muzafer sherif camp experiment

Robbers Cave Experiment | Realistic Conflict Theory

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

The Robbers Cave experiment, conducted by Muzafer Sherif in the 1950s, studied intergroup conflict and cooperation among 22 boys in Oklahoma. Initially separated into two groups, they developed group identities. Introducing competitive tasks led to hostility between groups. Later, cooperative tasks reduced this conflict, highlighting the role of shared goals in resolving group tensions.

The hypotheses tested were:

When individuals who don’t know each other are brought together to interact in group activities to achieve common goals, they produce a group structure with hierarchical statuses and roles.
Once formed, two in-groups are brought into a functional relationship under conditions of competition, and group frustration, attitudes, and appropriate hostile actions about the out-group and its members will arise; these will be standardized and shared in varying degrees by group members.

Study Procedure

Phase 1: in-group formation (5-6 days).

The members of each group got to know one other, social norms developed, leadership and group structure emerged.

Phase 2: Group Conflict (4-5 Days)

The now-formed groups came into contact with each other, competing in games and challenges, and competing for control of territory.

Phase 3: Conflict Resolution (6-7 Days)

Sherif and colleagues tried various means of reducing the animosity and low-level violence between the groups.

The Drinking Water Problem

The problem of securing a movie, realistic conflict theory.

Realistic conflict theory posits intergroup hostility and conflict arise when groups compete for limited resources. It emphasizes that competition over scarce resources (material goods, power, or social status) can lead to prejudice, discrimination, and animosity between groups.

Resource Scarcity and Competition : When groups perceive that they compete for limited resources, hostility can arise.
Formation of Ingroup and Outgroup Dynamics : Through competition, groups develop a strong sense of “us” (ingroup) versus “them” (outgroup). This distinction can lead to negative stereotyping and increased animosity.
Superordinate Goals : Intergroup hostility can be reduced when conflicting groups collaborate on goals that neither group can achieve on its own. These goals supersede their smaller individual goals and encourage cooperation.

Critical Evaluation

Key takeaways.

In the Robbers Cave field experiment, 22 white, 11-year-old boys were sent to a special remote summer camp in Oklahoma, Robbers Cave State Park.
The boys developed an attachment to their groups throughout the first week of the camp by doing various activities together, like hiking, swimming, etc.
The boys chose names for their groups, The Eagles and The Rattlers.
During a four-day series of competitions between the groups prejudice began to become apparent between the two groups (both physical and verbal).
During the subsequent two-day cooling-off period, the boys listed features of the two groups. The boys tended to characterize their own in-group in very favourable terms, and the other out-group in very unfavorable terms.
Sherif then attempted to reduce the prejudice, or inter-group conflict, shown by each group. However, simply increasing the contact of the two groups only made the situation worse.
Alternatively forcing the groups to work together to reach common goals, eased prejudice and tension among the groups.
This experiment confirmed Sherif’s realistic conflict theory (also called realistic group conflict theory), the idea that group conflict can result from competition over resources.

Further Information

Allport’s Intergroup Contact Hypothesis: Its History and Influence
Aslam, Alex. “War and Peace and Summer Camp.” Nature, vol. 556, 17 Apr. 2018, pp. 306-307.

The Robbers Cave Experiment: Realistic Conflict Theory

Categories Social Psychology

Psychologist Muzafer Sherif suggested that conflict between groups was the result of competition for limited resources. To put this theory to the test, he conducted a series of experiments that are today referred to as the Robbers Cave Experiment.

In this article, learn more about what happened in the Robbers Cave Experiment and the conclusions that Sherif made about what these findings meant with regard to intergroup conflicts. Also, explore some of the criticisms of the study and the impact the research had on the field of social psychology .

Table of Contents

An Overview of the Robbers Cave Experiment

During the summer of 1954, 22 boys between the ages of 11 and 12 arrived at a 200-acre camp at the Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma for what they believed was just a normal summer camp. What they didn’t know is that they were really about to take part in what would become one of the best-known psychological experiments , known today as the Robbers Cave Experiment.

Group Formation and Bonding Phase of the Experiment

The boys, all from similar backgrounds, were randomly assigned to one of two different groups. During the first week of the experiment, the two groups were kept separate and neither had any inkling that the other group even existed.

The boys in each group spent this time bonding with one another by participating in activities like hiking and swimming. As the researchers predicted, each group established its own norms, hierarchy, and practices. They also selected names for their groups (the Rattlers and the Eagles) and had their names emblazoned on their shirts and camp flags.

What Muzafer Sherif and his colleagues were interested in was looking at how intergroup conflicts were influenced by factors such as competition, prejudice, and stereotypes.

The Competition Phase of the Robbers Cave Experiment

In phase two of the experiment, the two groups were made aware of each other’s existence and placed in direct competition with one another in a series of activities that included such things as swimming, baseball, and tug-of-war. The groups engaged in competitive activities in which both group prizes (a trophy) and individual prizes (a pocket knife and a medal) were awarded to the winning team.

As soon as each group learned of the other’s existence, conflicts arose. It began with various forms of verbal abuse such as name-calling and taunting. Once the two groups were placed in real competition with each other, the conflicts became even more pronounced.

As the competitions wore on, the hostilities became much greater. The teams refused to eat in the same room and they began making up derogatory songs about the competing team. One team burned the opposing team’s flag, while both teams raided and vandalized each other’s cabins. At one point, the conflict became so great that the researchers had to separate the groups and give them a two-day period to calm down.

At this point, the researchers asked the boys to describe the features of each group. What they found was that while they tended to describe their own group in very favorable terms, they held unfavorable opinions of the opposing group.

The Integration Phase of the Robbers Cave Experiment

During the third and final phase of the Robbers Cave Experiment, the boys were brought together in an attempt to reduce or eliminate the previous friction generated by the competitions. The boys watched films, lit fireworks, and participated in contests, but the researchers found that none of these activities had any impact on the amount of tension between the members of each group.

In their next attempt to reconcile the groups, the experimenters took all the boys to a new location and engaged them in a series of problem-solving activities. For example, the boys were informed that the drinking water had been sabotaged and that they would need to work together to fix the water faucet.

After cooperating to solve a number of similar problems, it was clear that peace had finally formed between the groups. By the end of the study, the two groups even chose to ride home together on the same bus. When they stopped for refreshments, the group that won prize money in the earlier competitions offered to use that money to pay for milkshakes for the boys from both groups.

Sherif’s Conclusions

Sherif noted that the researchers had made painstaking efforts to ensure that the boys were from similar ethnic, religious, family, and socio-economic backgrounds. None had behavioral problems or past issues with violence.

Since the boys were of similar, stable backgrounds, the results suggest that intergroup conflicts are not the result of mere group differences. Instead, Sherif suggested, each group establishes its own norms, rules, and patterns of behavior.

It is these self-created structures and hierarchies that lead to competition and conflict between groups.

The implications of Sherif’s study go beyond what creates conflict in groups, however. It also offers hope that these intergroup conflicts can be reconciled. Just as the boys in the Eagles and Rattlers learned to work together and eventually achieved amity, the results imply that perhaps such peace could also be reached between opposing groups and warring nations.

Criticisms of the Robbers Cave Experiment

As a field experiment, the Robbers Cave study attempted to create the sort of intergroup conflict that impacts people from all walks of life the world over. While the study was a success and had a good outcome, critics argue that the study suffers from a number of possible problems.

Artificially-created situation : First, while Sherif and his colleagues attempted to create as realistic a situation as possible, the reality was that both the groups and the competition between the groups were artificial. The situation simply could not replicate the deeply rooted beliefs and other influences that can impact real-world conflicts, such as ideology-based wars or long-held sports rivalries.
Ethical concerns : The study has also been criticized on ethical grounds since the boys did not know they were participating in a psychological study and did not give consent. The attempts to generate conflict and aggression also exposed the children to both psychological and physical harm.

Perhaps one of the greatest criticisms of the Robbers Cave Experiment is that it simply doesn’t tell the whole story. What the study does not mention is that Sherif and his colleagues had actually performed two previous versions of the experiment that were far less successful.

In the first version of the study, the two groups ended up ganging up on a shared enemy, while in the second study, they ended up turning on the experimenters themselves.

While the Robbers Cave experiment is not without criticism, it did have an important influence on our understanding of intergroup conflict. The results supported Sherif’s Realistic Conflict Theory, which suggested that intergroup conflicts arise from competition for resources and opposing goals. The study also reveals how such conflicts contribute to things like prejudice and stereotyping.

The study also hints that one of the best ways to overcome such conflicts is to focus on getting people to work together toward a shared goal. Through this type of socialization, out-group conflicts, prejudice, and discrimination can be effectively reduced.

Cherry F. The ‘Stubborn Particulars’ of Social Psychology: Essays on the Research Process . Florence, KY: Taylor & Francess/Routledge; 1995.

Dean J. War, peace and the role of power in Sherif’s Robbers Cave experiment . Psyblog. Published 2007.

Sherif M, Harvey OJ, White BJ, Hood WR, Sherif CW. Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment (Vol. 10). Norman, OK: Universi ty Book Exchange; 1961.

Robbers Cave Experiment

Life imitates art, and art imitates life. Many say, for example, that the Robbers Cave Experiment and Lord of the Flies are an example of art imitating life.

Did you read Lord of the Flies in middle school or high school? Even if you skimmed over the book, you might remember what it’s about. A group of boys finds themselves stranded on a desert island without adult supervision. As they try to establish a society, they turn on each other in desperation, and things get brutal.

The book has become a staple of Young Adult fiction and is known for being a reflection of society. It warns that anyone has the potential to get violent if they are desperate enough for scarce resources.

Lord of the Flies came out in 1954. The year before, the Rockefeller Foundation gave psychologist Muzafer Sherif $38,000 to conduct a fascinating research experiment. Tired of working with lab rats, Sherif set out to do something unusual - an experiment that one could say mirrored Lord of the Flies. He ended up putting together the Robbers Cave Experiment.

What Is the Robbers Cave Experiment?

