Zero-sum competition over resources produces ethnocentrism and intergroup hostility

Evidence

As research on authoritarianism as a dispositional cause of prejudice waned throughout the 1960s and 1970s, highly influential theories of intergroup relations arose to take its place. According to realistic conflict theory, ethnocentrism and generalized forms of intergroup conflict resulted from the perception of zero-sum competition between groups over material resources such as territory and wealth (Campbell, 1965; Sherif et al., 1961). One of the most celebrated demonstrations of the power of competition to produce conflict was a field study conducted by Muzafer Sherif and his collaborators at a boys’ summer camp in Robber’s Cave, Oklahoma. By pitting two groups of boys against one another in a tournament competition, the experimenters elicited telltale signs of ethnocentrism and intergroup hostility, including strong preferences for ingroup members as friends, overevaluation of ingroup products and underevaluation of outgroup products, negative stereotyping of the outgroup, and outright aggression. Hostility between the two groups escalated to the point that the experimenters were forced to terminate the study prematurely in order to avoid physical injury. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 136

It is also worth noting that relationships between in-group positivity and out-group negativity will most certainly be determined by multiple causes. Despite the mixed findings of the current research regarding the role of intergroup threat, this factor is likely to be an important determinant of intergroup attitudes. As hypothesized by some researchers (e.g., Brewer, 2001), intergroup conflict might exert its influence by creating perceptions of zero-sum access to resources. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1121

Categorization

• XREF: The Robber’s Cave study resonates with the trading-game logic in Milgrom’s law-merchant material — zero-sum frames drive conflict, shared goals restore cooperation. — connects to: Zero-sum conflict contexts make groups treat any concession as weakness on all issues — Cathy Gormley-Heenan and Roger Macginty, Ethnic Outbidding and Party…, 37; Patronage-based ethnic mobilization fosters zero-sum perceptions and fragmented opposition. — Johan Brosché and Hanne Fjelde and Kristine Höglund, Electoral violence and the legacy of…, 58; Quiescent subordinate groups show less ethnocentrism until questioning their low-status identity reignites resource conflict. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology: Key Readings, 2698 (+5 more)
• corroborated: 3 independent passages support this claim — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 136; Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1121