Robbers Cave, Sheriff et al 1954

Main Argument

The argument with this study and what they are trying to gain evidence for is that

1. When individuals who have no prior relationships are brought together to interact in group activities with common goals, they produce a group structure with a clear hierarchy & roles

2. if 2 groups are brought into contact with each other under conditions of competition and group frustration, each group will develop hostile attitudes and actions in relation to the outgroup and it’s members in relation to their existing ingroup norms.

Background

• Social Identity Theory

• Culture

Aim

attempting to better understand the causes and consequences of intergroup conflict.

Method

Field experiment

Procedure/Results

Procedure -Stage 1 :

• Boys placed in 2 groups - rattlers and the eagles

• Quickly developed ingroup norms, structure and rituals

• Informed there was another group and each group felt they were superior

Stage 2 :

• Competition is introduced (e.g Tug of War) - winner receives new penknife and loser gets nothing

• At first, prejudice was only verbally expressed, such as taunting or name-calling. As the competition wore on, this expression took a more direct route. The Eagles burned the Rattler’s flag. Then the next day, the Rattler’s ransacked the Eagles’ cabin, overturned beds and stole private property. The groups became so aggressive with each other that the researchers had to physically separate them.

Stage 3 :

• Switch from negatively interdependent to positively interdependent

• Broken truck created a superordinate situation as both groups needed to help free it, thus reducing inter group conflict

Results (eh)

Prejudice was reduced after the 2 groups had to work together.
In hostility phase - 93% had friends in their own group.
After cooperation phase - 30% had friends between the 2 groups.
Rattlers - 6.4% at the end of stage 2 and 36.4% at the end of stage 3.
Eagles - 7.5% at the end of stage 2 and 23.2%
at the end of stage 3.

Conclusions

Prejudice will occur in a situation were 2 groups are created - supports Social Identity Theory.
Competition, although not for resources, may be a factor resulting in prejudice.

Link back to questions

Demonstrates how SIT works in ingroup and outgroup, demonstrates how conflicts may arise

• Supports claim 1 that resources aren’t always the sources of competition & conflict.

• Supports claim 2 that mere perception of social categorization can trigger us & them dynamics

• Supports claim 5 that through social comparison the ingroup is perceived to be better

Evaluations

• Been criticised on a number of issues. For example, the two groups of boys in the study were atrificial as was the competition and did not necessarily reflect real life. For example, middle class boys randomly assigned to two separate groups is not rival inner city gangs or rival football supporters.

• Ethical issues must also be considered. The participants were deceived as they did not know the true aim of the study. Also, participants were not protected from physical and psychological harm.

• Nor should results be generalised to real life because the research used only 12 year old, white, middle class, boys and excluded everyone else, meaning there was a lack of generalizability and it was bias.

Participants

22 boys who were unknown to each other and all from white middle-class backgrounds. All shared protestant, two-parent background, none of the boys knew each other prior to the study and were randomly assigned to one of two groups, although neither was aware of the other’s existence.

Further implications

• Helps us understand how conflict and prejudice may occur

• Even how conflict may reduce

• Supports SIT theory, which can further help make us understand how we interact with society and what it means for us