The Robbers Cave experiment, once known for its fascinating insight into group conflict theory, is now more infamous than famous. Regardless of its reputation, it remains one of the most well-known social psychology experiments of the 20th century. It attempted to reveal fascinating insights into group conflict and how easily people turn against each other.

Who is Muzafer Sherif?

Muzafer Sherif is the man behind the Robber’s Cave Experiment. Born in Turkey, he witnesses a lot of violence due to the separation of ethnic groups. The violence encouraged him to become a psychologist and attend Harvard University. When he originally published the Robbers Cave Experiment, he earned praise for his work. In recent years, however, criticisms of the Robbers Cave experiment have overshadowed his accomplishments.

How the Robbers Cave Experiment Was Conducted

Sherif’s theory.

Sherif wanted to show how easily groups could turn on each other when they were fighting for limited resources. But he also wanted to show how easily those groups could set aside their differences and come together to defeat a common enemy. Observing these group dynamics couldn’t be done in a lab with rats or dogs. So he took his experiments to a summer camp.

The 22 boys at Robber’s Cave State Park did not know that their summer camp experience would be part of a larger social experiment. They didn’t even know how many people would be at the camp until the second day. On the first day, researchers posing as counselors established two groups of campers: The Eagles and the Rattlers. After the boys bonded within their groups, they were introduced to the others.

Setting Up the Robbers Cave Experiment

The researchers set up a series of competitions over 4-6 days, like baseball games and tug-of-war. Winners received prizes - and the losers would receive nothing. Eventually, they began to set up additional conflicts. For example, one group got access to food while the others were told to wait.

The boys eventually started to develop an “us vs. them” mentality. At first, they only exchanged threats and engaged in verbal conflict. Quickly, however, things became more physical. One group burned the other group’s flag, and one group raided the other group’s cabin and stole items from the boys in that group. Things got violent. In surveys taken during this period, the boys shared negative thoughts and stereotypes against the boys in the other group. This proved the first part of Sherif’s theory.

But he wasn’t done.

Final Results of Robbers Cave Experiment

The Robber’s Cave Experiment then went into a final “friction reduction” phase. All 22 boys were given tasks that would benefit the group as a whole. At one point, the researchers set up a challenge in which a truck delivering food was stuck and couldn’t deliver meals. The boys worked together to get the truck unstuck so they could all eat. In another challenge, the boys formed an assembly line to remove rocks that blocked access to the camp’s water tower. Even though the boys had originally felt hostile toward the boys in the opposing group, they were all able to work together to reach a goal that would benefit the whole group.

One thing to note here is that the boys still did not know they were a part of an experiment. Sherif never revealed this information to them. As you'll read later in this article, they didn't find out about their participation in the experiment until 50+ years later. That's a long time to not knowing that you impacted psychology forever!

Realistic Conflict Theory

This experiment would go on to be key evidence in the Realistic Conflict Theory (RCT.) Donald Campbell coined this term a few years after Sherif’s experiment. At the time, psychologists had talked about group conflict using sex, food, and other basic needs as motivations. Campbell broadened the theory to include larger goals and a wider categorization of resources.

Thus, realistic conflict theory is based on the assumption that group conflict will become tense whenever these groups must compete for limited resources. These resources could be food, but may also be things like respect, power, or recognition. This tension may lead to stereotyping, violence, and other extreme forms of behavior.

Criticisms of the Robbers Cave Experiment

The Robbers Cave Experiment has continued to be one of the most well-known experiments in the world of social psychology. But not all psychologists sing Sherif’s praises. In fact, the Robbers Cave Experiment has become one of the most well-known experiments due to its questionable ethics.

The purpose of an experiment is to test out a hypothesis. If you cannot support your hypothesis with your experiment, the problem is with the hypothesis - not the experiment. When a psychologist approaches an experiment as a way to prove their hypothesis, things can get tricky. Some critics say that’s what Sherif did with the Robbers Cave Experiment.

Middle Grove Experiment

Before the Robbers Cave Experiment, Sherif conducted a similar experiment at a camp called Middle Grove. But the results didn’t work out like he thought they would. The boys never turned on each other - the bond that they had made at camp before the experiment began was too strong. The “counselors” and Sherif set up pranks to pit the boys against each other, but the boys ended up turning on the counselors instead. They eventually figured out they were being manipulated.

These results were thrown out and only came to light in recent years. With these new findings, psychologists began to refrain from using Robbers Cave as an example in textbooks and lectures.

Eventually, with tweaks to the experiment (rather than the hypothesis,) Sherif came up with a scenario that would support his theory. With results that supported his hypothesis, Sherif felt more comfortable publishing his results. The results attempted to reveal the deeper parts of humanity, but the process surrounding Robbers Cave really just revealed a lot about Sherif.

Robbers Cave Experiment vs. Lord of the Flies

Lord of the Flies didn't exactly have the same resolution as the Robbers Cave experiment. Although the book and experiment are often compared, there are significant differences in how the boys interacted and how their "stories" ended.

(If you haven't read Lord of the Flies, skip to the next section. There are spoilers ahead!)

In Lord of the Flies, (which, keep in mind, is a fictional story,) a group of boys are stranded on an island after their plane is shot down. They are immediately in distress. They also aren't split up into two groups, although ingroups and outgroups begin to form based on age later in the book. At first, the process of finding food and building a fire is fairly democratic. Rifts really form after individuals or pairs make mistakes. The violence also escalates far beyond what would have been allowed in the Robbers Cave experiment. One boy, Piggy, is killed.

The resolution in the Robbers Cave experiment is the result of a problem that all the boys work to solve together. These tasks start from the very beginning of Lord of the Flies. (The book ends with all the boys sobbing after they have been rescued.)

Remember that Lord of the Flies was fiction and came from the mind of William Golding. Although, many might argue that the results of the Robbers Cave Experiment were also manipulated...

Legacy of the Robbers Cave Experiment and Muzafer Sherif

Lord of the Flies will likely be on reading lists for decades to come. Will Sherif's experiment also stand the test of time? It might not. A 2018 book by Gina Perry suggests that the experiment was not as groundbreaking or revealing as it might seem.

Gina Perry is a psychologist and the author of two books that dive into psychology's most famous experiments. (In 2013, Perry published "Behind the Shock Machine: The Untold Story of the Notorious Milgram Psychology Experiments." The book looks at Stanley Milgram 's personal life and how it may have affected the results of his experiment.) Her take on Sherif's work is particularly fascinating. She shows how Sherif actively worked to manipulate the results of the Robbers Cave Experiment to prove his theory.

Two interesting points stand out from her book, although the entire story is worth a read.

The participants didn't know that they were a part of the study until Perry contacted them herself.
Sherif was so proud of his experiment that he went back to Robbers Cave to celebrate his 80th birthday.

If you are interested in reading more about the legacy of the Robbers Cave experiment, buy Gina Perry's book "The Lost Boys: Inside Muzafer Sherif's Robbers Cave Experiment" or check it out of your local library. Learning the context behind the experiment puts the results into a different perspective.

Other Examples of Realistic Conflict Theory

While RCT’s most well-known experiment is no longer known for being ethically sound, there is still evidence to support this theory. A lot of this evidence comes from data related to racial tensions and immigration policy.

In 1983, a paper was published on the opposition to school busing and integration. Data taken around that time supported the idea that opposition to busing wasn’t just fueled by racism itself. Group conflict motives also played a role. The threat of another “group” taking scarce resources (access to education) scared whites during that time period.

We hear similar arguments in the present day. Have you ever heard one of your relatives or talk show commentators argue that “immigrants are taking our jobs?” Never mind the validity behind the threat - the perceived threat is enough to cause hostility and tension.

More data and experiments are looking at realistic conflict theory. Psychologists may change their perspectives on intergroup conflict and other related topics. But for now, the Robbers Cave Experiment offers an important reminder that experiments cannot be conducted simply to prove a hypothesis.

The Monster Study (Summary, Results, and Ethical Issues)
40+ Famous Psychologists (Images + Biographies)
Stanley Milgram (Psychologist Biography)
The Asch Line Study (+3 Conformity Experiments)
Facial Feedback Hypothesis (Definition + Examples)

Reference this article:

About The Author

PracticalPie.com is a participant in the Amazon Associates Program. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter

Psychology Resources

Developmental

Personality

Relationships

Psychologists

Serial Killers

Psychology Tests

Personality Quiz

Memory Test

Depression test

Type A/B Personality Test

The Robbers Cave Experiment: The Psychological Study Of Unsupervised Boys That Inspired Lord Of The Flies

In an effort to test one of his theories on social behavior, psychologist muzafer sherif released 22 twelve-year-old boys into a sparsely supervised wilderness camp — and then covertly provoked them to fight each other..

The British Psychological Society /University of Akron Some of 22 12-year-old boys unknowingly en route to participate in Sherif’s Robbers Cave experiment.

In the summer of 1954, world-renowned social psychologist Muzafer Sherif toted 22 boys to the foothills of the San Bois Mountains of southeastern Oklahoma. There, in Robbers Cave State Park, he intended to conduct an unprecedented social experiment that involved pitting sparsely supervised 12-year-old boys against each other in the Oklahoma wilderness.

This was the Robbers Cave experiment, and its startling outcome would inspire the harrowing book Lord of the Flies just a year later. Nearly six decades since, experts dub the experiment unethical as it appears to have left lasting mental damage on its subjects.

The First Experiment: Camp Middle Grove

Muzafer Sherif was born in the Ottoman Empire and won a slot to study psychology at Harvard. He quickly realized that lab research on rats was too confining and he wanted a more complex subject: humans.

Fascination with social psychology had, with reason, reached a peak following WWII, and so Sherif was able to secure a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation.

His initial experiment required that 11-year-old boys be sent under the guise of a summer camp to Middle Grove park in upstate New York. There Sherif would split the boys into teams, pit them against each other for prizes, and then try to reunite them using a series of frustrating and life-threatening events — like a forest fire. Neither the parents nor the boys, obviously, knew this was a study.

The Robbers Cave experiment, then, was the second of Sherif’s, as his study at Middle Grove in the summer of 1953 had in his mind not accomplished the outcome he had hoped for. He was looking for confirmation of his “ Realistic Conflict Theory “, which stated that groups would compete for limited resources even against their friends and allies, but come together in the face of a common disaster regardless of those alliances.

