robbers cave experiment sherif

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.

• Science, Tech, Math ›
• Social Sciences ›
• Psychology ›

What Was the Robbers Cave Experiment in Psychology?

A Landmark Study on Group Conflict

Martin Barraud / Getty Images

• Archaeology
• Ph.D., Psychology, University of California - Santa Barbara
• B.A., Psychology and Peace & Conflict Studies, University of California - Berkeley

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.

Key Takeaways: The Robbers Cave Study

• The Robbers Cave experiment studied how hostilities quickly developed between two groups of boys at a summer camp.
• The researchers were later able to reduce the tensions between the two groups by having them work towards shared goals.
• The Robbers Cave study helps to illustrate several key ideas in psychology, including realistic conflict theory, social identity theory, and the contact hypothesis.

Overview of the Robbers Cave Experiment

The Robbers Cave experiment was part of a series of studies conducted by social psychologist Muzafer Sherif and his colleagues in the 1940s and 1950s. In these studies, Sherif looked at how groups of boys at summer camps interacted with a rival group: he hypothesized that “when two groups have conflicting aims… their members will become hostile to each other even though the groups are composed of normal well-adjusted individuals.”

The participants in the study, boys who were approximately 11-12 years old, thought that they were participating in a typical summer camp, which took place at Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma in 1954. However, the campers’ parents knew that their children were actually participating in a research study, as Sherif and his colleagues had gathered extensive information on the participants (such as school records and personality test results).

The boys arrived at camp in two separate groups: for the first part of the study, they spent time with members of their own group, without knowing that the other group existed. The groups chose names (the Eagles and the Rattlers), and each group developed their own group norms and group hierarchies.

After a short time, the boys became aware that there was another group at camp and, upon learning of them, the campers group spoke negatively about the other group. At this point, the researchers began the next phase of the Robbers Cave experiment: a competitive tournament between the groups, consisting of games such as baseball and tug-of-war, for which the winners would receive prizes and a trophy.

What the Robbers Cave Experiment Researchers Found

After the Eagles and Rattlers began competing in the tournament, the relationship between the two groups quickly became tense. The groups began trading insults, and the conflict quickly spiraled. The teams each burned the other group’s team flag and raided their cabin. The researchers also found that the group hostilities were apparent on surveys distributed to the campers: campers were asked to rate their team and the other team on positive and negative traits, and the campers rated their own group more positively than their rivals. During this time, the researchers also noticed a change within the groups as well: the groups became more cohesive.

How Conflict Was Reduced

To determine the factors that could reduce group conflict, the Robbers Cave experiment researchers first brought the campers together for fun activities (such as having a meal or watching a movie together). However, this didn’t work to reduce conflict; for example, meals together devolved into food fights.

Next, Sherif and his colleagues tried having the two groups work on what psychologists call superordinate goals , goals that both groups cared about, which they had to work together to achieve. For example, the camp’s water supply was cut off (a ploy by the researchers to force the two groups to interact), and the Eagles and Rattlers worked together to fix the problem. In another instance, a truck bringing the campers food wouldn’t start (again, an incident staged by the researchers), so members of both groups pulled on a rope to pull the broken truck. These activities didn’t immediately repair the relationship between the groups (at first, the Rattlers and Eagles resumed hostilities after a superordinate goal was achieved), but working on shared goals eventually reduced conflict. The groups stopped calling each other names, perceptions of the other group (as measured by the researchers’ surveys) improved, and friendships even began to form with members of the other group. By the end of camp, some of the campers requested that everyone (from both groups) take the bus home together, and one group bought beverages for the other group on the ride home.

Realistic Conflict Theory

The Robbers Cave experiment has often been used to illustrate realistic conflict theory (also called realistic group conflict theory ), the idea that group conflict can result from competition over resources (whether those resources are tangible or intangible). In particular, hostilities are hypothesized to occur when the groups believe that the resource they’re competing for is in limited supply. At Robbers Cave, for example, the boys were competing for prizes, a trophy, and bragging rights. Since the tournament was set up in a way that it was impossible for both teams to win, realistic conflict theory would suggest that this competition led to the conflicts between the Eagles and Rattlers.

