Talk:Realistic conflict theory

Untitled

Why does this page seem to link to the subject "Social psychology" on other languages Wikipedias? I dont think it should be that way...

Redirect error

The search item Robber's Cave Study redirects to Muzafer Sherif, but Robbers Cave redirects here! Lord Spring Onion (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorted it, never mind!Lord Spring Onion (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Need for edit of last 2 paragraphs on Superordinate Goals and Breakdown of Group Cohesion

The final two paragraphs (Superordinate Goals and Breakdown of Group Cohesion) could benefit if someone with technical expertise could edit them to fix grammar and syntax to improve clarity. Diablotin (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Student edit timeline, Spring 2012

As a senior capstone project, students are working improve the content of selected articles. More details are on the course page. Student first edits are due April 20, then we'll spend a week reviewing. Final project is due by May 14, 2012. Thanks for your encouragement and support. Greta Munger (talk) 15:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I am a part of a senior capstone course in Psychology participating in the APS Wikipedia Initiative. I have found this page as one that can benefit from additional psychological research. Below is a plan of how I am to contribute to the Wikipedia Realistic Conflict Theory entry. Any feedback is welcomed and would be greatly appreciated. I plan to give a more comprehensive definition and introductory description of Realistic conflict theory. I would like to have this section of the article be detailed enough that a reader would understand the general theory even if they did not read further. I think that the article could benefit from having a “Conception” section, describing the Robbers Cave Experiment and other research that contributed to the understanding of the theory. I will edit the Robbers Cave Experiment section to make it a bit more fluid and ensure that a reader can easily see the connection between that experiment and RCT. I will also add an Extensions and Applications section. I will merely rename the current “Extension of Realistic Conflict Theory” to Duckitt’s extension, but I will not touch the contents, as it seems like it is currently under revision. I intend to add a section about the connection between RCT and prejudice and discrimination. Here is a list of a few books and articles I plan on using:

Campbell, D.T. (1965). Ethnocentric and other altruistic motives. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 283-311). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Bobo, L.D. 1983. Whites’ opposition to busing: Symbolic racism or realistic group conflict? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45: 1196-1210.

Brief, A.P., Umphress, E.E., Dietz, J., Butz, R.M., Burrows, J., & Scholten, L. (2005). Community matters: Realistic group conflict theory and the impact of diversity. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 830-844.

Echebarria-Echabe, A., & Guede, E.F. (2003). Extending the theory of realistic conflict to competition in institutional settings: Intergroup status and outcome. Journal of Social Psychology, 143(6), 763-782.

Esses, V.M., Jackson, L.M., & Armstrong, T.L. (1998). Intergroup competition and attitudes toward immigrants and immigration: An instrumental model of group conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 54(4), 699-724.

Gaunt, R. (2011). Effects of intergroup conflict and social contact on prejudice: The mediating role of stereotypes and evaluations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(6), 1340-1355

Jackson, J. 1993. Realistic group conflict theory: A review and evaluation of the theoretical and empirical literature. The Psychological Record 43(3), 395-413.

Rabbie, J.M. (1969). Arousal of ingroup-outgroup bias by a chance win or loss. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13(3), 269-277

Sherif, M. Harvey, O.J., White, B.J., Hood, W., Sherif, C.W. (1988). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The robbers cave experiment. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press:.

Laura Renaud (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review #1

Here are my thoughts:

--When referencing studies throughout the article, I would include the date it was published a la APA style. For example, in the Diversity and Integration section, specifying: Brief et al. (2005). I think this will improve the clarity and transparency of your references.

--In the section "Rise of the theory" you mention how Campbell criticized psychologists following a certain school of thought popular at the time. I think it would be helpful to include the names of a couple of the key psychologists advocating for the hedonistic approach to make as a point of reference.

--In the same section, the sentence, "Campbell did not see the individualistic assumptions as explanations for intergroup relations," is a little confusing. I understand what you mean but "the individualistic assumptions" is a little vague. Perhaps rephrasing along the lines of: "According to Campbell, hedonistic goals failed to adequately explain intergroup relations"...or something along those lines.

--Also in the same section, it appears that you cite Sherif as a researcher of the time. Thus, after the sentence opening, "Other researchers of the time..." I think leading into the next sentence saying: "For example, Sherif notes that..." would improve the flow of ideas.