The boys at Middle Grove had not cooperated with this theory. They stayed friends despite all hardships, even when Sherif had his staffers steal their clothes, raze their tents, and smash their toys all the while framing other campers.

The experiment ended in a drunken brawl between one of the leading social psychologists in the world, Muzafer Sherif, and his research assistants as his experiment had not cooperated with him.

Sherif resolved to try again with the Robbers Cave experiment.

The Robbers Cave Experimental Camp

The Campers On A Cliff In Robbers Cave Park

Scientific American Blog A group of boys explore a cliff which overlooks their campsite.

Sherif still had money from the grant for the first study but after his failure, felt that his reputation was at risk. This time he would keep the boys separated from the beginning so that they couldn’t form the pesky friendships which had thwarted the study at Middle Grove. The groups were the Rattlers and the Eagles.

The two groups were unaware of each other for the first two days. They bonded with their own group through standard camp activities like hiking and swimming.

Once the groups seemed to be solidly formed, Sherif and his team instituted the ‘competition phase’ of the Robbers Cave experiment. The groups were introduced to each other and a series of rivalrous activities were scheduled. There would be a tug-of-war, baseball and so forth. Prizes would also be awarded, trophies at stake, and there would be no consolation prizes for the losers. The Rattlers declared they would be the winners and monopolized the baseball field in order to practice.

They put their flag up on the field and told the Eagles they had better not touch it.

The Conflict

Competition is apparent on this haughty flag.

The staffers began to interfere more aggressively in the Robbers Cave experiment. They deliberately caused conflict and once arranged for one group to be late for lunch so that the other group would eat all the food.

At first, the conflict between the boys was verbal with just taunts and name-calling. But under the careful guidance of Sherif and his staff, it soon became physical. The Eagles were supplied with matches and they burned their rival’s flag. The Rattlers retaliated, invaded the Eagles’ cabin, and wrecked it and stole their belongings.

The conflict escalated to violence so that the groups had to be separated for two days.

Now that the kids hated each other, Sherif decided it was time to vindicate his theory and bring them back together. So he shut off the drinking water.

The Rattlers and Eagles set off to find the water tank which was on a mountain. The only water they had was what was in their canteens. When they arrived at the tank, hot and thirsty, the groups had already begun to merge.

Resolution and Legacy Of The Robbers Cave Experiment

The campers found the valve to the tank but it was covered with rocks, so they joined together and removed the rocks as quickly as possible. This pleased Sherif immensely as it was in direct agreement with his theory: the groups would fight over limited resources but band together when faced with a common threat.

Nevermind that the experiment was ethically and procedurally dubious, as Sherif had gotten the results that he wanted and his theory, along with the study itself, garnered great publicity. But even professionals who used the study in their textbooks doubted its value.

Six decades of development in the field have led modern psychologists to criticize the study. Sherif conducted his experiment under the belief that it was meant to showcase his theory, not either prove or disprove it. In this way, he could very easily and in many ways did, finagle the outcome he desired.

Further, the boys were all middle-class and white, and all shared a Protestant, two-parent background. The study in this way was not reflective of real-life and was considered limited. There was also the ethical issue surrounding the participants’ deception: neither the children nor their parents knew what they had consented to, and the boys were in many cases left unattended or in danger of harm.

Regardless of these qualms, the Robbers Cave experiment has left a legacy — particularly on the participants.

Now-grown camper Doug Griset recalls ironically: “I’m not traumatized by the experiment, but I don’t like lakes, camps, cabins or tents.”

If you enjoyed this article about the Robbers Cave experiment, then read about how the Stanford Prison Experiment ended in disaster or cringe at this list of the most evil scientific experiments ever performed.

PO Box 24091 Brooklyn, NY 11202-4091

Subscriber Services
For Authors
Publications
Archaeology
Art & Architecture
Bilingual dictionaries
Classical studies
Encyclopedias
English Dictionaries and Thesauri
Language reference
Linguistics
Media studies
Medicine and health
Names studies
Performing arts
Science and technology
Social sciences
Society and culture
Overview Pages
Subject Reference
English Dictionaries
Bilingual Dictionaries

Sherif Summer Camp Study

Quick reference.

Muzafer Sherif’s Summer Camp Study, also widely known as the Robbers Cave experiment (Sherif et al., 1961), is a classic study in psychology. Performed over a three-week period in 1954 ...

From: Sherif Summer Camp Study in The Oxford International Encyclopedia of Peace »

Subjects: Social sciences — Warfare and Defence

Robbers Cave Experiment

Robbers Cave Experiment: Unveiling Human Nature’s Dark Side

In the simmering heat of a 1950s Oklahoma summer, a group of boys embarked on what they believed was a typical summer camp adventure. Unbeknownst to them, the serene Robbers Cave State Park was to become a crucible for one of the most intriguing social psychology experiments of the 20th century. The experiment, masterminded by Muzafer Sherif, would reveal the dark undercurrents of intergroup conflict and the flickering hope for reconciliation. As the boys forged alliances and rivalries, the Robbers Cave experiment peeled back the layers of human nature, exposing the intricate dance between hostility and harmony

The Robbers Cave Experiment is a seminal study that shed light on intergroup conflict and the formation of group identity. This classic experiment has significantly contributed to our understanding of social identity theory and realistic conflict theory.

Key Definition:

The Robbers Cave Experiment was a classic study conducted by psychologist Muzafer Sherif and his colleagues in 1954. It aimed to investigate intergroup relations and conflict. The experiment involved boys at a summer camp who were divided into two groups, the Eagles and the Rattlers. The groups were kept separate at first and developed their own cultures and norms. When they were eventually made aware of each other’s existence, conflict arose, leading to hostility and intense competition. This study shed light on the dynamics of intergroup behavior and the potential for conflict resolution.

Located in Robbers Cave State Park, Oklahoma, the study involved 24 boys aged 11 to 12, who were divided into two groups – the Rattlers and the Eagles. Initially, the groups were unaware of each other’s existence, allowing researchers to observe the natural formation of group dynamics .

Research in social psychology has repeatedly shown that group dynamics is a powerful force. Randolph Nesse wrote, “I would like to think that objectivity maximizes fitness, but life in human groups demands patriotic loyalty to the in-group. Objective individuals are devalued and rejected” ( Neese, 2019 ). Unfortunately, as in the case with the boys in the Robbers Cave experiment, groups need very little similarities to form. However, once they are formed, they create a enormous influence on how we behave.

Erik Erikson explains that during development, adolescents place extreme importance on group acceptance. He wrote, “they become remarkably clannish, intolerant, and cruel in their exclusion of others who are ‘different,’ in skin color or cultural background, in tastes and gifts, and often in entirely petty aspects of dress and gesture arbitrarily selected as the signs of an in-grouper or out-grouper” ( Erikson, 1994 ).

These 24 boys quickly adopted their group moniker (the ‘Rattlers’ or the ‘Eagles’) and identity. They no longer were a group of autonomous beings; but a part of a larger being. Loyalty to the group or autonomous freedom is the primary dilemma that we face over and over throughout our lives.

Phase 1: Group Formation

During the first phase, the boys bonded within their respective groups through team activities and bonding exercises. Each group developed its unique norms, values, and group cohesion.

Phase 2: Intergroup Conflict

In the next phase, the researchers engineered a sense of competition and conflict between the groups through a series of competitive activities, leading to hostility, negative stereotyping, and intergroup bias.

Phase 3: Superordinate Goals

To reduce the conflict, Sherif introduced superordinate goals that necessitated cooperation between the groups, such as fixing a water supply issue. This mutual interdependence led to the reduction of hostility and prejudice between the groups ( Sherif, et al., 1988 ).

Key Findings

The key findings from the Robbers Cave experiment are:

Group Formation : When individuals with similar backgrounds come together to achieve common goals, they form a group structure with norms and roles.
Intergroup Conflict : When two groups are in competition, especially over limited resources, negative attitudes and behaviors towards the out-group arise.
Conflict Resolution : We can reduce intergroup conflict through cooperative tasks that require both groups to work towards shared goals.

The experiment demonstrated the Realistic Conflict Theory , showing that competition invites intergroup hostility. In contrast, cooperation alleviates the intergroup tension. It also highlighted the importance of shared goals in promoting positive intergroup relations.

Replication and Support of Findings

Robbers Cave experiment has been replicated and its findings have been explored in various contexts. While the original study was unique to its time and circumstances, the principles it demonstrated have been tested and validated in other settings. Researchers have continued to examine the dynamics of intergroup conflict and cooperation, often drawing upon the experiment’s design and conclusions to inform their own studies.

The experiment’s core concepts, such as the formation of in-groups and out-groups, the escalation of conflict through competition, and the resolution of conflict through superordinate goals, remain influential in social psychology. These replications and related studies contribute to a deeper understanding of the complex nature of human social behavior.

Practical Impact of Robbers Cave Experiment

The Robbers Cave Experiment highlighted the role of competition and cooperation in shaping intergroup relations.We can apply the insights from the Robbers Cave experiment in various aspects of our lives to foster better relationships and communities:

Seek Common Goals : Just as the boys in the experiment overcame their differences by working towards shared objectives, we can apply this principle in our workplaces, schools, and communities to unite people.
Encourage Cooperation : Promote cooperative activities that require teamwork and collaboration, which can help reduce tensions and build stronger bonds between individuals and groups.
Understand Group Dynamics : Recognize the natural tendency to form in-groups and out-groups, and consciously work to include and integrate diverse perspectives to prevent exclusion and conflict.
Conflict Resolution : We can often resolve conflicts through cooperation and communication to mediate disputes and find mutually beneficial solutions.
Empathy and Perspective-Taking : Practice empathy by considering the viewpoints of others, especially those from different backgrounds, to foster understanding and reduce prejudice.

By applying these principles, we can create more harmonious environments that celebrate diversity and encourage positive interactions.

These young boys were not anomaly. We all do it. We see fans of a basketball team, expressing dominance, shaking their fists in the glory of victory over a hated rival. However, the fan themselves did nothing to contribute to the victory other than buy a ticket to the game, make a little noise, and put on a blue and white t-shirt. However, the team victory is part theirs. “We did it,” the fan proclaims.