However, the Robbers Cave study also shows that conflict can occur in the absence of competition for resources, as the boys began speaking negatively about the other group even before the researchers introduced the tournament. In other words, as social psychologist Donelson Forsyth explains, the Robbers Cave experiment also demonstrates how readily people engage in social categorization , or dividing themselves into an ingroup and an outgroup.

Critiques of the Robbers Cave Experiment

While Sherif’s Robbers Cave experiment is considered a landmark study in social psychology, some researchers have critiqued Sherif’s methods. For example, some, including writer Gina Perry , have suggested that not enough attention has been paid to the role of the researchers (who posed as camp staff) in the creation of group hostilities. Since the researchers usually refrained from intervening in the conflict, the campers may have assumed that fighting with the other group was condoned. Perry also points out that there are potential ethical issues with the Robbers Cave experiment as well: the children did not know they were in a study—and in fact, many did not realize that they had been in a study until Perry contacted them decades later to ask them about their experience.

Another potential caveat to the Robbers Cave experiment is that one of Sherif’s earlier studies had a very different result. When Sherif and his colleagues conducted a similar summer camp study in 1953, the researchers were not successfully able to create group conflict (and, while the researchers were in the process of trying to incite hostilities between the groups, the campers figured out what the researchers were trying to do).

What Robbers Cave Teaches Us About Human Behavior

Psychologists Michael Platow and John Hunter connect Sherif’s study to social psychology’s social identity theory : the theory that being part of a group has powerful effects on people’s identities and behaviors. Researchers studying social identity have found that people categorize themselves as members of social groups (as the members of the Eagles and Rattlers did), and that these group memberships can lead people to behave in discriminatory and hostile ways towards outgroup members. However, the Robbers Cave experiment also shows that conflict isn’t inevitable or intractable, as the researchers were eventually able to reduce tensions between the two groups.

The Robbers Cave experiment also allows us to evaluate social psychology’s contact hypothesis . According to the contact hypothesis, prejudice and group conflict can be reduced if members of the two groups spend time with one another, and that contact between groups is especially likely to reduce conflict if certain conditions are met. In the Robbers Cave study, the researchers found that simply bringing the groups together for fun activities was not enough to reduce conflict. However, conflict was successfully reduced when the groups worked together on common goals—and, according to the contact hypothesis, having common goals is one of the conditions that makes it more likely that conflict between the groups will be reduced. In other words, the Robbers Cave study suggests it’s not always enough for groups in conflict to spend time together: instead, the key may be to find a way for the two groups to work together.

