Summary of:
University of Oklahoma. Institute of Group Relations, & Sherif, M. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment (Vol. 10, pp. 150-198). Norman, OK: University Book Exchange.
Background & Theory:
One of the most prominent studies on intergroup conflict is Muzafer Sherif’s Robbers Cave Experiment. Conducted in the 1950s, Sherif’s contribution to intergroup conflict literature has laid the groundwork for decades-worth of research on the subject. This article briefly summarizes the Robbers Cave experiment and its findings.
Question(s):
Research was conducted by Muzafer Sherif to answer the following questions:
-
- How quickly can group identity be formed among strangers?
- How salient is this group identity for its members?
- What role does this group identity play when confronted with members of a competing group?
- How can intergroup conflict be mitigated?
Methods:
This experiment’s namesake comes from its location—Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma. 22 boys of similar backgrounds (11-12 years old, from middle class, Protestant families) who had not previously met each other were invited to spend time at a summer camp at this location, unaware the study was taking place. The camp had two separate cabins each with individual access to separate camp amenities like swimming and boating. Before arriving to Robbers Cave, the boys were split up randomly into two groups, and then each went to their respective cabin upon arrival.
This experiment was broken into three separate stages. The first stage focused on ingroup formation, with the purpose of seeing if and how quickly the boys in each group established an ingroup identity. This was done through group-bonding exercises, often involving a need for the boys to work together to receive a group reward.
The second stage, known as the “friction phase,” occurred as the two groups made contact with one another and engaged in various camp competitions. Towards the end of stage one, the groups had been able to glimpse each other momentarily without direct interaction. Eventually, both groups demanded a chance to face off against the other. The two groups competed in a tournament between each other that would consist of activities like tug-of-war, baseball, tent-pitching, and more. The winner of the tournament would receive various prizes.
After it was predicted that intergroup conflict would occur in the second stage, the third stage sought to resolve this conflict. This was called the “integration stage” and focused on finding ways to reduce the friction between the two groups. At first, Sherif tested to see if contact theory would be sufficient to mend the group divide by letting the groups interact on equal footing. After this, Sherif tested to see having both groups work towards a common superordinate goal would alleviate the tension and allow the groups to get along.
Throughout each of these stages, researchers and observing participants watched to see how the boys acted. These observations contributed to insights on ingroup identity formation, how that identity would play out when another group was present, and how intergroup conflict could be mitigated.
Results:
As part of the first stage on group identity formation, the researchers found that after a week of being part of each group, the boys had formed a strong ingroup identity. Although the group formation had been randomly assigned, at the end of the first week, each group had become more organized with noticeable hierarchy and group norms.
However, the strength of this ingroup identity was more apparent in the second stage, known as the friction phase. In this stage, negative attitudes and behaviors formed towards each group member’s respective outgroup. In the first meeting between the boys, name-calling occurred, which escalated to greater intergroup conflict as the days went by. On separate occasions, each group destroyed the other group’s flag, broke into each other’s cabins, raided them, and stole each other’s belongings. At one point, the two groups even met for a fight, but camp staff intervened before it could occur.
With intergroup tension high, Sherif and the other researchers then began the third stage: the integration stage. First, they attempted to simply allow the boys the chance to interact with each other on equal ground through activities like watching movies or having meals together. But when given these opportunities, the boys refused to associate with each other except for when it came to throwing things at each other.
Realizing this attempt at integration was unsuccessful, Sherif and the researchers then set up scenarios in which the boys would need to work together towards a common superordinate goal. This intergroup cooperation was achieved through activities like fixing the camp’s water system, helping restart a stalled truck, and pitching tents with missing supplies. After engaging in these tasks, little-by-little the antagonism between the two groups lessened. It should be noted that after the first common goal activity, a food fight broke out among the groups once the problem had been fixed. However, with each activity, this degenerating behavior settled down. At the very end of the camp, the group that won an activity prize even shared it with the other group.
What We Can Learn:
Looking over this research, we can take away the following key insights:
- Sherif shared these results optimistically, explaining that tools like superordinate common goals may be able to be used to reconcile other general intergroup conflicts.
- The study also details just how quickly group identity can be formed and used to compete with and dehumanize other groups.
Final Takeaways
For Consultants: This study suggests that it is easy to form group identities and easy to then compete with anything that seems to threaten that group. But this study also notes how tools like common goals can facilitate intergroup cooperation, which is essential for conflict resolution practitioners.
For Everyone: What group identities do you hold on to strongly? It’s helpful to recognize what groups you identify with in order to further wonder how perceived conflicts you may have with other groups can be transformed.