We see the Rattlers and Eagles in the ranks of politics. The congressional floor battles play out across the country. People ferociously defend policies that don’t impact them or only slightly impact them because their group proclaims its importance. They do this because they derive their identity from the group.

Dehumanizing Out-Group

A frightening cognition that accompanies intergroup conflict is the dehumanizing of the enemy. Our kind, gentle subjective views of ourselves conflict with our nasty treatment of those outside of our protective groups. Instead of using our shared humanity to mediate our behaviors, we often do the exact opposite—accentuate the differences to justify our treatment.

Philip Zimbardo referred to this as infrahumanization. He explains, “out-group infrahumanization is a newly investigated phenomenon in which people tend to attribute uniquely human emotions and traits to their in-group and deny their existence in out-groups. It is a form of emotional prejudice.” He continues, “while we attribute infrahumaness to out-groups, as less than human, we are motivated to see ourselves as more human than others” ( Zimbardo, 2007. Kindle location: 7,271 ).

Through dehumanization the Rattlers can treat the Eagles as lessor human beings, the Democrats can refer to the Republicans as infidels, and the Nazi’s can engage in genocide. The implications of this study expose a frightening and darker side of humanity.

Narrative Example

Imagine a modern workplace, where two departments, Marketing and Sales, are notorious for their rivalry. Each team views the other as the obstacle to their success, blaming each other for missed targets and lost opportunities. The tension is palpable, and the company’s overall performance suffers.

The CEO, aware of the Robbers Cave experiment, decides to intervene. She creates a scenario where both teams must collaborate on a major project with a tight deadline and a significant bonus for the successful launch of a new product. The teams are initially skeptical, but the allure of the shared reward and the necessity to work together shift their focus from competition to cooperation.

As the project progresses, the members of both teams start to interact more, sharing ideas and resources. The former rivals begin to see each other not as adversaries, but as colleagues working towards a common goal. They develop a sense of unity and camaraderie, celebrating each small victory as a step closer to their shared objective.

By the end of the project, the Marketing and Sales teams have not only successfully launched the product but have also formed a strong alliance. The CEO engineered a collaborative spirit that replaced the interdepartmental conflict. Consequently, the transformed mindsets also spills over into other areas of work.

This narrative illustrates the key findings of the Robbers Cave experiment in action. We see how we can mitigate intergroup conflict through superordinate goals the require joint effort. These efforts often impact groups on a larger scale. It’s a powerful reminder of the potential for harmony in the face of division.

Associated Concepts and Theories

The Robbers Cave experiment is closely associated with several key psychological concepts and theories:

Realistic Conflict Theory (RCT): This theory suggests that intergroup conflict arises from competition over scarce resources. The Robbers Cave experiment is a classic demonstration of RCT, showing how conflict developed between groups when they competed for rewards.
Social Identity Theory : This theory posits that a person’s sense of who they are is based on their group membership. The Robbers Cave experiment illustrated how individuals strongly identify with their in-group, leading to in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination.
Contact Hypothesis : This hypothesis proposes that under certain conditions, interpersonal contact is one of the most effective ways to reduce prejudice between majority and minority group members. The Robbers Cave experiment supported this hypothesis by showing that cooperative contact between groups reduced intergroup hostility.
Self-Categorization Theory : Related to social identity theory, this theory explains how and why individuals identify with particular social groups and behave accordingly. The Robbers Cave experiment highlighted the role of group categorization in fostering group cohesion and intergroup rivalry.
Group Dynamics : Group Dynamics refers to the general study of how individuals act within the group. Robbers Cave experiment is an example of a study of group dynamics in relation to intergroup conflict.

Other Experiments in Social Psychology

As for experiments similar to the Robbers Cave experiment, there are other studies that have explored intergroup relations and conflict, such as:

The Stanford Prison Experiment : Conducted by Philip Zimbardo, this study investigated the psychological effects of perceived power by assigning roles of prisoners and guards to participants within a mock prison setting.
The Minimal Group Paradigm : Developed by Henri Tajfel, this series of experiments demonstrated that even arbitrary and virtually meaningless distinctions between groups can lead to prejudice and discrimination.
Solomon Asch Conformity Study : In this study, research exposed the intense motivation for individuals to conform to group standards and opinions.

These experiments, along with the Robbers Cave study, have significantly contributed to our understanding of social psychology, particularly in the areas of group dynamics, identity, and intergroup relations.

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

As the sun sets on Robbers Cave, we are left to ponder the profound implications of Sherif’s experiment. The study sheds additional light on our understanding of human nature. The echoes of those summer days resonate with the timeless truth that beneath our conflicts lie the potential for unity. The experiment serves as a reminder that cooperation is not just a lofty ideal, but a tangible bridge that can connect divided groups, mend broken bonds, and pave the way for a more harmonious society. It challenges us to look beyond our differences. We can find common ground fading the line between ‘us’ and ‘them.’ Group differences are often a matter of perspective. In the end, the Robbers Cave experiment teaches us that we carve the path to peace not by accentuating our divides, but by embracing our shared humanity.

Last Update: May 10, 2024

Type your email…

References:

Erikson, Erik H. ( 1994 ) Identity and the Life Cycle. W. W. Norton & Company; Revised ed. edition.

Nesse, Randolph M. ( 2019 ). Good Reasons for Bad Feelings: Insights from the Frontier of Evolutionary Psychiatry. ‎Dutton; 1st edition.

Sherif, Muzafer; Harvey, O. J.; Hood, William R.; Sherif, Carolyn W.; White, Jack ( 1988 ). The Robbers Cave Experiment: Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation. ‎Wesleyan University Press; Illustrated edition.

Zimbardo, Philip ( 2007 ). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. ‎Random House; 1st edition.

Resources and Articles

Please visit Psychology Fanatic’s vast selection of articles , definitions and database of referenced books .

* Many of the quotes from books come books I have read cover to cover. I created an extensive library of notes from these books. I make reference to these books when using them to support or add to an article topic. Most of these books I read on a kindle reader. The Kindle location references seen through Psychology Fanatic is how kindle notes saves my highlights.

The peer reviewed article references mostly come from Deepdyve . This is the periodical database that I have subscribe to for nearly a decade. Over the last couple of years, I have added a DOI reference to cited articles for the reader’s convenience and reference.

Thank-you for visiting Psychology Fanatic. Psychology Fanatic represents nearly two decades of work, research, and passion.

Topic Specific Databases:

PSYCHOLOGY – EMOTIONS – RELATIONSHIPS – WELLNESS – PSYCHOLOGY TOPICS

T. Franklin Murphy

Social Capital Theory

Social capital theory examines the value of social networks and relationships, emphasizing trust, cooperation, and collective well-being. It encompasses bonding, bridging, and linking social capital,…

Social Facilitation Theory

Social Facilitation Theory explores how people's performance is influenced by the presence of others. It suggests that individuals may perform better on simple tasks with…

Social Exchange Theory

Social Exchange Theory explores human interactions as a balance of rewards and costs, shaping relationships. It influences social behavior and can be applied to various…

Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism is a sociological theory emphasizing human interaction and symbols' role in society. It explores how people create and interpret meanings, shaping social reality…

Spiral of Silence

The spiral of silence theory, developed by German political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, explains how people remain silent when they perceive their views as the minority.…

A New Look at the Classic Robbers Cave Experiment

A sports tournament led boys to something like inter-tribal war..

Posted December 9, 2009

[ Social media counts reset to zero on this post.]

I begin with a research story, a true one.

In the early 1950s, the social psychologist Muzafer Sherif and his colleagues conducted a now-classic experiment, on intergroup conflict and resolution of conflict, with 11- and 12-year-old boys at a summer camp in Oklahoma's Robbers Cave Park.[1] Sherif's procedure involved three phases:

(1) He began by dividing the boys, by a random procedure, into two distinct groups, who slept in different parts of the camp and were given separate sets of chores and activities, so they could develop a sense of group identity .

(2) Then he established conditions designed to induce hostility between the two groups. (Experiments of this sort could be done in the 1950s--a time before the era of research ethics review boards, and a time, before cell phones, when parents did not feel compelled to check up on their camping kids. The boys did not know they were participants in an experiment; they thought that they had been invited to take part in a regular camping experience.)

(3) Once the groups were sufficiently hostile, he tried various methods to reduce the hostility.

The famous result of the experiment--repeated in most introductory psychology textbooks, including my own--was that hostilities were best reduced by establishing superordinate goals , defined as goals that were desired by both groups and could be achieved best through intergroup cooperation . For example, to create one such goal the researchers staged a breakdown in the camp's water supply. In response to this crisis, the boys temporarily forgot their differences and worked cooperatively to explore the mile-long water line and find the break. With each such cooperative adventure, hostilities between the groups abated, and by the end of a series of such adventures the boys were arranging many friendly cross-group interactions on their own initiative.

Sherif's focus in this experiment was on ways to reduce intergroup hostility, but my focus here is on his method for creating the hostility, something not generally discussed in the textbooks. His procedure was remarkably simple. In phase two he invited the two groups of boys to compete with one another in a tournament involving a series of competitive games--including several games of baseball, touch football, and tug of war--all refereed by the camp staff. The members of the winning team would receive prizes, such as pocketknives, that were much valued by the boys. Formal sports conducted for prizes--that was how Sherif and is colleagues generated animosity between the groups. It apparently worked like a charm, not just in this experiment, but also in others that Sherif and his colleagues had conducted earlier.

As the series of games progressed, the two groups became increasingly antagonistic. Initial good sportsmanship gave way gradually to name-calling, harassment, accusations of cheating, and cheating in retaliation. As the hostilities mounted, they spread to camp life outside of the games as well as in the games. Even though the boys all came from the same background (white, Protestant, middle class) and had been divided into groups by a purely random procedure, they began to think of the boys in the other group as very different from themselves--as dirty cheaters who needed to be taught a lesson. Serious fistfights broke out on several occasions. Raids were conducted on the cabin of the opposing group. Some boys carried socks with stones in them, to use as weapons "if necessary." One group pulled down and burned the other group's flag. Many of the boys declared a desire not to eat meals in the same mess hall with the other group; and joint meals, when held, became battlegrounds where boys hurled insults and sometimes food at members of the other group. What at first was a peaceful camping experience turned gradually into something verging on intertribal warfare, all created by a series of formal sporting events.