Sources and Additional Reading

• Forsyth, Donelson R. Group Dynamics . 4th ed., Thomson/Wadsworth, 2006. https://books.google.com/books/about/Group_Dynamics.html?id=VhNHAAAAMAAJ
• Haslam, Alex. “War and Peace and Summer Camp.” Nature , vol. 556, 17 Apr. 2018, pp. 306-307. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04582-7
• Khan, Saera R. and Viktoriya Samarina. “Realistic Group Conflict Theory.” Encyclopedia of Social Psychology . Edited by Roy F. Baumeister and Kathleen D. Vohs, SAGE Publications, 2007, 725-726. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412956253.n434
• Konnikova, Maria. “ Revisiting Robbers Cave: The Easy Spontaneity of Intergroup Conflict. ” Scientific American , 5 Sept. 2012.
• Perry, Gina. “The View from the Boys.” The Psychologist , vol. 27, Nov. 2014, pp. 834-837. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04582-7
• Platow, Michael J. and John A. Hunter. “Intergroup Relations and Conflict: Revisiting Sherif’s Boys’ Camp Studies.” Social Psychology: Revisiting the Classic Studies . Edited by Joanne R. Smith and S. Alexander Haslam, Sage Publications, 2012. https://books.google.com/books/about/Social_Psychology.html?id=WCsbkXy6vZoC
• Shariatmadari, David. “A Real-Life Lord of the Flies: The Troubling Legacy of the Robbers Cave Experiment.” The Guardian , 16 Apr. 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/apr/16/a-real-life-lord-of-the-flies-the-troubling-legacy-of-the-robbers-cave-experiment
• Sherif, Muzafer. “Experiments in Group Conflict.”  Scientific American  vol. 195, 1956, pp. 54-58. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24941808
• What Is Behaviorism in Psychology?
• What Is Self-Concept in Psychology?
• What Is a Schema in Psychology? Definition and Examples
• What Is Classical Conditioning?
• What Is Attachment Theory? Definition and Stages
• Psychodynamic Theory: Approaches and Proponents
• Information Processing Theory: Definition and Examples
• Understanding Social Identity Theory and Its Impact on Behavior
• Carl Rogers: Founder of the Humanistic Approach to Psychology
• Social Cognitive Theory: How We Learn From the Behavior of Others
• The Milgram Experiment: How Far Will You Go to Obey an Order?
• What Is Positive Psychology?
• What Is Mindfulness in Psychology?
• Diffusion of Responsibility: Definition and Examples in Psychology
• 5 Psychology Studies That Will Make You Feel Good About Humanity
• What Is the Law of Effect in Psychology?

Explore Psychology

Psychology Articles, Study Guides, and Resources

The Robbers Cave Experiment: Realistic Conflict Theory

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…

In this article

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 .

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.

Editor-in-Chief

Kendra Cherry, MS.Ed., is a writer, editor, psychosocial therapist, and founder of Explore Psychology, an online psychology resource. She is a Senior Writer for Verywell Mind and is the author of the Everything Psychology Book (Adams Media).

Related Articles:

Situational Leadership Theory: Why Great Leaders Adapt Styles

Situational leadership theory argues that there’s no single best way to lead; instead, the most effective leaders adjust their approach based on their team’s needs and the task at hand. Discover how this flexible style is redefining leadership success.

What Is a Factorial Design? Definition and Examples

A factorial design is a type of experiment that involves manipulating two or more variables. While simple psychology experiments look at how one independent variable affects one dependent variable, researchers often want to know more about the effects of multiple independent variables. How a Factorial Design Works Let’s take a closer look at how a…

What Is the Democratic Leadership Style?

Democratic leadership relies on group participation. Learn why this style can be so effective.

What Is the Contingency Theory of Leadership?

The Contingency Theory of Leadership challenges the one-size-fits-all approach to management, suggesting that effective leaders must adapt their style to the specific needs of each situation. Here’s how this theory reshapes our understanding of leadership.

Autocratic Leadership Characteristics and Effects

Autocratic leadership involves the leader taking complete control, not accepting input, and expecting others to follow without question.

What Is a Single-Blind Study?

In psychology, a single-blind study is a type of experiment or clinical trial in which the experimenters are aware of which subjects are receiving the treatment or independent variable, but the participants of the study are not. A study in which both the experimenters and participants are unaware of who is receiving the independent variable and…

The Robber’s Cave

Cite this chapter.

• M. Sherif  

1176 Accesses

Psychology has offered two basic approaches to describe the phenomenon of prejudice. One line of argument sees it as an individual problem; a sick person model of prejudice. The major influence here is psycho-analysis and the work of Freud, with the root of prejudice being seen to be in childhood experiences that create a damaged adult personality. Adorno et al. (1950) presented the picture of the authoritarian personality who projects his or her unresolved childhood conflicts onto minority groups. The authoritarian personality is narrow minded, a stickler for rules, inhibited about sex, unquestioningly submissive to authority, intolerant of ambiguity, and politically conservative. The basic flaw in this approach to prejudice is the insistence that prejudice is a sign of a sick personality, and that, by implication, most people are not prejudiced.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Prejudice: Intra- and Interpersonal Aspects

Modern Prejudice

Gordon Willard Allport: The Nature of Prejudice, Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA 1954, 537 S. (dt. Die Natur des Vorurteils, Kiepenheuer & Witsch: Köln 1971, 531 S.)

