amygdala and right caudate nucleus regions). This means that resistance creates an emotional burden for those who maintain their independence—autonomy comes at a psychic cost” (Zimbardo, 2007).

Florian E. Klonek, Fabiola H. Gerpott, and Lisa Handke explain:

“Based on realistic conflict theory, we would expect that targeted verbal aggression between groups (i.e., at the intergroup level) impacts intra-group functioning in such a way that the groups start sticking more closely together and pool their resources to defend themselves against external threats. For instance, conflicts at the intergroup level have been shown to improve intra-group co-operation” (Klonek et al., 2023).

Basically, intergroup conflict creates intra-group cohesion. If you want loyalty, create an enemy. If you want to solve problems, reach across the aisle, merge interdependent efforts of opposing groups toward a common, superordinate goal.

Applications of Realistic Conflict Theory

Realistic Conflict Theory has wide-ranging applications across various domains of social and political life. Here are a few examples:

Ethnic and National Conflicts

RCT can help explain ethnic and national conflicts, where different groups vie for control over territory, political authority, or cultural dominance. Political scientists can examine historical and contemporary examples, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the Rwandan Genocide through the lens of RCT.

Economic Competition

In economic contexts, RCT sheds light on conflicts between different social classes or labor groups. For instance, labor strikes often occur when workers compete with management for better wages and working conditions, highlighting the competitive struggle for economic resources.

Political Rivalries

Political conflict is another area where RCT is highly relevant. Opposing political parties, interest groups, and nations frequently engage in intense competition for power and influence. This conflict creates more solidarity within the group. Scientists and researchers can analyze these behaviors within the context of RCT.

Criticisms and Limitations

While Realistic Conflict Theory provides a robust framework for understanding intergroup conflict, it is not without its criticisms. Some scholars argue that RCT overly emphasizes competition and neglects other factors that can lead to conflict, such as psychological needs, historical grievances, and identity politics.

Additionally, RCT assumes that groups are rational actors driven primarily by tangible resource competition. This perspective might oversimplify the complex motivations behind intergroup conflicts, which can also include ideological and emotional components.

Contemporary Relevance

Despite its limitations, Realistic Conflict Theory remains highly relevant in today’s world. As globalization intensifies resource competition and as societies become more diverse, understanding the dynamics of intergroup conflict is crucial. Policymakers, educators, and social leaders can use insights from RCT to develop strategies for conflict resolution and promote social harmony.

Conflict Resolution

RCT suggests that reducing competition for scarce resources can help mitigate intergroup conflicts. Promoting cooperative endeavors where groups work towards common goals can reduce hostility and build positive intergroup relationships. Initiatives such as community-building projects, shared economic ventures, and inclusive policy-making can foster cooperation and reduce competition.

Education and Awareness

Educating individuals about the dynamics of intergroup conflict and the principles of RCT can also play a vital role in conflict reduction. Awareness campaigns, diversity training, and intercultural dialogue programs can help individuals understand the underlying causes of conflict and develop empathy towards outgroup members.

Associated Concepts

• Group Relations Theory: This Theory is a psychoanalytic approach that focuses on understanding group dynamics and individual behavior within group contexts.
• Self-Categorization Theory: Related to social identity theory, this theory explains how and why individuals identify with particular social groups and behave accordingly. The Robbers Cave experiment highlighted the role of group categorization in fostering group cohesion and intergroup rivalry.
• Group Dynamics: Group Dynamics refers to the general study of how individuals act within the group. Robbers Cave experiment is an example of a study of group dynamics in relation to intergroup conflict.
• Social Comparison Theory: According to this theory, individuals determine their own social and personal worth based on how they stack up against others. This comparison can occur in various aspects such as abilities, opinions, and possessions.
• Equity Theory: It focuses on the perceptions of fairness in the distribution of resources within interpersonal relationships.
• Social Support: Group identification can ‘buffer’ individuals from everyday stresses by providing a sense of meaning and security, as well as increasing the likelihood of receiving useful social support from fellow group members.

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

As we reflect on the profound insights provided by Realistic Conflict Theory, it becomes evident that understanding intergroup conflict is not merely an academic exercise but a crucial endeavor for our collective future. The historical and contemporary examples of wars, discrimination, and societal divisions remind us that the competition for limited resources can easily spiral into animosity and violence if left unchecked. By recognizing this tendency within ourselves and our societies, we can begin to dismantle the “us versus them” mentality that has plagued humanity throughout history.

Moving forward, RCT compels us to seek proactive solutions rooted in cooperation rather than competition. Emphasizing shared goals and mutual understanding can pave the way toward healing divided communities and fostering social cohesion. In a world increasingly characterized by diversity and interdependence, embracing these lessons from Realistic Conflict Theory may be our most powerful tool in combating prejudice and building bridges across divides. Ultimately, it is through collaboration—rather than conflict—that we will cultivate a more harmonious society where every individual feels valued and included regardless of their background.

Last Update: September 16, 2025