Formal sports occupy a precarious space between play and reality

Let's step back momentarily from this experiment and reflect a bit on boys' play in general.

Much of boys' play involves mock battles. In some cases the battles lie purely in the realm of fantasy . The boys collaboratively create the battle scenes, decide who will play which parts, and, as they go along, decide who is wounded, or dies, or is resurrected. Some people, who don't understand boys' play, mistake such play for violence and try to stop it, especially when it is acted out in a vigorous, rough-and-tumble manner. But it isn't violence; it's play. We should think of those players not as warriors but as junior improvisational Shakespeares. They are using their imaginations to create and stage dramatic, emotion -inspiring stories. Play of this sort is non-competitive as well as nonviolent. No score is kept; nobody wins or loses; all are just acting out parts. There are also no fixed teams in play of this sort. If the play involves pretend armies, the players arrange the armies differently for each bout of play. Such play does not create enemies; rather, it cements friendships.

A step removed from such fantasy battles is the informal play of team games such as baseball, soccer, and basketball--games that are referred to as "sports" when played formally. These games, too, can be thought of as mock battles. There are two teams (armies), who invade one another's territory, defend their own territory from invaders, and strive to conquer one another, all ritualized by the rules of the game. By "informal" play of these games, I mean that the games are organized entirely by the players and have no obvious consequences outside of the game context. There are no trophies or prizes, no official records of victories or losses kept from one game to the next, no fans who praise winners or disparage losers. These games may be classed as "competitive," but they are really, at most, only pseudo-competitive. A score may be kept, and the players may cheer happily each time their team scores, but, in the end, nobody cares who won. The "losers" go home just as happy as the "winners." These games, too, cement friendships and do not create enemies. I wrote about the valuable lessons learned in play of this sort in my post of Nov. 11, 2009 .

If the boys in Sherif's experiments had played informal games of baseball, touch football, and tug of war, rather than formal ones, I doubt that hostilities would have resulted. With no prizes or acknowledgments of victories and losses from outside authorities, the players would have focused more on having fun and less on winning. With no adult referee, the players would have had to cooperate to establish the ground rules for each game and judge consensually when rules had or had not been broken. They would have had to argue out and negotiate their differences. Cheating and name calling, if they went too far, would destroy the fun and end the game. Players who weren't having fun would quit, so the only way to keep the game going would be to play in ways designed to ensure that everyone had fun. Boys everywhere know how to do that. In fact, it is reasonable to suppose that such informal games, if they occurred, would have brought the two groups of boys closer together because of the cooperation required, much like searching for the break in the water line.

Fantasy battles and informal sports are pure play, and pure play creates friendships, not enemies. Formal sports are not pure play, and therefore they have the capacity, under some conditions, to create enemies. Formal sports lie outside of the realm of pure play because they are controlled by officials who are not themselves players and because they have clear out-of-game consequences, in such forms as prizes or praise for victory. (See Nov. 19, 2008 , post on the definition of play.) In formal sports it is not as clear as it is in informal sports that the battle is merely a pretend battle.

Formal sports occupy a space somewhere between play and reality, and, depending on a wide array of factors, a formal game can shift more toward one than the other. When the balance shifts too far toward reality, a defeat is a real defeat, not a pretend one, and those defeated may begin to perceive the other team as real enemies. Sherif and his colleagues apparently found a formula for setting up formal sports in a manner that quickly moved from play to real battles.

And now, what do you think about this? … This blog is, in part, a forum for discussion. Your questions, thoughts, stories, and opinions are treated respectfully by me and other readers, regardless of the degree to which we agree or disagree. Psychology Today no longer accepts comments on this site, but you can comment by going to my Facebook profile, where you will see a link to this post. If you don't see this post near the top of my timeline, just put the title of the post into the search option (click on the three-dot icon at the top of the timeline and then on the search icon that appears in the menu) and it will come up. By following me on Facebook you can comment on all of my posts and see others' comments. The discussion is often very interesting.

----------- NOTES [1] Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. E., & Sherif, C. S. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment . Norman: University of Oklahoma Book Exchange.

Peter Gray, Ph.D. , is a research professor at Boston College, author of Free to Learn and the textbook Psychology (now in 8th edition), and founding member of the nonprofit Let Grow.

Find Counselling
Find a Support Group
Find Online Therapy
United Kingdom
Asperger's
Bipolar Disorder
Chronic Pain
Eating Disorders
Passive Aggression
Personality
Goal Setting
Positive Psychology
Stopping Smoking
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
Child Development
Self Tests NEW
Therapy Center
Diagnosis Dictionary
Types of Therapy

It’s increasingly common for someone to be diagnosed with a condition such as ADHD or autism as an adult. A diagnosis often brings relief, but it can also come with as many questions as answers.

Emotional Intelligence
Gaslighting
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience

Skip to main content
Skip to header right navigation
Skip to site footer

Everyday Psych

The Robbers Cave Experiment

Peace is not an absence of conflict, it is the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means. — Ronald Reagan

Lately, it’s felt like groups are more and more in conflict with each other. Republicans versus Democrats. Nation One versus Nation Two. Ninjas versus Pirates. (Obviously Team Ninja over here.) And in understanding these tensions–and solutions to them–there is an illustrative story I will share.

The story of one of social psychology’s most infamous experiments.

STAGE ONE: TWENTY-TWO YOUNG BOYS

In the summer of 1954, an increasingly well-known social psychologist, Muzafer Sherif, randomly selected twenty-two well-adjusted boys about 12 years old and from similar, middle-class backgrounds. They were all in the same year at school but had never interacted with one another before. The plan, then, was to have them participate in a very unique summer camp…

Before arriving at the 200-acre camp in Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma, the boys were randomly divided into two groups and brought to the camp in separate buses and housed in cabins on opposing ends.

Once these identities began to form, the researchers let slip that there was another group of boys on the same campgrounds. And almost immediately, an interesting change overtook the groups. For example, without any prompting, each group began insistently asking the researchers to let them engage in competitions with the other group. Moreover, each group began to become very protective of their facilities, even complaining that the other group might abuse them.

Then, with tensions on the rise, the researchers introduced some actual friction…

STAGE TWO: TROUBLE BREWS

Without actually initiating any competitions, the counselors expressed that they would have some competitive activities between the groups. And importantly, the winning side would receive medals, trophies, and prizes.

Upon learning this, a fire began to burn in those little boy hearts.

And when the two groups were actually brought together for the first time in the cafeteria, “there was considerable name-calling, razzing back and forth, and singing derogatory songs by each group in turn” (Sherif, 1961). Soon, there was talk within each groups of burning the opposing group’s flag. And after The Eagles defeated The Rattlers in a series of competitions (through the discreet aid of the researchers), The Rattlers organized a raid on The Eagles, stealing any medals and toys they could get their hands on.

In fact, the two groups nearly came to blows were it not for the researchers’ intervention as the previous name-calling of “braggers” and “stinkers” turned to much more offensive remarks. In short, the conflict between groups had become very, very real…

STAGE THREE: PACIFYING TENSIONS

At first, the researchers tried a number of “get-to-know-you” activities, such as sharing a meal, a movie, and even fireworks for the Fourth of July. However, these attempts only provoked the boys further, many of the events ending in more name-calling or even food fights.

At which point, the researchers tested out their primary hypothesis: activating a superordinate (i.e., higher-order) goal can bring conflicting groups together . That is, the researchers crafted problems that required solutions beyond the resources either one group could provide.

For example, the researchers convinced the boys that all the drinking water for the camp had been blocked because of “vandals” in the area. Bringing both groups to the pipe proving to be the root of the issue, the boys had to work together to figure out how to get water for everyone.

And amazingly, as antagonistic as the groups has become, by the end of the camp, they wanted to take the same bus back; they wanted to sit across party lines; and when they stopped at a refreshment stand, The Rattlers—who had been awarded $5 for winning one of the earlier activities—volunteered to use that money to buy malted milks for all the boys.

STAGE NEXT: APPLYING IT TO OUR OWN LIVES

This famous study illustrates (and led to the development of) realistic conflict theory . This theory specifies that when there are limited resources—be that food and drink, jobs, political clout, reputation—conflict will naturally breed between groups.

Importantly, though, these resources don’t even need to actually be limited; they could simply be perceived as limited. For example, even if immigrants aren’t depriving native born workers from job opportunities, the mere perception that they could be can lead to conflict and prejudice against them.

So, when thinking about our own world, one way to reduce these conflicts is to categorize ourselves in more encompassing groups, rather than ones in competition. For example, rather than thinking about us as Democrats versus Republicans, we should think of ourselves all as Americans in pursuit of shared, superordinate goals (e.g., the opportunity for happiness for all).

Thus, the next time you feel some negativity toward another group, try to focus on the bigger picture and don’t be outclassed by some 12-year-old boys 😉

A-28-year-old-boy, jdt

Psych•o•philosophy to Ponder : In addition to trying to activate shared goals and common group identity, another prominent theory for reducing tensions between groups come from Gordon Allport’s famous contact hypothesis . Here, research shows that meaningful interactions between groups leads to reduced group antagonism. For example, if Democrats and Republicans got together to spend meaningful time together (e.g., doing activities they both enjoy, working together on a problem, etc.), it would help reduce some of the prejudice they hold for one another. Importantly, though, not all intergroup contact results in better outcomes. For example, if people are in the same area (e.g., a subway car) but don’t actually have substantial interactions with another, this kind of contact can actually backfire, making people have even more prejudice toward the outgroup member.

Sherif, M. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment (Vol. 10, pp. 150-198). Norman, OK: University Book Exchange.

The Robbers Cave experiment Muzafer Sherif

The robbers cave experiment muzafer sherif et al (1954).