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 1996 Philip Banyard and Andrew Grayson

About this chapter

Sherif, M. (1996). The Robber’s Cave. In: Introducing Psychological Research. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-24483-6_9

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-24483-6_9

Publisher Name : Palgrave, London

Print ISBN : 978-0-333-62005-2

Online ISBN : 978-1-349-24483-6

eBook Packages : Palgrave Social & Cultural Studies Collection Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

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 ...

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 infra-humanness 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.
• Group Relations Theory : This Theory is a psychoanalytic approach that focuses on understanding group dynamics and individual behavior within group contexts.
• 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: October 12, 2024

Type your email…

References:

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

Please note that some of the links in this article are affiliate links. If you purchase a product through one of these links, I may receive a small commission at no additional cost to you. This helps support the creation of high-quality content and allows me to continue providing valuable information.

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

Share this:

About the author.

T. Franklin Murphy

Related posts.

Bystander Effect

The bystander effect, rooted in psychology, reveals that individuals are less likely to assist a victim when others are present. Influenced by social, cognitive, and…

Read More »

Erich Fromm’s Humanistic Psychoanalysis

Humanistic psychoanalysis, primarily developed by Erich Fromm, merges humanistic psychology with psychoanalytic concepts, emphasizing personal growth, self-actualization, and the significance of relationships. It critiques societal…

Comparative Psychology

Comparative psychology examines animal behavior and cognition in relation to humans, focusing on evolutionary and ecological factors. This interdisciplinary field integrates psychology, biology, and ethology,…

Social Categorization

Social categorization is a cognitive process that helps individuals simplify the complex social world by classifying others into groups based on shared characteristics. While it…

Correspondent Inference Theory

Correspondent Inference Theory delves into the psychological processes behind how we attribute causes to others' behavior. Learn about the key factors that influence our judgments,…

Design Thinking

Design thinking combines creativity and cognition to tackle complex problems. It emphasizes empathy, collaboration, and iteration, addressing wicked problems by reframing, generating, and prototyping solutions.…

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Discover more from psychology fanatic.

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

• Foundations
• Write Paper

Search form

• Experiments
• Anthropology
• Self-Esteem
• Social Anxiety

• Psychology >
• Robbers Cave Experiment

Sherif’s Robbers Cave Experiment

Sherif's classic social psychology experiment named Robbers Cave Experiment dealt with in-group relations, out-group relations and intergroup relations.

This article is a part of the guide:

• Social Psychology Experiments
• Milgram Experiment
• Bobo Doll Experiment
• Stanford Prison Experiment
• Asch Experiment

Browse Full Outline

• 1 Social Psychology Experiments
• 2.1 Asch Figure
• 3 Bobo Doll Experiment
• 4 Good Samaritan Experiment
• 5 Stanford Prison Experiment
• 6.1 Milgram Experiment Ethics
• 7 Bystander Apathy
• 8 Sherif’s Robbers Cave
• 9 Social Judgment Experiment
• 10 Halo Effect
• 11 Thought-Rebound
• 12 Ross’ False Consensus Effect
• 13 Interpersonal Bargaining
• 14 Understanding and Belief
• 15 Hawthorne Effect
• 16 Self-Deception
• 17 Confirmation Bias
• 18 Overjustification Effect
• 19 Choice Blindness
• 20.1 Cognitive Dissonance
• 21.1 Social Group Prejudice
• 21.2 Intergroup Discrimination
• 21.3 Selective Group Perception

The experiment focused heavily on the concept of a 'group' and what a perception of belonging to a group can actually do to the relationships of members within it and their relationships with people outside their group.

The same experiment also tried to observe conflicts or 'friction' between two groups and the process of cooperation or 'integration' of two previously conflicting groups.

