Competition over individual resources is often perceived as intergroup conflict.

Evidence

Allport noted that group relations may be realistically competitive in two respects. First, demands for resources often exceed their supply. For example, the number of people seeking employment may be greater than the number of jobs available. Although in such a case the competition actually exists between individual rivals for jobs, these individuals may nonetheless perceive the competition to be at an intergroup level. Thus, Allport described realistic group conflict as reflecting the common perception that competition for resources involves group identities and has collective consequences. Second, Allport also considered competitive relations between groups to be realistic when the competition involves less tangible qualities, such as religious or political belief systems. Belief systems may be seen as in direct conflict by those who endorse the relevant beliefs. For example, the fundamentalist belief that there is only one true religion (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992) may generate realistic competition between religious groups for “soul winning.” Similarly, individuals on the political left and right realistically compete through voting and other mechanisms for representation of their views. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 1476

Categorization

• DEFINE: Crisply defines Allport’s two senses of ‘realistic group conflict’ — tangible-resource scarcity and competing belief systems.
• XREF: connects to: Intergroup threat arises when one group’s actions challenge another group’s goal attainment or well-being. — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup…, 17