--In the concluding paragraph of the Robbers cave section, I think you could improve the clarity of your summary by enumerating the various findings (i.e. "Sherif made several conclusions based on the three stage Robbers Cave Experiment. First, he concluded that individual differences..."

--Finally a couple grammatical/stylistic suggestions: in the opening paragraph--"In addition to negative attitudes toward the outgroup, according to RCT, threat from..." I think you can delete "according to RCT" as redundant. The previous sentence references RCT, and so I think it is still clear that you are adding to that discussion. Also, in the second to last sentence of the opening paragraph, there should be no comma after "the theory was."

Overall, I think your rough draft of the article is fantastic! I think your revisions to the opening definition/description of RCT are comprehensive and clear and accomplish your goal of adding depth to that section. Also, I think the structure you have chosen to adopt makes sense and marks a considerable improvement over the original. I particularly liked how you broke down the Robbers cave experiment and explained each stage. Nicely done! With a little more revising, I think this article will go from fantastic to extra-fantastic! Keep up the good work! --saplumer (talk) 02:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review

Overall, your page looks great and is really informative. There are a few changes that you could make to improve it even more:

-Sam's point about making the page more like APA style is useful, but I think Wikipedia has it's own set of style rules. We will have to ask Dr. Munger and/or Smallman12q for sure, but I'm pretty sure that you do not include author's names or years within the text of the article. Instead you add the citations at the end of each sentence (if you have a paragraph talking about one author's study I think you can just cite the first and last paragraphs).

-For the "Robber's Cave Study" section I like that you broke up the stages, but it might be helpful to include the conclusions that Sheriff made within each stage section instead of all at once in the last paragraph. The last paragraph of that section also has a few typos.

-You might consider changing the title of the "Other Notable Research" section to something that is more specific, like "Support for the Robber's Cave Study/RCT."

-There are some typos in the introduction, like periods between two citations when they should be listed one after the other with no spaces.

-You have a lot of Wikilinks, but it might be helpful to go through and check to see if there are any more you can add.

Great job on the first draft! It will be even better with just a few changes. I really like that you made the theory understandable to the average Wikipedia reader, which is the most important part. Good luck finishing it up! Kendrick Miles (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Student Project Final Submission

I have finished my contribution to the Realistic Conflict Theory wikipedia page. In terms of the edits, I added a more comprehensive introduction section, which sums up the rest of the encyclopedia entry in just a few sentences. I created a 'Conception' section, broken down into two sections 'Classic Experiments' and 'History of the Theory'. In Classic Experiments, I added to the existing Robbers Cave Experiment section by making it easier to understand with a clear breakdown of the three stages as well as a conclusions paragraph at the end. The History of the Theory is an entirely new section, which details the rise of the theory in the context of existing Psychological research. I created an overarching section, 'Extensions and Applications' which contains two new sections detailing the relationship with the social contact theory and the implications on diversity and integration. The section also has the Extension of Realistic Conflict Theory section, which I did not edit. I added about 19 sources to give the article added credibility. Please feel free to continue to improve upon this entry!

--Laura Renaud (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The Robbers Cave Experiment was run by Sherif three times. The summary here only uses the results from the third one. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.27.78 (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of Proposed Changes as part of Class Project

This section pertains to possible changes that students in a Seminar on Prejudice and Stereotyping at Western Kentucky University will be making to attempt to further improve this article and possibly bring it up to good article status. Seminar student editors, what do you think? — Preceding Aaronwichman (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC) comment added by Aaronwichman (talk • contribs) 21:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

My Thoughts: The overall page could use extensive grammatical revising, especially to comply with APA format. Ingroup and Outgroup should be defined somewhere, so for outside readers they understand what we mean by that. There are some sentences throughout that could use rewording or rewriting to help make them both grammatically correct and understandable. It would make more sense to rename other notable research "other supportive research" since that is what that section is, supportive research. Also under the section of other notable research the second experiment done by Rabbie and Horwitz should either be taken out or someone with more expertise should elaborate and clarify things because it seems like an incomplete example. Under the section History of the Theory someone should define what is meant by hedonistic goals for outside readers. The last section of Extensions and Applications should be broken up so there is a section for just extensions and a section for just the applications because the "relationship with Social Contract Theory" does not seem like it belongs in that section. The last subsection, "An Extension of Realistic Conflict Theory," the example at the very bottom of the page could use an explanation on why that is an example and how it applies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole.parker0927 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The realistic conflict page should include other domains besides the ones already existing in order to better understand the theory. I feel as though a topic or category on ethnology, survival of the fittest, natural selection, or Charles Darwin should be included. Without the knowledge of knowing where this competitiveness began, the reader may be a little lost on how these unconscious feelings to compete even began. The page should also have a category that may include masculinity versus femininity; people in groups may be too competitive because they are stereotyping certain gender types to play certain dominant or submissive roles. On that note, there may even need to be a section on the role of stereotyping and prejudice on this particular page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayla M Ashby (talk • contribs) 07:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

