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 the 200-acre
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. The boys were assigned to one of 2 groups.
The groups themselves were very similar. They were matched as closely possible on
criteria such as height and weight, athleticism and popularity outside of camp, previous
camp experience and musicality. They were then, as individual groups, picked up
by bus on successive days in the summer of 1954 and transported to Robber’s Cave.
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. They were assigned activities that
held a common appeal for group members and that depended on the collective effort
of the group as a whole - such as a treasure hunt with a $10 reward that the group
could spend as it wanted to.
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 was tasked with coming up with a name for itself - thus, ‘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 10 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. There
were to be no prizes for the losers. The 2 groups were made to eat together in a
common dining hall, where the tournament's grand prizes were on display for all to
see.
The Rattlers' reaction to the informal announcement of a series of contests was
absolute confidence in their victory! They spent the day talking about the contests
and making improvements on the ball field,which they took over as their own to such
an extent that they spoke of putting a ‘Keep Off’ sign there! They ended up putting
their Rattler flag on the pitch. At this time, several Rattlers made threatening
remarks about what they would do if anybody from The Eagles bothered their flag.
Even before the tournament began, the groups were insulting each other - eg: “Ladies,
first” - singing offensive songs about each other and refusing to ear together.
They were even physical fights between members of the 2 groups! 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, with the group's leader proclaiming: “You can tell those guys I did it ...
I'll fight 'em!” The Rattlers retaliated by raiding the Eagles camp (amid scuffles!)
and damaging their property - overturning beds and ripping out mosquito netting.
They stole one boy’s jeans and a stack of comic books. The Eagles were incensed.
When the Rattlers were eating dinner, they returned the raid, bringing with them
sticks and bats to wreak maximum havoc. They then filled their socks with stones
to use as weapons, on the chance that the Rattlers would soon plan a counter-raid
of their own. The researchers intervened to calm things down.
With some ‘help’ from the researchers, the Eagles won - but their prizes, when awarded,
were stolen by the Rattlers.
Now nearly at the end of the second week, the 2 sides met for a fight. However, the
researchers again intervened, forcing both sides to withdraw.
The researchers mow instigated a 2-day cooling off period. In this time the boys
were asked to list features of the 2 groups. The boys tended to characterise their
own in-group in very favourable terms - eg: ‘friendly’, ‘tough’ and ‘brave’ - while
the other, out-group was characterised in very unfavourable 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 now realised they needed to reduce hostility between the 2 groups
which they did by replacing the competitive goals with goals that could only be achieved
by members of the two groups co-operating together.
First the researchers tried simply letting the 2 groups interact on an equal footing
in the hope simply associating with each other would, over time, repair the breach.
Though outings were planned, movies to be watched together and meals served at the
same time, the Rattlers and the Eagles refused to associate. The closest they came
to interacting was throwing food and papers - in equal proportion to flying epithets
- at one another in the dining hall.
The researchers then 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 1.6 km pipeline separately; then they came together
at the behest of the researchers and jointly located the source of the problem (
a clogged valve). When they restored the water supply, they cheered together. However,
once the problem had been resolved, the behaviour degenerated again and that evening,
another food fight erupted over dinner.
The next tactic was to tell the 2 groups that the camp could not afford to take them
to see a film (‘Treasure Island’) 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.
With each successive task, including preparing and pitching tents together, the antagonism
showed signs of mellowing.
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 on the next page 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.