Background of the Experiment

Both in the fields of Sociology and Psychology, researchers have been fascinated with the concept of 'group.' This particular concept can be defined as one of the basic social units a person can have. It can consist of a number of individuals who has a definite status or role relationship with other members of the group. Another key feature of a group is that members have a set of norms or values that regulate the behaviour and attitudes of the members. This can be the reason why we usually hear the statement: "Tell me who your friends are and I will tell you who you are."

Along with this concept of belonging to a group are several concepts that are vital to the understanding of this experiment. All the common attitudes, aspirations, hopes and goals that all the members of a group share are social units that can be referred to as in-groups while all the social units that is not part of the group and all the social units that he cannot relate to is called out-groups. Correspondingly, the relation between two or more in-groups along with its members can be called intergroup relations.

Three Phases of the Experiment

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

Phase 1 (In-Group Formation)

The subjects of the experiment were twenty-two eleven year-old boys of middle-class socioeconomic standing, who have not experienced any unusual degree of frustration in their homes, who are not school or social failures and who have similar educational level. These boys were taken into a summer camp in Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma. Before the start of the experiment, the boys were randomly divided into two groups ending up with eleven boys each.

The two groups were separately transported and housed in cabins within the same park. Ultimately, the groups must not be aware of the existence of the other group during the first phase of the experiment. Otherwise, any functional contact between the two groups would certainly have unwanted consequences both for the in-group formation and for the later phases of the experiment. It is these two groups that formed the basis of group interaction that is the focus of the Robbers Cave Experiment .

During the first week of the experiment, the groups did not know the existence of the other group. They basically spend time bonding with each other while hiking in the park or swimming. Each group was tasked to coin a group name which was stencilled on their flags and on their shirts. A group name is a good step to allow the members of each group to identify with their respective groups. It grants the members belongingness and group spirit. One of the groups chose Eagles as their group name while the other group chose Rattlers. The chief aim of the first phase is to produce in-groups through the interaction of the members within the two separate groups.

Phase 2 (Friction Phase)

During this phase, the two groups were allowed to find out about the existence of the other group. The chief aim of this phase is the production of conflict between the two groups which can be accomplished by a series of competitive activities in the form of a tournament of events which will yield cumulative scores with a reward for the members of the winning group.

This step of the experimenters greatly increased the antagonism between the two groups. This was significantly evident during the tally of the scores where the Rattlers won the overall trophy. The Rattlers planted their flag in the play field as a reminder of their success. Later on, name calling started and the singing of offending songs were also observed.

Furthermore, after these incidences, the groups refused to eat in the same dining together. The experimenters were so successful at producing friction that they concluded that it was no longer safe to conduct friction-producing activities and phase two was suddenly cut short and phase three commenced.

Phase 3 (Integration Phase)

This stage constitutes the most crucial and significant aspect of the study. In this phase, the experimenters will deliberately attempt to bring about cooperation between the two groups following a stage of friction or conflict. This phase aims to study the process of reducing group tensions.

The first activity for this phase was a problem wherein both the groups must cooperate to solve because the resources and efforts of a single group are inadequate to attain the solution to the problem. Both of the groups were taken to a new location and were told that they are having drinking water shortage. The two groups had to repair the damage done by vandals to their drinking water supply. During the successful repair of their water problems, cooperation was observed between the members of the two groups. This activity was done by the experimenters to create a state of real and tangible interdependence between the members of the two groups.

The second activity was the group needed to interact with each other and they had to pay and decide for a movie that they would like to watch. The groups successfully agreed upon a movie all of them should watch and during the dinner after this activity, all the boys were eating together once again.

