The Realistic Group Conflict Theory

The realistic group conflict theory proposes that whenever there are two or more groups seeking the same limited resources, there will be an escalation towards conflict (Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sherif, 1961). This conflict can be in various forms including negative stereotypes, negative beliefs, and discrimination between the groups. The groups will form their own interpretations of “ingroups” and “outgroups.” The interpretations then become fuel for competitive action over any limited resources. This action is motivated by their thoughts, which they also deem as “rational” (Houghton, 170). This was tested by Muzafer Sherif with subjects being randomly assigned to groups, and all the participants were without psychological abnormalities. As ethnicity did not have a direct role in his experiment, it is possible to draw from his results, if only with a certain degree of confidence in its relation to national groups.
This theory is grounded on the premise that groups will conflict if they must compete

for something. If this is accepted as true, the likelihood of allowing each national group their own territory and having them live peacefully are slim. The resources each country would desire act as the fuel for continuous conflict, and would if nothing else promote a non-peaceful relationship between many, if not all, national groups. One possible solution to that thought is to identify what resources lead to conflict, and then find a solution allowing both parties a satisfactory result. [Add]
Expanding on this proposed solution, the view that limited resources cause discrimination, conflict, and negative stereotypes and beliefs against the other group, those same factors can potentially be lessened in situations where multiple groups look to achieve some “superordinate goal.” These goals can only become successful with the cooperation of the other group.

This was also studied in conjunction with the realistic group conflict theory, and now poses some opposite claims to the position above. If the groups are able to identify a goal in which they cannot succeed without the other, the desire to work against one another greatly reduces[Cite]. It now becomes more beneficial to cooperate for mutual success, rather than for individual gain. Assuming (if not hoping) that both groups are able to agree on goals that benefit both parties, it would seem the groups would then be able put aside their differences to work towards a gratifying

conclusion.[Personalize]
A large problem with that however, is that the goals agreed to be worked on together may only last temporarily. That leaves the relationship of national groups to become strained once again, as the nations refocus on individual pursuits and become competitive with one another once again. Therefore, there is a need for either continuous relations in which each group must work together, key word must, or for the national groups to suppress the competitive nature of the individuals.[Add]+Transition