Top Banner
ROBBERS CAVE EXPERIMENT
16
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript

PowerPoint Presentation

Robbers Cave Experiment1Realistic conflict theory

Robbers Cave Experiment

Realistic conflict theoryis asocial psychologicalmodel ofintergroup conflict.The theory explains how intergroup hostility can arise as a result of conflicting goals and competition over limited resources, and it also offers an explanation for the feelings of prejudiceanddiscriminationtoward theoutgroupthat accompany the intergroup hostility. Groups may be in competition for a real or perceivedscarcityof resources such as money, political power, military protection, or social status. Feelings of resentment can arise in the situation that the groups see the competition over resources as having a zero-sums fate, in which only one group is the winner (obtained the needed or wanted resources) and the other loses (unable to obtain the limited resource due to the "winning" group achieving the limited resource first). The length and severity of the conflict is based upon the perceived value and shortage of the given resource. According to RCT, positive relations can only be restored ifsuperordinate goalsare in place.2Muzafer Sherif1906 - 1988

Muzafer Sherif(born Muzaffer erif Baolu; July 29, 1906 October 16, 1988) was aTurkish-Americansocial psychologist. He helped developsocial judgment theoryandrealistic conflict theory. Sherif was a founder of modernsocial psychology, who developed several unique and powerful techniques for understanding social processes, particularly social norms and social conflict. Many of his original contributions to social psychology have been absorbed into the field so fully that his role in the development and discovery has disappeared. Muzafer Sherif grew up in a fairly wealthy family that included five children, of whom he was the second born.

Sherif received a B.A. at theIzmir American Collegein Turkey in 1926,and an M.A. at the University of Istanbul in 1928.Sherif then went to America, earning an M.A. from Harvard University. In 1945 he marriedCarolyn Wood, and they collaborated productively on subsequent projects for many years, on scholarly books (e.g., Sherif & Sherif, 1953) and a still-useful textbook (Sherif & Sherif, 1969). Although mostly recognized as a psychologist, Muzafer was the first to obtain the Cooley-Mead Award for Contributions to Social Psychology from the American Sociological Association.

3Three Phases of the Experiment

In-group Formation - this phase involves the experimental creation of in-groups through activities that will promote group identification.Friction Phase - this phase involves bringing two experimentally formed groups into conflict with each other or forming intergroup tension.Integration Phase - this phase involves bringing the two previously conflicting groups into cooperation through the attainment of superordinate goals.

The focal concern of this study is intergroup relations. As an experiment in social psychology, it undertakes to trace over a time period the formation and functioning of negative and positive attitudes of members of one group toward another group and its members as a consequence of experimentally introduced situations. Therefore, the main hypotheses relate to attitudinal and behavioral trends predicted as a result of controlled alterations of the conditions in which experimentally formed in-groups interact. In the present undertaking (Summer, 1954) it will be carried out in 3 successive stages. The main features of these 3 successive stages are the following:

Stage 1: Experimental production of in-groups with a hierarchical structure and set of norms (intra-group relations). introductionofgoalswhichariseasintegralpartsinthesituations,whichhavecommonappealvalue,andwhichnecessitate facingacommonproblem,discussion,planning andexecutioninamutuallycooperativeway.

Stage2: Bringing the two experimentally formed groups into functional relations in situations in which the groups find themselves in competition for given goals and in conditions which imply [p. 28] some frustration in relation to one another (intergrouptension).

Stage3: Introduction of goals which cannot be easily ignored by members of the two antagonistic groups, but the attainment of which is beyond the resources and efforts of one group alone. Such goals will be referred to assuperordinategoalsthroughout this report. Superordinate goals are to be introduced with the aim of studying the reduction of intergroup tension in order to derive realistic leads for the integration of hostile groups.

4

22 subjects11-12 yearssimilarity

Subjects were to be normal, well-adjusted boys of the same age, educational level, from similar sociocultural backgrounds and with no unusual features in their personal backgrounds insofar as extreme or prolonged frustrations, broken home life, etc. were concerned. More specifically, subjects were to be of established Protestant families (not new in the area), of middle socioeconomic class, living with both parents. (Children from broken homes and foster homes were not accepted. All subjects were to be of normal physical development, and possess no physical deformities or impairments which would limit their participation in the athletic activities that were to be introduced for experimental purposes. In interviewing parents and teachers and examining school records, information was gathered on certain skills and abilities of each boy that might enter as important factors affecting status positions that would evolve in the interaction at camp.

As mentioned above, one of the most important criteria of subject selection was that the boys not be previously acquainted with one another. Thus the friendship patterns and intra- and intergroup relationships formed in the experimental setting could not be attributed to existing acquaintances and friendship preferences brought to the experimental situation. This consideration dictated even the city from which subjects were selected. It required a city of sufficient size to have enough schools for children of the appropriate age and grade levels that only one boy could be selected from each school, thus reducing the likelihood of prior acquaintance. Oklahoma City has this many schools, and it was from this city that all the subjects were selected.