Observations

• Definite group structures and dynamics consisting of individual status and roles will be formed when a number of individuals without previously established interpersonal relations interact with one another under similar context and events.
• During the Friction Phase, uneasy conflicts produce unfavourable stereotypes in relation to the out-group and its members placing the out-group at a certain social distance.
• In an event that a number of conflicting groups are brought together with a common superordinate goal and the attainment of which cannot be achieved by the efforts of one group alone, the groups will tend to cooperate towards the achievement of the superordinate goal.
• Psychology 101
• Flags and Countries
• Capitals and Countries

Explorable.com (Jun 25, 2010). Sherif’s Robbers Cave Experiment. Retrieved Dec 23, 2024 from Explorable.com: https://explorable.com/robbers-cave-experiment

You Are Allowed To Copy The Text

The text in this article is licensed under the Creative Commons-License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) .

This means you're free to copy, share and adapt any parts (or all) of the text in the article, as long as you give appropriate credit and provide a link/reference to this page.

That is it. You don't need our permission to copy the article; just include a link/reference back to this page. You can use it freely (with some kind of link), and we're also okay with people reprinting in publications like books, blogs, newsletters, course-material, papers, wikipedia and presentations (with clear attribution).

Want to stay up to date? Follow us!

Save this course for later.

Don't have time for it all now? No problem, save it as a course and come back to it later.

Footer bottom

• Privacy Policy

• Subscribe to our RSS Feed
• Like us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter

• When the Caregiver Burns Out
• Transformational listening: Did the pandemic help us return to a forgotten skills?
• The Role of Neuroplasticity in Personal Growth and Success
• How Compromise Creates Lasting Happiness in Relationships
• Productivity Tips for ADHDers 

Your cart is empty

Decoding Group Conflict: Lessons from the Robbers Cave Experiment

• by Psychologs World
• March 14, 2024
• 5 minutes read

You may have had your own little “group” in school that you hung out with. There may even have been some groups that you did not get along with, or even have some altercations with. But imagine- there is a treasure hunt in your school, and your entire class participates as a group. While solving the clues and looking for the prize, both groups forget about their differences. You work together as one group- solving riddles and clues to get to the prize and win. Why does this happen? How do you go from hating each other one moment to working together in the next? 

Robbers Cave Experiment

This phenomenon was explained by Muzafer Sherif, in a series of experiments conducted by him in the 1950s. Group conflict was observed and even initiated in two groups of campers. This competition led to hostility and negative attitudes between the groups, including name-calling and vandalism.

In the final stage of the experiment, Sherif attempted to reduce the conflict between the groups by introducing situations that required them to work together to achieve common goals. Through these cooperative tasks, the boys gradually started to see each other as allies rather than enemies, and intergroup hostility decreased. The Robbers Cave Experiment demonstrated how group identities can form quickly and how competition between groups can lead to hostility and conflict.

Why does this happen? 

Observing the effects of his experiment, Sherif conceptualized the results into a theory- known as the Realistic Conflict Theory – which acts as a social psychological model of intergroup conflict. It explains how feelings of hostility occur between groups when resources are scarce. When groups perceive themselves as competing, they tend to develop negative attitudes and prejudices toward one another. This competition fosters an “us versus them” mentality, leading to increased hostility, discrimination, and intergroup conflict.

Read More: Conformity and Rebellion: Understanding Social Influence in Groups

An important aspect of RCT is its emphasis on the role of realistic factors, such as economic or material resources, in fueling intergroup conflict, whereas other theories and explanations of group conflict emphasize the role of psychological or cognitive factors. When there is some sort of competition between the two groups, feelings of resentment are fostered. Usually, in such perceived competition, there is a zero-sum fate. This means that only one group will emerge as the winner- and take away the resources, leaving behind the other group with nothing in their hands. 

Another factor at work here is social identity theory. Developed by Henri Tajfel and John Turner in the 1970s, it proposes that individuals’ self-concept and self-esteem are not only derived from their attributes but also from their membership in social groups. According to SIT, people categorize themselves and others into various social groups based on characteristics such as race, ethnicity, gender, religion, occupation, and so on. The boys in Sherif’s experiment did not have a problem with each other because of their values, but it was because they saw the group as the “other”. 