^In response to Darwin being added- There's a section that remarks on Hedonism, and that Realistic Conflict Theory Rose in response to it. There would perhaps be a good section to give a background on hedonism (or at least link?) and Charles Darwin's views on competition, as they relate to hedonism- as far as maximizing basic needs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramona.sudbeck (talk • contribs) 14:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

My views and thoughts: Some of the Social Psychological Approaches to conflict should be discussed and explained more on Prejudice (attitudes) Cognitive Approaches, and Social/Emotional Approaches. Prejudice is an attitude(usually negative) toward members of some group,"ingroup" based solely on their membership in that group. Stereotype generalized belief about members of a group, discrimination behaviors directed towards people on the basis of their group membership that may or may not be accurate and might be positive or negative.( Behavior is Discrimination the Affect is Prejudice and the Cognition is Stereotype.)"prejudice "

•A conflict exists whenever two or more parties in interaction with each other are pursing goals that are perceived to be mutually incompatible or inconsistent, in the sense that it is impossible to simultaneously satisfy the goals pursued by all parties. This is how prejudice/stereotype lead to conflicts. " attributes "

•In reality, prejudice attitudes and stereotypes interact with other forms of conflict such as competition for mates, jobs, status and resources.

•The evolutionary theory needs to be integrated with the psychological processes discussed,the male competition can be exacerbated or moderated depending on the level of prejudice.

The results of numerous studies (Dovidio et al., 1996; Peterson, 1997) suggest that overt attitudes have changed dramatically over the past 60 years.

Characteristics of Efficient Stereotypes

•People use stereotypes because, although sometimes inaccurate, many contain a“kernel of truth”.

Realistic Group Conflict Theory central assumptions, people are selfish and out for own gain,Incompatible group interests cause intergroup conflict and Incompatible group interests cause social psychological processes (e.g., in-group favoritism; stereotyping)Summary Competition between groups for scarce resources produces inter-group conflict. Without such competition, inter-group conflict would fade.

Gimmemega (talk) 02:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Sherif and Colleagues:

The Robbers Cave Experiments

Purpose: understand conflict between groups to identify how intergroup relations can be more positive. " outgroup "

Created three situations to foster 1.) group identity, 2.) inter-group conflict, and 3.) group harmony "Outgroup Hypothesis"

Hi all. Welcome to Wikipedia. I wanted to make a couple of points based on your conversation thus far. Firstly, Wikipedia has its own style guidelines. The application of APA formatting is often inappropriate. Students often make this mistake and such edits may be reverted for this reason. Actually, a related mistake is to apply an essay style to Wikipedia, which is also an effective way to get your contributions removed by other editors.

I am getting the sense that there is a lot of planned addition of content. Be aware of wiki-redundancy. Wikipedia is unlike many other mediums in that you can get further background at the click of a button. As such, in comparison with journal articles and essays, it more often appropriate that jargon be defined elsewhere.