Chinese Terracotta Warriors
Otzi the Iceman
The Antikythera Mechanism
More Archaeology pages ...
Stanley Milgram : Obedience to Authority Experiments
Conformity under Social Pressure : Solomon Asch
The Nature vs Nurture Debate
More Social Psychology pages ...
Point Rosee - Viking settlement site?
Sarah Parcak ~ Space Archaeologist
Dr Sarah Parcak discoveries
Street plan of Tanis
More Space Archaeology pages ...
Stephen Fry quotations and quotes on God and Religion
Stephen Fry's controversial interview on Irish TV
Stephen Hawking : God & Religion quotes
'God is dead' - Nietzsche
More Quotations & Quotes pages ...
Maximilien Robespierre : Reign of Terror
Otto von Bismarck
More Historical Biography pages ...
The European Revolutions of 1848
Cavour & Italian Unification
Bismarck & German Unification
More History pages ...
The Faith vs. Reason Debate
World Religions Populations Statistics
Central spiritual insights
Other spiritual wisdoms
More Spirituality pages ...
Buddha's teachings
Buddhist Philosophy
Buddhism vs. Christianity
More Buddhism pages ...
Our Downloads page ...

The unknown Muzafer Sherif

Aysel Kayaoğlu, Sertan Batur and Ersin Aslıtürk consider the social psychologist and political activist.

26 November 2014

Muzafer Sherif's life was shaped by his experience of a turbulent historical period: the final years of the Ottoman Empire, the rise of the Turkish Republic, one party regime in Turkey, the Great Depression of 1929, Hitler's rise in Germany, the Second World War, McCarthyism in the US in the 1950s and finally the Cold War period (Aslıtürk & Batur, 2007, pp.9-10). Sherif developed his social psychology in a catastrophic context of war and ideological conflicts. Moreover, he was actively involved in the politics of these times, particularly during his years in Turkey.

Looking at his entire life, one cannot help thinking that there are two Sherifs: one is a brilliant social psychologist; the other is a political activist who had to flee his country and died in exile. Sherif's life, like his times, was full of difficulties. His life was divided between Turkey and the US. This sharp separation of life between two countries can be seen as a voyage from Muzaffer Sherif to Muzafer Sherif, from one life to another (Batur & Aslıtürk, 2007). As Çetik (2007) states, for Sherif, there was a transition from the 'membership group' to the 'reference group'. Nonetheless, the two sides of Sherif, and the two periods of his life, are also intimately interlinked. Sherif's academic work was social in the sense that it was immensely influenced by sociopolitical events. He passionately devoted all his scientific activity to the ideal of universal peace and cooperation. And we can only understand how that happened if we try to recover his 'unknown' early years in Turkey.

Sherif's early years

Muzafer Sherif was born Muzaffer S¸erif Bas¸og˘lu in 1905. He came from a small town (Ödemis¸, near Izmir) in 1905, one of the five children of a wealthy family. After attending the Elementary School of Ödemis¸ for six years, Sherif, like the children of other well-to-do families, went to Izmir International College (Çetik, 2007). By 1922, when Sherif was 17 years old, he had lived 11 years of his life in a country riven by war and ethnic conflict (see Ahmad, 1993; Zürcher, 1993). He had witnessed rising nationalisms, during the 1911 Libyan War, the 1912 and 1913 Balkan Wars and the 1914 outbreak of the First World War, during which the Ottoman Empire was an ally of Germany. He had lived through the deportation of Armenians in 1915 (even in a little place like Ödemis¸ some 1500 people were expelled – see Kévorkian, 2006), and between 1918 and 1924, while in Izmir, he had witnessed the occupation of the city by Greek soldiers, and then reoccupation by Turkish soldiers during the Turkish National Independence War. Sherif saw his survival as a 'miracle' (Trotter, 1985).

After graduating from International College in 1924, Sherif enrolled in the Philosophy Department at Istanbul University. He also participated in political debates on the modernisation (which Sherif strongly supported) and westernisation processes in the new Turkish society. In this context, the young student became interested in McDougall's 'hormic psychology' (which, in contrast to behaviourism, emphasised the purposive and goal-directed nature of human action). Sherif translated McDougall's Physiological Psychology (1905) into Turkish and also, by way of comparison, the behaviourism chapter of Ogden's Meaning of Psychology (1926). After graduating, Sherif went to the US for his MA and PhD studies.

Sherif's MA years were the time of the Great Depression in the US. Under the influence of Gordon Allport at Harvard, he widened the scope of his intellectual interests towards other fields of social sciences. During this period Sherif was moving away from McDougall's intentionalism towards a focus on the social structuration of perception and understanding. This change led him to experimental studies of 'prestige-suggestion' which became the subject of his MA thesis (Batur, 2014).

After finishing his MA degree at Harvard, Sherif visited Europe in 1932. Under the influence of two of his teachers, Gordon Allport and Caroll Pratt, he went to Berlin in order to attend the lectures of Köhler. Here he witnessed the rise of Nazism (Granberg & Sarup, 1992). Intellectually, Sherif's letters to Allport reveal that he was planning to work on a social psychological theory of (social) perception based on gestalt principles (Samelson, 2007).

In the autumn of 1933 Sherif went back to Harvard for his PhD. He contributed to the work of Hadley Cantril and Gordon Allport on radio psychology (Cantril & Allport, 1935) and developed a psychology of slogans (Sherif, 1937a). In terms of sociopolitical developments, there were Roosevelt's New Deal policies against the economic crisis, and in 1935 the Comintern took a decision to promote broad popular fronts with social democratic parties in order to form a worldwide anti-fascist front. These developments constituted a convenient milieu for communist ideas in the US, especially among academic circles. Like other Turkish intellectuals who visited the US in those years (Atılgan, 2009), Sherif is thought to be influenced by this context and to have developed a Marxist social analysis to stand beside his psychological gestaltism. He was influenced by the Deweyian socialist journal Social Frontier, which supported collectivism against individualism, and on his return to Turkey he continued to promote both the journal and Dewey's ideas (Sherif, 1937b). Sherif fell out with Allport both personally and intellectually and so transferred from Harvard to Columbia, where he completed his PhD with Gardner Murphy. His thesis was titled 'A study of some social factors in perception' (1935). His main question was 'What is the psychological basis of social norms or frames of reference, and how do they work?' (p.10). The work has since gained foundational status in social psychology through its publication, in 1936, as A Psychology of Social Norms.

After the doctorate Sherif returned to Turkey where his politics, his psychology, and the links between them, became ever more clearly defined. He was in contact with the Communist Party of Turkey. During the years of WWII, he published in Adımlar [Steps] journal with Behice Boran, another Marxist sociologist and important political figure after the war. Sherif struggled against the rising tide of fascism and racism in Turkey (e.g. Sherif, 1943a, 1944). Like many, he believed in modernisation, but he was distinctive both in distinguishing modernisation from westernisation and in challenging top-down models of social change.

At the social psychological level, Sherif honed the idea that human thoughts, goals and desires (our ego functions, in his terms) are not inborn or absolute, but take shape in society. It is not that people are inherently individualistic and antagonistic, thus legitimising a society based on private property as a reflection of 'human nature'. It is more that a society based on private property creates atomised and antagonistic individuals. Hence, if we want to challenge moral collapse in society, education is insufficient, we need to change the fundamental structure of our world. Social harmony depends upon creating a harmonious social order. But if society creates the person, Sherif also believed that people are active agents in creating society. More specifically, he proposed that individuals don't just operate within a pre-given frame of reference but are able to develop their own frames of reference (Sherif, 1938a,b). Sadly, however, this important work has never been translated from the Turkish.

Sherif's increasingly bold rhetoric did not go unnoticed, especially when he began to attack those important Turkish bureaucrats who supported the Nazis. But Sherif was not deterred. He explicitly sided with the anti-fascist camp during a conflict at his university. He boldly opposed a discrimination case targeting a Jewish student (Batur, 2013). He published a book against racism Irk Psikolojisi [Race Psychology] (1943b). All this led him to be detained in 1944 as part of a process targeting members of the Turkish Communist Party. He was released after four weeks and he then left Turkey in early 1945 with a US State Scholarship. In 1947 Sherif was dismissed from his position at Ankara University, ostensibly because he was married to a foreigner, but in reality because of his politics. All the other anti-fascist professors were dismissed from the university in 1948. In 1951 many of his close friends were arrested during an anti-communist purge. Sherif's links with his homeland had come to a close.

Years of exile

Sherif produced some of his important work in the early days of his return to US. First, working with Hadley Cantril at Princeton, he produced his clearest statement of the social basis of human psychology. This was The Psychology of Ego Involvements, published in 1947 – just before the Cold War gained momentum and a period in which anti-fascist, anti-racist and Marxist ideas were popular in social scientific academic circles in US.

In the book Sherif and Cantril compared Soviet and American societies, arguing that very different values and beliefs flowed from very different socio-cultural contexts. Once again, Sherif's enduring message was clear: an individualistic, competitive and conflictual society is not unavoidable (Aslıtürk, in press). After his period at Princeton, Sherif moved to Yale and soon thereafter to Oklahoma where he remained until 1966. In the 1950s his political views became less popular. The Cold War, McCarthyite witch hunts in the US (which touched Sherif himself insofar as he was the subject of a comprehensive FBI investigation in 1951 – see Batur, in press) and the oppression of his friends in Turkey all took their toll on Sherif personally, politically and professionally (Aslıtürk & Cherry, 2003). He became less explicit about his Marxism. But nonetheless one can still see a continuity in his core ideas.