Read More: Social Psychology: The Landscape of Human Interaction

The experiment

Let’s understand what happened in the experiment. The experiment took place at a summer camp, where 22 boys aged 11 to 12 were carefully selected to participate. The researchers divided the boys into two groups- the Eagles and the Rattlers and facilitated bonding within each group. This was done through various activities such as hiking, swimming, etc. Group cohesion was further strengthened by assigning group names, providing distinctive uniforms, and encouraging group pride. This made the boys develop a sense of unity, they started seeing the groups as “us” and “them”. 

After this, the experiment entered its critical stage- the introduction of intergroup competition. The Eagles and the Rattlers were brought into direct competition through a series of contests and games. As the competition intensified, so did the hostility between the groups. Insults, derogatory remarks, and acts of aggression became increasingly common as the boys displayed strong ingroup bias and hostility towards the opposing group. The researchers observed how simply categorizing the boys into separate groups, along with the introduction of competitive scenarios, led to the formation of ingroup-outgroup distinctions and the emergence of intergroup conflict.

Recognizing the need to address this conflict, Sherif and his team devised strategies to promote intergroup cooperation. They organized activities that required both groups to collaborate and work together towards common goals, such as solving a series of problems or completing tasks that necessitated mutual assistance.

These were called “superordinate goals”- which means goals that cannot be achieved by one group alone and need the cooperation of both groups. Through these, the boys gradually began to see members of the opposite group in a more positive light, leading to a reduction in intergroup hostility and the development of cross-group friendships. 

Applications and real-world Relevance of Robbers Cave Experiment

The experiment highlights the importance of understanding intergroup dynamics in addressing conflicts between different social or cultural groups. We hear countless stories of communal violence in the world. Applications of the Robber’s cave experiment can be used to curb this sort of violence- maybe by making people of various ethnicities work together, to increase cooperation. 

It can be a helpful tool in organizational psychology, which is a branch of psychology that applies principles of this discipline to the workplace. Managers can use strategies influenced by this experiment to help increase cooperation and improve teamwork .

It can also be used in educational institutions. Intergroup hostility can be common in schools- viewing people of different classes as the “other group”. Implementing diversity training programs in schools to address prejudice, discrimination, and stereotyping, fostering empathy, and promoting cooperation among students can thus be a use of this experiment. 

The article talks about a very interesting experiment in the field of psychology- the Robber’s Cave Experiment. It was conducted by Muzafer Sherif in the 1950s and deals with how intergroup hostility is established in groups and how it can be reduced by the use of superordinate goals. It also talks about the theories of realistic conflict theory and social identity theory- both of which are the underlying explanations of this experiment. The robber’s cave experiment is also very famous because it can be, and is being used in real-life settings to avoid and to deal with conflict between groups. With more and more research being done, it is also increasingly being used to improve cooperation and efficiency. 

• Mcleod, S., PhD. (2023). Robbers Cave Experiment | Realistic Conflict Theory. Simply Psychology . https://www.simplypsychology.org/robbers-cave.html
• Shariatmadari, D. (2018, April 17). A real-life Lord of the Flies: the troubling legacy of the Robbers Cave experiment. The Guardian . https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/apr/16/a-real-life-lord-of-the-flies-the-troubling-legacy-of-the-robbers-cave-experiment
• Wikipedia contributors. (2023, September 21). Realistic conflict theory . Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realistic_conflict_theory
• Wikipedia contributors. (2024, February 10). Social identity theory . Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_identity_theory

Share This Post:

Understanding the mental health of homeless people, istanbul airport has therapy dogs to alleviate travelers’ stress, leave feedback about this cancel reply.

• Rating 5 4 3 2 1

Related Post

The Role of Neuroplasticity in Personal Growth and

Authors Who Used Sigmund Freud’s Theories in Their Writings 

What is the Pink Elephant Test?

What Decolonising Psychology Teaches About Cultural Sensitivity

How Brain Rot Impacts Your Mental Health