The 22 subjects who were finally selected were relatively homogeneous in terms of the major criteria outlined above. All were from established Protestant families. All were well adjusted both in school and at home, according to observations, school and home interviews. According to school records, all the subjects were doing average or above school work (none was failing or had a history of failures). All were fifth graders about eleven years old who were promoted to the sixth grade for the next school year. This age level was [p. 64] selected so that none of the boys would have reached puberty, which could have been an important additional factor in determining the status positions that would emerge in group interaction. The average (median and mean) age of subjects was 11 years and 1 month. Five boys would have their 11th birthdays shortly after camp, and only one would be 11 well after the school term started. One boy had reached 12; all others were eleven.

5

Role of StaffNo staff member is to be a leader to the boys duringanystage of the study in any of the various activities which are introduced after careful consideration in line with the criteria and hypotheses. In the first stage, every activity is introduced because it is considered to be conducive to interaction among the campers, from which a pattern of status (role) relations, including the leader position, is expected to emerge. You may have to give advice when asked and institute controls when necessary to maintain order, but please refrain from giving direction and initiating action in relation toproblemsituations. Initiative should come from the subjects under the specifically designed problem conditions of each stage.

When a problem situation is introduced which demands planning, discussion and execution on the part of the subjects, utmost care should be taken not to show any partiality or preference and not to assign any single camper to take the lead. If the experimentally introduced situation involves common appeal value (motivation), the lead will naturally evolve in the interaction process among the participating campers. If the proposals do not run counter to health, safety and well being of the campers, and also if they do not run counter to the criteria specified for the given stage, the boys should be given opportunity to proceed in the direction of their proposed activity.

In line with this consideration, do not wear any clothing, especially shirts, which have insignia or other identifying symbols, e. g., college or camp name. We do not wish subjects to adopt names or associations through adult leader-identification. Do not introduce to the campers nicknames, catchwords, slogans in a way which may cause them to be standardized by the subjects.

6

LocationfacilitiesCertain characteristics were necessary in the experimental site. It had to provideisolationfrom the outside world during the experiment so that extraneous influences would not enter and the results would be mainly a function of conditions deliberately introduced. There had to be separate facilities for two groups to be handled in isolation from each other during in-group formation (Stage 1), so that group formation would be the consequence of conditions introduced and interaction within the in-group, without contact with an out-group. Also, the physical characteristics of the camp and surrounding area had to be of a nature allowing flexibility in choosing and planning in-group and intergroup problem situations by providing numerous circumstances conducive to the arousal of common goals of high appeal value and to a variety of activities.

The site finally chosen after inspection of a number of camps was a densely wooded area in the Sans Bois Mountains of southeastern Oklahoma about seven miles north from the small town of Wilburton which is on U. S. Route 270. This is a 200 acre Boy Scouts of America camp which is completely surrounded by Robbers Cave State Park (See Figures 1 and 2).

Functional isolation of the groups from each other during in-group formation was made possible by the terrain of the area, and by careful timing of their coming and going. The cabin used by each group was beyond sight and hearing distances of that of the other group, and duplicate facilities were available for both groups (bath houses, swimming, boating and campfire facilities, etc. ). Both groups used the mess hall which was about equidistant from the two cabins. However, it was not visible from the cabin at the south end of the camp because of a hill, and its entrance could not be seen from the north cabin because of intervening buildings and trees.

Because of the characteristics of the experimental site itself, the surrounding park, and the mountainous areas within a sixty mile radius, it was possible to plan activities of high appeal to the subjects for both in-group and intergroup stages. Within easy walking distance from each cabin, and in opposite directions, were swimming, boating and camping areas which were available for the exclusive use of each group. Campfires could be held near the cabins, at the "hideout" areas, or in a natural stone corral which was near Robbers Cave on the hill above camp. A very isolated reservoir in the hills above the camp supplied its water and offered facilities within hiking distance for overnight campouts. An athletic field was located across the park road, outside camp property, and nearest to the north cabin. The field was accessible by two different routes for the two groups. Thus, when and where contact between groups would take place during competition situations could be controlled.

7In-group Formation

Group formationRattlers and Eaglesteam spiritThese two tribes consisted of 22 boys, ages 11 and 12, whom psychologist Muzafer Sherif brought together at Oklahomas Robbers Cave State Park. He and his team placed the two groups on separate buses and drove them to a Boy Scout Camp inside the park the sort with cabins and caves and thick wilderness. At the park, the scientists put the boys into separate sides of the camp about a half-mile apart and kept secret the existence and location of the other group. Otherwise, any functional contact between the two groups would certainly have unwanted consequences both for the in-group formation and for the later phases of the experiment. It is these two groups that formed the basis of group interaction that is the focus of theRobbers Cave Experiment. The boys didnt know each other beforehand, and Sherif believed putting them into a new environment away from their familiar cultures would encourage them to create a new culture from scratch.