This is apparent in the second of Sherif's core contributions of his exile years. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, along with his collaborators (notably his wife Carolyn) he devoted his intellectual energies to reconceptualising social psychology as a discipline. He edited a series of influential texts including An Outline of Social Psychology (Sherif, 1948), Social Psychology at the Crossroads (Rohrer & Sherif, 1951), Group Relations at the Crossroads (Sherif & Wilson, 1953), Groups in Harmony and Tension (Sherif & Sherif, 1953) and Emerging Problems in Social Psychology (Sherif & Wilson, 1957). In these volumes, he argued for a more 'social' social psychology, for methodological plurality, and for interdisciplinarity. Most fundamentally, he sought to combat the emergence of individualistic and reductionist explanations of human behaviour (see Granberg & Sarup, 1992) and to insist on the social structuration of the human mind

This message is perhaps at its clearest in the most famous of Sherif's post-war contributions, his boys' camp field experiments conducted with Carolyn Sherif, which gave rise to 'realistic conflict theory' (Sherif et al., 1961). At one level the message of this work is disarmingly simple: psychological relations between group members reflect functional relations between groups. But at another level the message could hardly be more profound, both theoretically, methodologically and politically. Group behaviour cannot be reduced to intrapersonal tendencies or interpersonal conflicts. It depends on social structural factors. Consequently, group behaviour must be studied in its context, and we must employ rich methods that make this possible (Valentim, 2007). Finally as Cherry (1995, p.106) states, 'the Sherifs were bringing an optimistic and liberatory message that people could get along and work for common goals if the conditions were right'; this even in the dark days of the Cold War.

Even at the end of his career, in the 1970s Sherif maintained his focus. In critical interventions in the debate on the so-called crisis in social psychology (On the Relevance of Social Psychology, 1970; Crisis in Social Psychology: Some Remarks Towards Breaking Through the Crisis, 1977), Sherif questioned the values guiding social scientific studies. He argued that the characterisation crisis in social psychology as the 'crisis of confidence' was itself a psychologisation of the crisis. He was critical of the 'publish or perish' attitude in academy. He stated that 'mostly because of the unrelated idiosyncratic variables and scientistic technical sophistications' research in social psychology was 'too myopic, too ethnocentric, too fragmented and too incoherent' (p.372). Above all, he insisted that any solution to the crisis depended upon a clear and critical perspective on the nature of the social world. Without that, social psychology will always be inadequate.

Sherif retired from Pennsylvania State University in 1972. He died, in Alaska, in 1988. His work on social norms and on the boys' camps is still cited in the textbooks, but in a way that divorces them from the wider intellectual project that Sherif pursued throughout his career.

That project remains to be discovered in full and to be acknowledged in psychology and beyond. What is more, such a (re-)discovery is important in order to understand that the current problems of (social) psychology are not really new, and a solution of these problems requires political and 'social' commitments, a clearer understanding of the social nature of mind, and not simply greater methodological sophistication and technical progress. We believe that the roots of such understanding can be traced in Sherif's own scholarship and that scrutiny of his personal and academic life will pave the way to scrutinise our own positions and responsibilities.

Aysel Kayaoğlu is at Anadolu University, Eskisehir, Turkey [email protected]

Sertan Batur is at the University of Vienna, Austria

Ersin Aslıtürk is at Ottawa University, Canada

Ahmad, F. (1993). The making of modern Turkey. London; New York: Routledge. Aslıtürk, E. (in press). Muzafer Sherif in America: Confidence, crisis and beyond. In A. Dost-Gözkan & D. Sönmez Keith (Eds.) Norms, group, conflict, and social change: Rediscovering Muzafer Sherif's psychology. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Aslıtürk, E. & Batur, S. (2007). Muzaffer Şerif'ten Muzafer Sherif'e: Giriş. In S. Batur & E. Aslıtürk (Eds.). Muzaffer Şerif'e armağan: Muzaffer Şerif'ten Muzafer Şerif'e (pp.9–20). Istanbul: İletişim. Aslıtürk, E. & Cherry, F. (2003). Muzafer Sherif: The interconnection of politics and profession. History and Philosophy of Psychology Bulletin, 15, 11–16. Atılgan, G. (2009). Behice Boran: Öğretim üyesi, siyasetçi, kuramcı [Behice Boran: Academician, politician, theoretician]. Istanbul: Yordam. Batur, S. (2013). Muzaffer Şerif'in Türkçe metinleri neden okunmalı? Muzaffer Şerif Sempozyumu, 3–4 November, Ödemiş, Izmir. Batur, S. (2014). A young scientist in a changing world: Muzafer Sherif's early years in Turkey. (Unpublished manuscripts). University of Vienna. Batur, S. (in press). Muzafer Sherif in FBI files. In A. Dost-Gözkan & S. Sönmez Keith (Eds.) Norms, groups, conflict, and social change: Rediscovering Muzafer Sherif's psychology. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Batur, S. & Aslıtürk, E. (Eds.) (2007). Muzaffer Şerif'e armağan: Muzaffer Şerif'ten Muzafer Şerif'e. Istanbul: İletişim. Cantril, H. & Allport, G.W. (1935). The psychology of radio. New York: Harper & Bros. Cherry, F. (1995). The stubborn particulars of social psychology: Essays on the research process. London: Routledge. Çetik, M. (2007). Muzaffer Şerif karanlık odada: Türkiye yılları. In S. Batur & E. Aslıtürk (Eds.) Muzaffer Şerif'e armağan: Muzaffer Şerif'ten Muzafer Şerif'e (pp.23–54). Istanbul: İletişim. Granberg, D & Sarup, G. (1992). Muzafer Sherif: Portrait of a passionate intellectual. In D. Granberg & G. Sarup (Eds). Social judgment and intergroup relations: Essays in honor of Muzafer Sherif (pp.3–54). New York: Springer -Verlag. Kévorkian, R. (2006). Le génocide des Arméniens [Armenian genocide]. Paris: Odile Jacob. McDougall, W. (1905). Physiological psychology. London: J.M. Dent. Ogden, C.K. (1926). The meaning of psychology. New York/London: Harper & Bros. Rohrer, J.H. & Sherif, M. (Eds.) (1951). Social psychology at the crossroads. New York: Harper. Samelson, F. (2007). Muzaffer Şerif'in sosyal psikoloji görüşlerinin doğuşu üzerine bir not [A note on the emergence of Muzafer Sherif's views of social psychology]. In S. Batur & E. Aslıtürk (Eds.) Muzaffer Şerif'e armağan: Muzaffer Şerif'ten Muzafer Şerif'e (pp.131–135). Istanbul: İletişim. Sherif, M. (1935). A study of some social factors in perception. Archives of Psychology, 187, 1–60. Sherif, M. (1936). A psychology of social norms. Oxford: Harper. Sherif, M. (1937a). The psychology of slogans. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 32, 450–461. Sherif, M. (1937b). Roosevelt Amerikasında terbiyede fertçiliğin yıkılışı [The collapse of individualism in Roosevelt America]. Ülkü, 10(55), 43–49. Sherif, M. (1938a). 'Tab-ı beşer' hakkında [On essence of man]. İnsan, 1(2), 109–116. Sherif, M. (1938b). Benliğin doyurulması [Satisfaction of ego]. İnsan, 1(3), 197–203. Sherif, M. (1943a). Hümanizma görüşümüz [Our humanism view], Adımlar, 1(8), 249–251. Sherif, M. (1943b). Irk psikolojisi [Race psychology]. Istanbul: Üniversite Kitabevi. Sherif, M. (1944). İleri fikir geri fikir münakaşası [Discussion on progressive thought and backward thought]. Adımlar, 1(9), 305–306. Sherif, M. (1948). An outline of social psychology. New York: Harper. Sherif, M. (1970). On the relevance of social psychology. American Psychologist, 25, 144–156. Sherif, M. (1977). Crisis in social psychology: Some remarks towards breaking through the crisis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 368–382. Sherif, M. & Cantril, H. (1947). The psychology of ego-involvements: Social attitudes and identifications. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Sherif, M. & Sherif, C.W. (1953). Groups in harmony and tension. New York: Harper. Sherif, M. & Wilson, M.O. (Eds.) (1953). Group relations at the crossroads. New York: Harper. Sherif, M. & Wilson, M.O. (Eds.) (1957). Emerging problems in social psychology. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Book Exchange. Sherif, M., Harvey, O.J., White, B.J. et al. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Book Exchange. Trotter, R.J. (September, 1985). Muzafer Sherif: a life of conflict and goals. Psychology Today. 19, p.54. Valentim, J.P. (2007). Sherif'in teorik görüşleri ve gruplar arası ilişki Çalışmaları: Olumlu bir karşılıklı bağımlılık için notlar [Sherif theoretical concepts and intergroup relations studies: Notes for a positive interdependence]. In S. Batur & E. Aslıtürk (Eds.) Muzaffer Şerif'e armağan: Muzaffer Şerif'ten Muzafer Şerif'e (pp.179–192). Istanbul: İletişim. Zürcher, E.J. (1993). Turkey: A modern history. London/New York: Tauris.

A Pretty Face — level 0

The Ace of Pentacles

The woman who refused to die.

Mysterious Vatican disappearance.

Good walkers.

The Lion Man.

Athanasius Kircher — the last Renaissance man

What triggers your emotions?

Blanket/comforter/quilt

The habits that reveal personalities

Milgram’s Experiment 1963

We seek out loyalty to social groups and are easily drawn…

We’re easily corrupted by power.

We can experience deeply conflicting moral impulses.

English words — 07.04.2024

We seek out loyalty to social groups and are easily drawn to intergroup conflict..

This classic 1950s social psychology experiment shined a light on the possible psychological basis of why social groups and countries find themselves embroiled in conflict with one another — and how they can learn to cooperate again.

Study leader Muzafer Sherif took two groups of 11 boys (all age 11) to Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma for “summer camp.” The groups (named the “Eagles” and the “Rattlers”) spent a week apart, having fun together and bonding, with no knowledge of the existence of the other group. When the two groups finally integrated, the boys started calling each other names, and when they started competing in various games, more conflict ensued and eventually the groups refused to eat together. In the next phase of the research, Sherif designed experiments to try to reconcile the boys by having them enjoy leisure activities together (which was unsuccessful) and then having them solve a problem together, which finally began to ease the conflict.

The Mark of Zorro — level 3

Dolphin Music-level 5

Little Women — level — 4

Audio books.

