PROCEDURE (METHOD): In 1954 22 11-12-year-old boys took part in a 2-week summer camp
at the 200-acre Boys Scouts of America camp completely surrounded by Robber’s Cave
State Park in the western United States. (The ‘Robber’s Cave’ had been the hideaway
of Jesse James.) The boys were screened to ensure they were well-adjusted - no neurotic
tendencies and no record of past disturbances in behaviour - and came from a similar
background - white, Protestant, stable two-parent families of the middle socioeconomic
level in Oklahoma. None of the boys knew each other, coming from different schools
and neighbourhoods. As part of the matching process, the boys were rated (including
IQ) by teachers.
On arrival they were reassessed and matched for the split, including sporting ability;
they were then allocated to one of 2 groups. The researchers acted as camp counsellors.
A nominal fee was charged to parents for the camp; but they were asked not to visit
on the pretext that it might make the boys homesick.
The research methods used were:-
- Observation - a participant observer was allocated to each group for 12 hours per
day
- Sociometric analysis - patterns such as those in friendship groups were noted and
studied
- Experiment - eg: the boys had to collect beans and estimate how many each boy had
collected
- Tape recordings - adjectives and phrases used to refer to their own group members
and the members of the other group
Each group, initially unaware of the other’s presence, had their own cabin and were
independent, camping out, cooking, improving swimming places, carrying canoes over
rough terrain to water and playing various games.
Each group soon developed a distinctive set of ideas and rules about how to behave.
In one group it became the norm to act tough, swear a lot and not complain about
small injuries. The other group swam in the nude and made any expression of homesickness
taboo. Each group had a name - ‘Rattlers’ and ‘Eagles’ respectively - and a flag
for their group. The researchers gave the 2 groups caps and t-shirts with their group
names on to increase this sense of group identity. They became cohesive groups, with
low-ranking and high-ranking members.
After a week the groups were made aware of each other. The researchers observed that
in-group/out-group terms began to be used. When they watched a film together, they
sat in their own distinct groups
The 2 groups wanted to play each other at baseball which enabled the researchers
to introduce a competition: a grand tournament comprising ten sporting events, plus
cabin cleanliness awards and acting events. The boys were told that the best performing
group in the tournament would receive a trophy, 4-bladed knives and medals. Even
before the tournament began, the groups were insulting each other - eg: “Ladies,
first” - and even fighting physically with each other! Soon epithets such as ‘sneaks’,
‘cheats’, bums’, ‘cowards’ and ‘stinkers’ were being used in reference to members
of the other group. (Terms like ‘friendly’, ‘tough’ and ‘brave’ were used for their
own group members.) The Rattlers in particular became concerned about encroachment
on what they considered their territory - eg: “They had better not be in our swimming
hole.”
The researchers manipulated the points so they could control the competition.When
the Rattlers won a tug of war competition, the Eagles responded by burning their
flag. The Rattlers retaliated by raiding the Eagles camp (amid scuffles!) and damaging
their property - overturning beds and ripping out mosquito netting. With some ‘help’
from the researchers, the Eagles won - but their prizes, when awarded, were stolen
by the Rattlers.
In written tests at the end of the second week those in the in-group were considered
‘friendly’, ‘tough’ and ‘brave’ while those in the out-group were described in terms
such as ‘sneaky’, ‘bums’ and ‘cowards’.
Other evidence of in-group bias included, during the bean collecting task, members
of one team consistently overestimating the numbers of beans collected by boys in
their team and consistently underestimating the amount collected by the other team.
The researchers reduced hostility between the two groups by replacing the competitive
goals with goals that could only be achieved by members of the two groups co-operating
together.
First the researchers arranged for the water supply to break down. (They turned off
the valve and then placed 2 large boulders over it, blaming vandals for the problem.)
First each group explored the pipeline separately; then they came together and jointly
located the source of the problem. When they restored the water supply, they cheered
together.
Secondly the two groups were told that the camp could not afford to take them to
see a film most boys had high on their list of preferences. The two groups got together
and worked out how they could get the money together jointly and see the film.
Finally the lorry due to transport their food on an outing to Cedar Lake some distance
away wouldn’t start (by arrangement of the researchers) - so the boys got the tug-of-war
rope and pulled together to get it to start.
FINDINGS (RESULTS): An in-group preference shown by the boys in each group increased
substantially when explicit competition between them was introduced. The introduction
of common objectives over a period of days reduced friction equally substantially.
The table shows how ‘out-group friendships’ increased via the collaborative activities.
(How well these ‘cooling down’ strategies worked was indicated that the boys chose
to travel home on a single bus when offered the opportunity for the two groups to
travel separately. When a stop was made for refreshments, one group used their last
$5 prize money to buy malted milks for all the boys.)
CONCLUSIONS: Put into a group, the boys developed group identity with group norms,
leadership and a status hierarchy.
Competition increased prejudice and discrimination, leading to clear inter-group
conflict. Working together towards common goals led to much better relations and
even something of a superordinate identity.
CRITICISMS (EVALUATION):
- Ecological validity was high - it was a field study with the boys in a natural environment.
- The study had experimental validity - the boys were unaware they were being observed.
- Population validity could be criticised as the sample did not represent the wider
population.
- Andrew Tyerman & Christopher Spencer (1983) failed to produce the same degree of
inter-group conflict in a scout group in the UK. They also found it relatively easy
to increase co-operation between 4 different scout patrols - even in the absence
of a superordinate goal. Tyerman & Spencer suggested this have been due to the fact
that, unlike the boys in Sherif’s experiment, the scout group already possessed a
superordinate goal - ie: being members of the scout movement and subscribing to its
values and goals. It also should be noted that a number of the boys already knew
each other and were used to competing against each other at their annual camp. They
were also encouraged by their leader to see themselves as part of the whole group.
However,
G Andreeva (1984) found that in-group favouritism and prejudice increased while Russian
boys at Pioneer youth camps were engaged in competitive sports. Andreeva also found
that prejudice decreased when the boys co-operated when working on agricultural collectives. - Sherif et al’s study can be accused of gender bias - as only boys were involved.
Some would argue that, while growing up, girls are rewarded for co-operation while
boys are rewarded for competitiveness and that two groups of girls might have produced
quite different results.
- There are serious ethical issues with the Robber’s Cave experiment. Children were
manipulated into developing questionable attitudes towards other children, their
parents were not allowed fully-informed consent, the boys were not offered the right
to withdraw and they were caused stress (psychological harm). Some boys also experienced
pain (physical harm). Sherif and his team justified the experiment by the sheer amount
of insight into the way inter-group tensions develop. They also pointed out that
none of the boys suffered any lasting damage, psychological or physical.
Note #1: The 1954 experiment was the culmination of several lesser studies done in
the preceding years - variations including all the boys initially being roomed together
and then split up according to friendships made, etc. The 1954 experiment represents
the most (startlingly!) successful attempt at inducing inter-group bias and discrimination.
However, Sherif knew from the earlier studies that the introduction of overriding
common objectives would force the two groups to work together and thus reduce prejudice
and animosity. (In 1951 Sherif had reduced hostility between 2 groups by introducing
a common enemy.)
Note #2: Although Sherif published a substantial account of the experiment in 1954,
the definitive account, which included validation of the data, wasn’t published until
1961. Amongst those who worked on the 1961 account (uncredited) was Don Beck, future
co-developer of Spiral Dynamics and then studying under Sherif.