The neighboring tribes were unaware of each others existence. Separately, they lived among nature, played games, constructed shelters, prepared food they knew peace. Each culture developed its own norms and rules of conduct. Each culture arrived at novel solutions to survival-critical problems. They basically spend time bonding with each other while hiking in the park or swimming. Each group was tasked to coin a group name which was stenciled on their flags and on their shirts. A group name is a good step to allow the members of each group to identify with their respective groups. It grants the members belongingness and group spirit. One of the groups chose Eagles as their group name while the other group chose Rattlers. The chief aim of the first phase is to produce in-groups through the interaction of the members within the two separate groups. Each culture named the creeks and rocks and dangerous places, and those names were known to all. They helped each other and watched out for the well-being of the tribal members.

8

Sherif and his colleagues pretended to be staff members at the camp so they could record, without interfering, the natural human drive to form tribes. Right away, social hierarchies began to emerge in which the boys established leaders and followers and special roles for everyone in between. Norms spontaneously generated. For instance, when one boy hurt his foot but didnt tell anyone until bedtime, it became expected among the group that Rattlers didnt complain. From then on members waited until the days work was finished to reveal injuries. When a boy cried, the others ignored him until he got over it. Regulations and rituals sprouted just as quickly. For instance, the high-status members, the natural leaders, in both groups came up with guidelines for saying grace during meals and correct rotations for the ritual. Within a few days their initially arbitrary suggestions became the way things were done, and no one had to be prompted or reprimanded. They made up games and settled on rules of play. They embarked on projects to clean up certain areas and established chains of command. Slackers were punished. Over achievers were praised. Flags were created. Signs erected.9Friction Phase

encountercompetition for resourcesConflict escalationDuring this phase, the two groups were allowed to find out about the existence of the other group. The chief aim of this phase is the production of conflict between the two groups which can be accomplished by a series of competitive activities in the form of a tournament of events which will yield cumulative scores with a reward for the members of the winning group. Soon, the two groups began to suspect they werent alone. They would find evidence of others. They found cups and other signs of civilization in places they didnt remember visiting. This strengthened their resolve and encouraged the two groups to hold tighter to their new norms, values, rituals and all the other elements of the shared culture. At the end of the first week, the Rattlers discovered the others on the camps baseball diamond. From this point forward both groups spent most of their time thinking about how to deal with their new-found adversaries. The group with no name asked about the outsiders. When told the other group called themselves the Rattlers, they elected a baseball captain and asked the camp staff if they could face off in a game with the enemy. They named their baseball team the Eagles after an animal they thought ate snakes.

Sherif noted the two groups spent a lot of time talking about how dumb and uncouth the other side was. They called them names, lots of names, and they seemed to be preoccupied every night with defining the essence of their enemies. Sherif was fascinated by this display. The two groups needed the other side to be inferior once the competition for limited resources became a factor, so they began defining them as such. It strengthened their identity to assume the identity of the enemy was a far cry from their own. Everything they learned about the other side became an example of how not to be, and if they did happen to see similarities they tended to be ignored. A little name-calling wasnt enough, though. The experimenters wanted to increase the conflict substantially. To do this they pitted the groups against each other in a series of competitions.

10

Sherif and his colleagues had already planned on pitting the groups against each other in competitive sports. They werent just researching how groups formed but also how they acted when in competition for resources. The fact the boys were already becoming incensed over the baseball field seemed to fall right in line with their research. So, the scientists proceeded with stage two. The two tribes were overjoyed to learn they would not only play baseball, but compete in tug-of-war, touch football, treasure hunts and other summer-camp-themed rivalry. The scientists revealed a finite number of prizes. Winners would receive one of a handful of medals or knives. When the boys won the knives, some would kiss them before rushing to hide the weapons from the other group. This ratcheted up the antagonism between the two groups, especially once all the team scores were added up and the Rattlers won the overall trophy for the competitive activities. The Rattlers planted their flag in the play field as a reminder of their success. They didnt let the Eagles forget it.