Finally it might be worth noting that good article status can be quite difficult to achieve. Be careful that you do not waste the time of other editors in asking for a review. Here is an example of one rejected article. Cheers all Andrew (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys, here are some sentence structure edits I'm making to the "history of the theory" section: I'll put my changed portions in [ ]'s: In the 1960s, Donald T. Campbell [challenged the views of social exchange theorists like John Thibaut, Harold Kelley, and George Homans. These psychologists emphasized a theories proposing that all human behavior can be reduced to hedonistic(link here?) goals. Campbell was critical of this approach as he felt it oversimplified human behavior],incorrectly likening interpersonal interaction to animal behavior.[5] According to Campbell, hedonistic assumptions do not adequately explain intergroup relations, [and he was not the only researcher dissatisfied with the psychological understanding of intergroup behavior.] [ Sherif also]disapproved of the frustration-aggression postulates, authoritarian personality theory, and the contact hypothesis, which he notes overlook the importance of the collective process.[13][9][2] Sherif [claims] that these approaches ignore the essence of social psychology and the importance of interchanges between groups.[10] An alternative explanation takes into account the real sources of conflict between groups[(should this be ":" rather than ",")] incompatible goals, and competition over limited resources.[5] RCT suggests that hostility is aimed at the source of threat to tangible resources and can be contrasted to other theories of intergroup relations such as symbolic racism, the social identity theory, and the scapegoat theory of prejudice. And I feel like the last sentence could be tied to the rest of the paragraph better, but am drawing a blank and will need to come back to it after you all give your input? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramona.sudbeck (talk • contribs) 05:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew for your helpful feedback. Sorry for the APA comment, it was poorly worded and I really just meant that there is a lot of grammatical revising and sentence structure errors that needed to be revised. Also, thanks for the reference links and the tip on wiki redundancy. I will keep this in mind when working on this article. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole.parker0927 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey Ramona, as far as structure goes: I think that extensions and applications should be its own separate section and I think that the Applications should come first then the extensions. What are your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole.parker0927 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Kayla and Wanda, when you go to add links I think a couple of good links to add would be ingroup and outgroups and hedonistic. I have already looked and both of those already have pages. Additionally, the Alport's Contact Hypothesis link needs to be fixed because there is no page for Alport's Contact Hypthesis, it just needs to be Contact Hypothesis. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole.parker0927 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Nicole-thanks for the input. I have created links for ingroup, outgroup, and changed Alport's Contact Hypothesis to Contact hypothesis also with a link provided. I do not really see any more words that need links. We could possible add the evolutionary theory or some term a long those lines to the theory as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayla M Ashby (talk • contribs) 04:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

-Nicole- I agree about applications coming before extensions, what would we have put under this section? -I have some edits I'd also like to suggest, and Kayla and Wanda, since you're adding links, how do you feel about adding one about Marx's 'Social Conflict Theory' in the first section after 'The theory was officially named by Donald Campbell, but has been articulated by others since the middle of the 20th century.' -Regarding the Robber's Cave Study formatting: it doesn't sit right with me how the stages are presented. Might it be better to leave out the 1) 2) 3) part, or just list the stages in parenthesis after saying 'the experiment was divided into three stages' -Shouldn't 'History of the Theory' be the first sub-heading under 'conception' ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramona.sudbeck (talk • contribs) 11:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the history needing to come first. I think focusing on how we are going to restructure the Robber's Cave Experiment should come after the initial restructuring and organization of the page and see if maybe we should make the Robber's Cave Experiment it's own page. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole.parker0927 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the history should come first as well. I got to thinking about what may need to be added regarding the definition of realistic conflict theory. I feel as though something should be added to the simplicity of the definition. Maybe by talking about how we are naturally inclined to be competitive through ecological reasons. Other than that, I really do not know what restructuring should be done. Any ideas? Once we all give our input on our concrete ideas about restructuring then we can start making physical changes to the page. I think the Robber's Cave Experiment should possibly have it's own page; there should just be a link provided for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayla M Ashby (talk • contribs) 04:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Basically, the most intensive edit I can think of for the page is to condense the Robber's Cave Study into a summary and link it to it's own page. All we would need to do is take that information already here and make that. We can discuss what needs to stay in this article regarding the study, but I think hitting the main in-group out-group of the campers would do it justice for realistic conflict theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramona.sudbeck (talk • contribs) 05:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello group- this is Wanda and Kayla. We have been working together this morning on what theories or concepts should be included on the realistic conflict theory’s page. Before we go ahead and add our concepts to the page, we wanted to make sure everyone agreed upon what should be included or at least what links should be added. We thought there should be more backbone to the page itself. Meaning- more background information that helps one get a better jest of the theory. One concept we could include in regards to the background could be survival of the fittest or the basic fight for survival. This relates to our theory due to the fact that groups are in competition for scarce resources. Therefore, this implies that some individuals are more adaptive to their environment or are in better physical shape to deal with competition. Since survival of the fittest is based off the work of Charles Darwin then perhaps there should be a link for him as well. Another concept that relates would also be the ultimate attribution error described in our book on page 86. This error occurs when people consider negative behaviors from their in-group dispersing from situational characteristics; they consider negative behaviors from out-groups related to internal characteristics. Since the realistic conflict theory deals with intergroup relations, I feel as though this is also directly related. If competition occurs between members of an in-group and members of an out-group then those people may apply the negative behavioral characteristics to their opposing group which can explains why intergroup hostility would arise. It just came to me that we should maybe even include the broad term of prejudice or stereotyping in regards to the realistic conflict theory. I am sure that conflictions between groups may become heightened if someone is prejudice towards another person in their in-group or out-group. These are just a few terms that Wanda and I came up with that could be included or linked on this page. Please let us know what you think that way we can go ahead and change the page before Tuesday. If you want to go ahead and change the page then please feel free to do so. We just wanted to run these ideas by everyone first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayla M Ashby (talk • contribs) 16:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Wanda and Kayla. Just a non affiliated wikipedian here. I was casually reading your comments and thought it might be pertinent to flag wikipedia’s reasonably strict original research policies. There are many editors who (perhaps rightly) will enthusiastically ensure that these policies are adhered to. As such, in order to ensure that content you add is not removed at a later date you will have to cite reliable published sources. You may have appropriate sources on hand, but it did sound like you might be drawing your own conclusions with regard to how RCT relates to other scientific research. If other editors also get this impression you might find your edits reverted. Anyway, best of luck with the editing. Cheers Andrew (talk) 10:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew for the advice! And Wanda and Kayla, I'd just follow Andrews advice. If you have supportive links to these relationships with RCT, go ahead and add them. I have went through and checked all of the links as well. The outgroups link needs to be fixed and that is all. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole.parker0927 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I have worked today on editing and restructuring some more. I have added a supportive research section where I have slightly condensed the Robbers Cave Experiment and added the Avigdor study under that. If someone wants to continue to condense the Robbers Cave Experiment go ahead. I have added a few more additional links. I also went ahead and condensed the conflict theory section under the History section like talked about in class. If someone wants to continue condensing that, that would be great. If someone also wants to correctly link the outgroup link that would be great as well. You guys have any other additional ideas for changes to the page? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole.parker0927 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if this information would fit in with our editing but,thought I would post this on the talk page to see what the group thought? On Outgroup: Ingroups and Outgroups. Anticipating the development of Social identity theory. Allport describes people's need to belong to ingroups and how ingroup loyalty can lead to the rejection of outgroups.