IMAGES

The Lost Boys: Inside Muzafer Sherif’s Robbers Cave Experiment By Gina
Real-life Lord of the Flies: Muzafer Sherif’s experiment revealed
Cave Robbers Experiment-Muzafer Sherif
Muzafer Sherif's Robbers Cave Experiment (1954): The Psychology of
🌘El experimento de Muzafer Sheriff
PPT

VIDEO

Mm2 bush fail
Raashidh Matriculation School Teacher's wellness Camp! #sheriffitcoach #educationalvideo
How Sufism led this refuge from Kuwait to complete the Explorer Grand Slam
The Robbers Cave Experiment (1954)🌟 MindQuest Experiments
Chinnuz Summer Camp Experiment Activity
1st safer muzafer 1446 on 7 August 2024 Wednesday

COMMENTS

Robbers Cave Experiment
The Robbers Cave Experiment, conducted by Muzafer Sherif in the 1950s, studied intergroup conflict and cooperation among 22 boys in Oklahoma. Initially separated into two groups, they developed group identities. Introducing competitive tasks led to hostility between groups. Later, cooperative tasks reduced this conflict, highlighting the role of shared goals in resolving group tensions.
What Was the Robbers Cave Experiment in Psychology?
Elizabeth Hopper. Updated on August 26, 2024. The Robbers Cave experiment was a famous psychology study that looked at how conflict develops between groups. The researchers divided boys at a summer camp into two groups, and they studied how conflict developed between them. They also investigated what did and didn't work to reduce group conflict.
The Robbers Cave Experiment: Realistic Conflict Theory
As a field experiment, the Robbers Cave study attempted to create the sort of intergroup conflict that impacts people from all walks of life the world over. While the study was a success and had a good outcome, critics argue that the study suffers from a number of possible problems. Artificially-created situation: First, while Sherif and his ...
Robbers Cave Experiment
The year before, the Rockefeller Foundation gave psychologist Muzafer Sherif $38,000 to conduct a fascinating research experiment. Tired of working with lab rats, Sherif set out to do something unusual - an experiment that one could say mirrored Lord of the Flies. He ended up putting together the Robbers Cave Experiment.
Robbers Cave Experiment: The Real-Life 'Lord Of The Flies'
The First Experiment: Camp Middle Grove. Muzafer Sherif was born in the Ottoman Empire and won a slot to study psychology at Harvard. He quickly realized that lab research on rats was too confining and he wanted a more complex subject: humans. Fascination with social psychology had, with reason, reached a peak following WWII, and so Sherif was ...
Sherif Summer Camp Study
Muzafer Sherif's Summer Camp Study, also widely known as the Robbers Cave experiment (Sherif et al., 1961), is a classic study in psychology. Performed over a three-week period in 1954 ... From: Sherif Summer Camp Study in The Oxford International Encyclopedia of Peace ». Subjects: Social sciences — Warfare and Defence.
Realistic conflict theory
The 1954 Robbers Cave experiment (or Robbers Cave study) by Muzafer Sherif and Carolyn Wood Sherif represents one of the most widely known demonstrations of RCT. [4] The Sherifs' study was conducted over three weeks in a 200-acre summer camp in Robbers Cave State Park, Oklahoma, focusing on intergroup behavior. [3] In this study, researchers posed as camp personnel, observing 22 eleven- and ...
PDF Forgotten Classic: The Robbers Cave Experiment
Muzafer Sherif's classic work, best known as the "Robbers Cave experi-. ment" has become a forgotten monograph within a forgotten specialty. In 1954 Sherif and his colleagues at the University of Oklahoma selected a group of 20 boys, divided them in two groups (the Eagles and the Rattlers), bussed them to a state park, and watched for 3 weeks ...
Robbers Cave Experiment
The Robbers Cave Experiment was a classic study conducted by psychologist Muzafer Sherif and his colleagues in 1954. It aimed to investigate intergroup relations and conflict. The experiment involved boys at a summer camp who were divided into two groups, the Eagles and the Rattlers.
A New Look at the Classic Robbers Cave Experiment
In the early 1950s, the social psychologist Muzafer Sherif and his colleagues conducted a now-classic experiment, on intergroup conflict and resolution of conflict, with 11- and 12-year-old boys ...
The Robbers Cave Experiment
STAGE ONE: TWENTY-TWO YOUNG BOYS. In the summer of 1954, an increasingly well-known social psychologist, Muzafer Sherif, randomly selected twenty-two well-adjusted boys about 12 years old and from similar, middle-class backgrounds. They were all in the same year at school but had never interacted with one another before.
The Robbers Cave Psychology Experiment
Muzafer Sherif's Study on Conflict and Cooperation Between 1949 and 1954, Muzafer Sherif and colleagues studied inter-group conflict and cooperation among pre-teen boys at summer camps. From their studies they learned a lot about group dynamics and what they called realistic conflict theory, which explains how hostility can develop when goals ...
The Robbers Cave Experiment
Originally issued in 1954 and updated in 1961 and 1987, this pioneering study of "small group" conflict and cooperation has long been out-of-print. It is now available, in cloth and paper, with a new introduction by Donald Campbell, and a new postscript by O.J. Harvey.In this famous experiment, one of the earliest in inter-group relationships, two dozen twelve-year-old boys in summer camp were ...
Muzafer Sherif
Muzafer Sherif was born as Muzaffer Şerif Başoğlu and grew up in a wealthy family that included five children, of whom he was the second born. He attended Elementary School in Ödemiş for six years and then attended Izmir International College from which he received a Bachelor of Arts in 1926.
Intergroup relations and conflict: Revisiting Sherif's Boys' Camp studies
From 1949 to 1954, the Turkish-born social psychologist Muzafer Sherif and his colleagues conducted three field experiments with schoolboys who were attending summer camps in various locations in the United States. The studies came to be known collectively as 'the Boys' Camp studies', and they are probably the most famous and influential field studies in the discipline of social psychology.
The Robbers Cave experiment Muzafer Sherif social psychology
The Robbers Cave ExperimentMuzafer Sherif et al (1954) The Robbers Cave experiment on intergroup conflict and co-operation was carried out by Muzafer and Carolyn Sherif and others as a part of research program at the University of Oklahoma. This large-scale Intergroup Relations Project was established as an interdisciplinary "psychological" and ...
The unknown Muzafer Sherif
Muzafer Sherif was born Muzaffer S¸erif Bas¸og˘lu in 1905. He came from a small town (Ödemis¸, near Izmir) in 1905, one of the five children of a wealthy family. After attending the Elementary School of Ödemis¸ for six years, Sherif, like the children of other well-to-do families, went to Izmir International College (Çetik, 2007).
(PDF) The formation of social norms: Revisiting Sherif's autokinetic
This is the ultimate ques tion behind Muzafer Sherif's research on norm. formation and the reason that his research using th e autokinetic illusion is as relevant today as it. was when he first ...
The Image of the Enemy and the Process of Change
The power of this approach has been illustrated by a classic sociological experiment at a boys' camp in which the mutual hostility of two rival groups was overcome when they had to cooperate to achieve goals that both wanted but neither could achieve alone.6. ... Muzafer Sherif and Carolyn W. Sherif, In Common Predicament: ...
We seek out loyalty to social groups and are easily drawn to intergroup
6421. This classic 1950s social psychology experiment shined a light on the possible psychological basis of why social groups and countries find themselves embroiled in conflict with one another — and how they can learn to cooperate again. Study leader Muzafer Sherif took two groups of 11 boys (all age 11) to Robbers Cave State Park in ...
Mass Communications and International Image Change
Abstract. In the past, mass communications have not been considered a particularly effective device in furthering international accord. From three previously separate bodies of theory, this research formulates a theory of relatively confirmed/discon firmed expectations and reexamines the effectiveness of mass communications in changing the ...

Robbers Cave Experiment | Realistic Conflict Theory

The hypotheses tested were:

Study Procedure

Phase 2: Group Conflict (4-5 Days)

Phase 3: Conflict Resolution (6-7 Days)

The Drinking Water Problem

Critical Evaluation

Further Information

The Robbers Cave Experiment: Realistic Conflict Theory

An Overview of the Robbers Cave Experiment

Group Formation and Bonding Phase of the Experiment

The Competition Phase of the Robbers Cave Experiment

The Integration Phase of the Robbers Cave Experiment

Sherif’s Conclusions

Criticisms of the Robbers Cave Experiment

Robbers Cave Experiment

What Is the Robbers Cave Experiment?

Who is Muzafer Sherif?

How the Robbers Cave Experiment Was Conducted

Setting Up the Robbers Cave Experiment

Final Results of Robbers Cave Experiment

Realistic Conflict Theory

Criticisms of the Robbers Cave Experiment

Middle Grove Experiment

Robbers Cave Experiment vs. Lord of the Flies

Legacy of the Robbers Cave Experiment and Muzafer Sherif

Other Examples of Realistic Conflict Theory

Related posts:

About The Author

Psychology Resources

Psychology Tests

The Robbers Cave Experiment: The Psychological Study Of Unsupervised Boys That Inspired Lord Of The Flies

The First Experiment: Camp Middle Grove

The Robbers Cave Experimental Camp

The Conflict

Resolution and Legacy Of The Robbers Cave Experiment

Recently viewed (0)

Related Content

Sherif Summer Camp Study

Related content in Oxford Reference

Robbers Cave Experiment

Robbers Cave Experiment: Unveiling Human Nature’s Dark Side

Key Definition:

Phase 1: Group Formation

Phase 2: Intergroup Conflict

Phase 3: Superordinate Goals

Key Findings

Replication and Support of Findings

Practical Impact of Robbers Cave Experiment

Dehumanizing Out-Group

Narrative Example

Associated Concepts and Theories

Other Experiments in Social Psychology

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

References:

Resources and Articles

Topic Specific Databases:

Share this:

T. Franklin Murphy

Social Capital Theory

Social Facilitation Theory

Social Exchange Theory

Symbolic Interactionism

Spiral of Silence

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

A New Look at the Classic Robbers Cave Experiment

The Robbers Cave Experiment

STAGE ONE: TWENTY-TWO YOUNG BOYS

STAGE TWO: TROUBLE BREWS

STAGE THREE: PACIFYING TENSIONS

STAGE NEXT: APPLYING IT TO OUR OWN LIVES

The Robbers Cave experiment Muzafer Sherif

The unknown Muzafer Sherif

Sherif's early years

Years of exile

A Pretty Face — level 0

The Ace of Pentacles

The woman who refused to die.

Mysterious Vatican disappearance.

Good walkers.