Some of the Eagles boys discovered the Rattlers flag standing unguarded on the baseball field. They discussed what to do and decided it should be ripped from the ground. Once they had it, a possession of the enemy, a symbol of theirtribe, they decided to burn it. They then put its scorched remains back in place and sangTaps. Later, the Rattlers saw the atrocity and organized a raid in which they stole the Eagles flag and burned it as payback. When the Eagles discovered the revenge burning, the leader issued a challenge a face off. The two leaders then met with their followers watching and prepared to fight, but the scientists intervened. That night, the Rattlers dressed in war paint and raided the Eagles cabins, turning over beds and tearing apart mosquito netting. The staff again intervened when the two groups started circling and gathering rocks. The next day, the Rattlers painted one of the Eagle boys stolen blue jeans with insults and paraded it in front of the enemys camp like a flag. The Eagles waited until the Rattlers were eating and conducted a retaliatory raid and then ran back to their cabin to set up defenses. They filled socks with rocks and waited. The camp staff, once again, intervened and convinced the Rattlers not to counterattack. The raids continued, and the interventions too, and eventually the Rattlers stole the Eagles knives and medals. The Eagles, determined to retrieve them, formed an organized war party with assigned roles and planned tactical maneuvers. The two groups finally fought in open combat. The scientists broke up the fights. Fearing the two tribes might murder someone, they moved the groups camps away from each other.

11Integration Phase

cooperation superordinate goalsJoint ActivitiesThis stage constitutes the most crucial and significant aspect of the study. In this phase, the experimenters will deliberately attempt to bring about cooperation between the two groups following a stage of friction or conflict. This phase aims to study the process of reducing group tensions. The researchers wanted to achieve harmony between the two groups, which they did by introducing superordinate goals. This meant that the groups would have to work together to achieve the goals. At first, they introduced tasks that simply brought the two groups together so that they could communicate. During the initial contacts of this Stage, the hostility remained. There were comments such as ladies first and when they watched a group movie together, they sat separated in their individual groups. After seven contact activities, there were superordinate goals set up: fixing the water tank and pump when the water supply was threatened pooling resources so that they could afford a film that they all wanted to watch a truck that would not start, so they had to pull together to try and start it The first activity for this phase was a problem wherein both the groups must cooperate to solve because the resources and efforts of a single group are inadequate to attain the solution to the problem. Both of the groups were taken to a new location and were told that they are having drinking water shortage. The staff turned off the valve to the water pump and placed two large boulders over it. The two groups had to repair the damage done by vandals to their drinking water supply. During the successful repair of their water problems, cooperation was observed between the members of the two groups. This activity was done by the experimenters to create a state of real and tangible interdependence between the members of the two groups. After the two groups successfully worked together to unblock a faucet, the first seeds of peace were shown.

12

The second activity was the group needed to interact with each other and they had to pay and decide for a movie that they would like to watch, but both groups had to chip in to pay for it. They eventually agreed to go halves even though one group had fewer members than the others. However, this agreement showed that the two groups cooperated to arrive at one final decision which they both were happy with. The groups successfully agreed upon a movie all of them should watch and during the dinner after this activity, all the boys were eating together once again. The boys all went on an organized trip to Cedar Lake, where the truck suddenly developed a problem meaning the boys had to use the tug-of-war rope to try and pull it out and get it started. They never fully joined into one group, but the hostilities eased enough for both groups to ride the same bus together back home. Peace had broken out all over.One of the reasons Sherifs study is so famous is that it appeared to show how groups could be reconciled, how peace could flourish. The key was the focus on superordinate goals, those stretching beyond the boundaries of the group itself. It seemed that this was what brought the Rattlers and the Eagles back together.

13ConclusionsFormation of Group Organization and NormsIn-Group Cooperativeness Is Not Directly Transferable The Introduction of Superordinate GoalsThe Same Tools May Serve Intergroup Conflict or Cooperation

Definite group structures and dynamics consisting of individual status and roles will be formed when a number of individuals without previously established interpersonal relations interact with one another under similar context and events.During the Friction Phase, uneasy conflicts produce unfavorable stereotypes in relation to the out-group and its members placing the out-group at a certain social distance. When the two groups meet for competition, in-group solidarity and cooperation increases and inter-group hostility is strong In an event that a number of conflicting groups are brought together with a common superordinate goal and the attainment of which cannot be achieved by the efforts of one group alone, the groups will tend to cooperate towards the achievement of the superordinate goal.In planning and working towards superordinate goals, there were times when the groups used jointly the tools and techniques which had been used by one or both groups separately in the service of tights during the intergroup conflict. Tools and techniques can be put to the service of harmony and integration as well as of deadly competition and conflict.

14ReferencesIntergroup Conflict and Cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment Muzafer Sherif, O. J. Harvey, B. Jack White, William R. Hood, Carolyn W. Sherif (1954/1961)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realistic_conflict_theory#Robbers_cave_studyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzafer_Sherifhttp://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/08/21/the-illusion-of-asymmetric-insight/http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/09/war-peace-and-role-of-power-in-sherifs.phphttp://sparkleyfinger.hubpages.com/hub/The-Psychology-Behind-Prejudice-and-Discriminationhttps://explorable.com/robbers-cave-experiment

15