The Contact hypothesis: Logically, it would seem that when ingroup members,have frequent contact with outgroup members, prejudice and discrimination would be reduced. Allport reviews the conditions under which this may or may not happen.

Psychologists also have looked deeper, exploring the process by which stereotypic beliefs become part of people's schema about social groups. The process of explanations about acquiring these beliefs: the outgroup homogeneity effect, social role theory and illusory correlations. Realiistic conflict theory is the oldest intergroup theory of prejudice. The theory holds that people dislike members of outgroups because the ingroup is competing with the outgroup for resources Gimmemega (talk) 04:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Nicole-I just tried to revise the outgroup link and it shows two different pages. Want to go with the sociology one, even though it includes ingroup and outgroup? Also, I think everything looks good so far. If ya need me to do something in particular let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayla M Ashby (talk • contribs) 00:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys, nicole- i think the second link is better, as well. Kayla & Wanda- good work! If you find concrete back up for the relation to darwin's theory go for it! I just edited the Robber's Cave study so it has more of the relevant concerns to the study. I'm not sure how to make a whole new page for the study, but I think it should have its own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramona.sudbeck (talk • contribs) 01:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Yea Kayla, It is suppose to link straight to the sociology outgroups page. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole.parker0927 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources should be added after the first sentence under the section of the Robbers Cave study. This is the link to source number four. http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3207711/Sidanius_SocialDominanceOrientation.pdf?sequence=1 I will provide the links to the others as I find them if someone would like to read through them to try and find which source the information came from. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole.parker0927 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Source number nine: http://m.friendfeed-media.com/d9487a89bebe9e28b3edc16f4dea8e54d7fbd568 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole.parker0927 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Also with this same group of sources, there needs to be more sources added to the second paragraph in the Robbers Cave Study section and there needs to be a source added after the second sentence in the third paragraph under the Robbers Cave Study. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole.parker0927 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

