Muzafer Sherif, O J Harvey, Jack White, William Hood & Carolyn Wood Sherif 1954/1961

 

 

AIMS: Muzafer Sherif wanted to see if it was possible to instil prejudice between two very similar groups by using real life scenarios to develop group norms and values and then putting the 2 groups in competition with each other.

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.

The first time the Rattlers and the Eagles saw each other...

Rattlers vs Eagles in tug of war contest...

The morning after the flag-burning incident the Eagles seize the Rattlers’ other flag!

Eagles raiding the Rattlers’ cabin!

Eagles and Rattlers working together to start the truck