7.4:
Robbers Cave
In 1954, what began as summer camp amidst Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma emerged as a famous field study on social identity and intergroup relations.
Building upon previous work, Muzafer Sherif and colleagues tested the realistic conflict theory—a notion that individuals who must contend for scarce resources—either perceived or real—begin to exhibit competitive tendencies and negative attitudes as a result.
Before arriving, researchers carefully selected 22 fifth-grade boys of similar sociocultural and personal backgrounds and randomly assigned them to one of two groups.
All subjects were unknown to each other, as well as unaware of the experiment’s purpose and that they would be conspicuously observed and recorded by the researchers who were disguised as “camp staff” members.
During the first in-group formation phase, the 11- to 12-year-olds arrived on separate buses—without knowing that the others existed, since they were housed at isolated sites. They were directed to bond within their group while participating in activities, like hiking and canoeing.
Throughout their first week together, the boys became connected and established group norms, singing songs and playing games, as well as their identities. They’re now the Eagles and Rattlers.
To set-up the next part, the Rattlers were allowed to wander near the ball field, within distance to hear the Eagles playing. At practice the very next day, the Rattlers outwardly declared the field “theirs”.
For the second stage, the intergroup friction phase, the staff officially announced the presence of another group. This revelation elicited heightened awareness of “us” versus “them”, and both teams charged ahead with enthusiastic rivalry.
In a series of events, the groups would compete in a tournament of activities, like baseball and tug-of-war. While most of the outcomes were determined by the victorious team, a few occasions, such as cabin inspections, were judged by the staff to keep the point totals tight and the teams motivated to win.
Over the next week, both sides participated in numerous incidents of name-calling and humiliation—even campers who weren’t as active in the physical participation.
As the days passed, the losers’ frustrations turned more physical: The Eagles burned the Rattler’s flag, and in turn, the members retaliated; sportsmanship was on the decline, as the smell of victory approached; and unfair tactics caught the confident Rattlers off balance.
The mood, now hostile, fostered ransacking of the cabins—beds were overturned and property was stolen, including comic books. And sure enough, the raids became a reciprocal occurrence as the tournament was coming to an end.
Who would prevail hinged on the last event, a treasure hunt. Unbeknownst to the campers, the winning team was determined by the researchers, who manipulated the routes.
In the days following victory and defeat, the researchers devoted time for everyone to cool off and enjoy in-group activities—including civilized swimming time at the beach.
At the end of the second phase, the groups were once again placed within physical proximity to each other, and their behavior was observed. Their responses confirmed tendencies to classify their own in-group favorably—indicating positive group relations—and the out-group unfavorably—highlighting the persistence of the negative intergroup attitudes.
For the final stage, the intergroup integration phase, researchers crafted numerous non-competitive situations where the two would have to work together to achieve common objectives—superordinate goals—in an effort to reconcile the groups’ attitudes and behaviors. For example, the camp truck was stuck and they all had to pull the vehicle to get it to start.
Soon enough, the division of “us” versus “them” disappeared, along with the intergroup hostility. The boys ended their stay with positivity—leaving camp on one bus.
In the end, using cooperation to accomplish shared goals may dissolve perceived enemies into friends and break down social barriers that could fuel conflict.
7.4:
Robbers Cave
During the 1950s, the landmark Robbers Cave experiment demonstrated that when groups must compete with one another, intergroup conflict, hostility, and even violence may result. At the Oklahoman summer camp, two troops of boys—termed the Rattlers and the Eagles—took part in a week-long tournament. During this time, their negativity culminated in derogatory name-calling, fistfights, and even vandalism and destruction of property. However, this work also revealed that such tension could be lessened through the implementation of superordinate goals, or objectives that, in order to be reached, require groups to work together in a positive manner. For example, during the Robbers Cave study, along with teaming up to help start a truck, both the Rattlers and Eagles pooled their money to view a popular movie at the time, Treasure Island (Sherif, Harvey, White, et al., 1988; see also Sherif, 1956). Although the Robbers Cave study only focused on two small groups, its insight into the formation and remediation of intergroup conflict is still applicable today.