There also needs to be a source added to the third sentence of the first paragraph under the section Implications on Diversity and Integration. If you need help finding the sources to 3, 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, or 14 to try and find where the information came from let me know and I will look for them and individually message you them. Thanks --Nicole.parker0927 (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Several sources need to be added under the last section An Extension To Realistic Conflict Theory. I would start by looking through sources 15, 16, 17, and 18. --Nicole.parker0927 (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Finally there should be an added source to the second to last sentence in the very first paragraph. This should eliminate any Wiki Quick Fails we would have due to plagiarism. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole.parker0927 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Finally I think we should divide up the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation to make sure that our page complies with all of these before submitting for good article status. Anything else you guys think we need to do, add, or take away before submitting for good article status? Thanks! --Nicole.parker0927 (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I have added in two sources so the only place left to add in sources is to the Robbers Cave Study Section and to the Extensions of Realistic Conflict Theory. Thanks. Nicole.parker0927 (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll volunteer to take a look at the "layout" section. I enjoy that kind of work and think I'm pretty good at it. So then by Thursday we can submit for good article? What sections would everyone else like to do? I'm also down for taking on another section, as there are more sections than there are us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramona.sudbeck (talk • contribs) 05:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Pre-GA comments

1) You need to fix capitalization in headings. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). 2) Also, lead should not have references, and should only summarize the rest of the article, instead of having any new information (that would require refs). See Wikipedia:Lead. 3) A lot of cited books don't have page ranges, add them, and while you are at it, standardize all citations to use cite templates. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Piotrus. I am struggling to get on board with your reading of the manual of style for lead sections. You say that the lead should not have references, yet the manual of style states that the lead should “be carefully sourced as appropriate” and that the “necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus”. You also state that the lead should “only summarize the rest of the article, instead of having any new information”. In contrast, the manual of style states that the lead “should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points” (emphasis added). Are you able to clarify your point? As it stands your instructions appear to be in direct conflict with the manual of style. Cheers Andrew (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, so the MoS does give you a little more leeway that I thought it would. Nonetheless what I recommend to you is good practice, at least IMHO (which is based on writing dozens of FA/GA class articles, and reviewing many more). Also, my reading of the MOS/LEAD page does suggest that what I recommend is also recommended (although not required) by the MOS, hence I do advice you to rewrite the lead per my suggestions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi all. I still cannot seem to derive ‘best practice according to Piotrus’ from the best practice detailed in the manual of style. Anyway, it is unlikely to be me making changes to the lead so I do not have to navigate the issue. I am sure those who have been working on the article will figure it out an appropriate course of action. One idea that could help reduce the density of the lead (which I might be the underlying issue) would be to create a ‘details of the theory’ section (or something similar). Cheers Andrew (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure that I understand number 2 as well. Our lead does summarize Realistic Conflict Theory and any other article that I have looked at another Psychology that has already achieved good article status also has citations in their lead; Asexuality, Attachment disorder, Maternal deprivation, and Stereotype threat. Nicole.parker0927 (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The GA reviewer will consider this, and may even agree with you on 2). But fix 1) and 3). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Realistic conflict theory/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Read well, but "which include, incompatible" - is the comma necessary there? Same for "concluded that, contempt". "When a group have a notion" - shouldn't it be "has"? This sentence also may be missing the word "this". "Thus being, group-based threat" - another weird comma, sentence reads bad, please rewrite. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Some minor issues: 1) needs more ilinks, some key terms like social status in lead are not linked. Please go over the article and add more ilinks. 2) WP:LEAD recommends that lead contains no citations and no information not covered in the article; I'd like to see the lead rewritten to meet those recommendations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   Refs are good.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   One cite missing - for the end of second para in "Implications for diversity and integration" section. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

   C. No original research:

   All major content referenced. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Minor issues: 1) Robbers cave study - please add a year of the experiment. 2) John Duckitt - should be linked or explained why his name is important enough to be in text without a link. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

   B. Focused:

   On topic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutral. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Stable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   No images, but the subject is not easily illustrated. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Not applicable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

7. Overall: Pretty close to GA, but few issues listed above need addressing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

   Pass or Fail:

Reviewer: Piotrus (talk · contribs) 13:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

This was for a school project, so the odds of the comments being addressed are basically zip, and this should be failed as a result. Wizardman 17:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought so. Although I don't think I wasted my time here, hopefully one day my review will be useful to a real editor. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

GA failed, as it is obvious nobody gives a damn about it after the class has ended. Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

A measure for reducing bias

Proposal: replace "real or perceived" with "perceived or real" in first paragraph. Reason: less polemic Strikefinger (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Davidson College supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)