Mechanisms of Action of Superordinate Goals
While the common goals introduced in the Robbers Cave experiment helped to unite the Rattlers and Eagles, the question arose as to how this was possible. More recent research has suggested that this outcome may result from changes in how groups categorize one another (Gaertner, Dovido, Banker, et al., 2000). On the one hand, when two groups come together during a subordinate goal, this behavior results in one-on-one interactions between members. Instead of an “us” and “them” mentality, individuals get to learn about one another—like each other’s favorite games, friends, sports, and home life. This process decategorizes a member of a different group; they are seen as a distinct person, rather than part of a “them” enemy faction.
In addition, when groups unite under a common goal, people recategorize one another as having the same identity (Gaertner, Dovido, Banker, et al., 2000; see also Kelly & Collett, 2008). For example, when the Rattlers and Eagles joined together to help start a truck needed to procure provisions, they may not have seen themselves as “us” and “them” cliques, but rather as members of the same camp working together to solve a problem affecting everyone. This recategorization was also observed at the end of the study when campers rode home together on a single bus singing the song “Oklahoma.” Here, everyone was united and shared a collective identity—both as members of the same camp, and (on a larger scale) as Oklahomans, with pride in their home state. Thus, through fostering decategorization and recategorization of group members, subordinate goals can help lessen conflict.
Applications of Lessons from Robbers Cave
Intergroup conflict occurs in different walks of life: schools (Kelly & Collett, 2008), workplaces (Mannix & Nagler, 2017), healthcare systems (Creasy & Kinard, 2013), and even between nations in the form of outright warfare (Spini, Elcheroth & Fasel, 2008). Some researchers are looking at how lessons learned during the Robbers Cave experiment—such as using superordinate goals to reduce hostility—may be employed to improve relationships between individuals in these different fields.
For example, some work has focused on how healthcare mergers—like when two hospitals combine into one—are affected by intergroup conflict (Creasy & Kinard, 2013). This process can be complicated if employees of the respective facilities adopt an “us vs. them” mentality, which can breed suspicion and dislike, resulting in parties failing to exchange patient or operational information. This reaction may be due, in part, to workers feeling that they compete for a limited number of jobs in the newly-merged entity. To combat this thinking, solutions such as reassuring employees that their jobs are secure and emphasizing superordinate goals—like providing stellar, accessible care for all patients—may help to reduce conflict.
Other work has focused on means to lessen conflict in desegregated schools, where negative interactions may occur between children of different racial or ethnic groups (Kelly & Collett, 2008). Here, superordinate goals—like those related to extracurricular activities—are again emphasized as a way to improve student relations. For example, camaraderie and respect can be fostered amongst the members of a football team who experience the superordinate goal of winning games. Possibly, these positive interactions can also be reinforced by highlighting each individual’s unique contribution to the team, and the fact that all players share a unique identity—they are all members of (and represent) the same school. Thus, by applying principles of the Robbers Cave experiment, intergroup hostilities experienced in today’s society can be lessened, and friendships may be fostered between individuals of different backgrounds.
Suggested Reading
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., et al. (1988). The Robbers Cave Experiment: Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press
Sherif, M. (1956). Experiments in Group Conflict. Scientific American, 195(5), 54-59. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/24941808
Gaertner, S. L., Dovido, J. F., Banker, B. S., et al. (2000). Reducing Intergroup Conflict: From Superordinate Goals to Decategorization, Recategorization, and Mutual Differentiation. Group Dynamics, Theory, Research, and Practice, 4(1), 98-114. doi: 10.1037//1089-2699.4.1.98
Kelly, S. & Collett, J. L. (2008). From C. P. Ellis to School Integration: The Social Psychology of Conflict Reduction. Sociology Compass, 2(5), 1638-1654. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00154.x
Mannix, R. & Nagler, J. (2017). Tribalism in Medicine – Us vs Them. JAMA Pediatrics, 171(9), 831. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.1280
Creasy, T. & Kinard, J. (2013). Health Care Mergers and Acquisitions: Implications of Robbers Cave Realistic Conflict Theory and Prisoner’s Dilemma Game Theory. The Health Care Manager, 32(1), 5-68. doi: 10.1097/HCM.0b013e31827edadd
Spini, D., Elcheroth, G. & Fasel, R. (2008). The Impact of Group Norms and Generalizations of Risks Across Groups on Judgments of War Behavior. Political Psychology, 29(6), 919-941. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00673.x