robbers cave experiment nederlands

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.

Faculty Resource Center
Biochemistry
Bioengineering
Cancer Research
Developmental Biology
Engineering
Environment
Immunology and Infection
Neuroscience
JoVE Journal
JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments
JoVE Chrome Extension
Environmental Sciences
Pharmacology
JoVE Science Education
JoVE Lab Manual
JoVE Business
Videos Mapped to your Course
High Schools
Videos Mapped to Your Course

Chapter 7: Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

Back to chapter, robbers cave, previous video 7.3: stereotype content model, next video 7.5: stereotype threat and self-fulfilling prophecies.

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.

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.

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

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 a Therapist
Find a Treatment Center
Find a Psychiatrist
Find a Support Group
Find Online Therapy
United States
Brooklyn, NY
Chicago, IL
Houston, TX
Los Angeles, CA
New York, NY
Portland, OR
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
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

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

Bion’s Basic-Assumption Group

Wilfred Bion's basic-assumption theory delves into group dynamics, revealing unconscious assumptions like dependency, pairing, and fight-or-flight, shaping group behavior. These assumptions influence how groups function,…

Group Dynamics

Group dynamics examine collective behavior, interactions, and processes within groups, shedding light on social influence, cohesion, and decision-making. Its rich history, diverse theories, and applications…

Mood Convergence

The concept of mood convergence reveals how individuals synchronize their emotions within a group. This phenomenon, influenced by factors like nonverbal cues and empathy, impacts…

Psychology of Assassination

The psychology of assassination delves into the complex motivations behind these acts. From societal influences to mental health, various factors contribute to the making of…

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism, a consequentialist moral theory, prioritizes actions that produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people. It values happiness as the ultimate end,…

Interpersonal Theory

Interpersonal theory, developed by psychiatrist Harry Stack Sullivan, emphasizes the impact of relationships and social interactions on personality and behavior, diverging from traditional psychoanalytic theories.…

The Robbers Cave Experiment: Investigating Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation

Mappa concettuale.

The Robbers Cave Experiment, conducted by Muzafer Sherif in 1954, explored intergroup conflict and cooperation among 22 boys. It revealed how competition can foster hostility, while cooperation can lead to reconciliation. The study's stages, from in-group formation to conflict and resolution through interdependence, offer insights into social identity and prejudice reduction, influencing practices like the Jigsaw Classroom technique.

Mostra di più

Background and Purpose of the Experiment

The landmark study in social psychology.

The Robbers Cave Experiment, conducted in 1954, aimed to investigate the underpinnings of intergroup conflict and cooperation

The Participants and Selection Process

The experiment involved 22 boys, carefully selected for homogeneity in terms of socio-economic background, religion, and educational attainment

The Three Stages of the Experiment

The experiment was designed to unfold in three stages, each testing a specific hypothesis about group dynamics

In-Group Formation

Bonding activities.

The first stage of the experiment focused on in-group formation, using shared experiences to bond the group members

Formation of Group Identity

The boys formed strong group identities, naming themselves and establishing unique cultures and hierarchies

Natural Tendency of Groups to Form Social Identities

This stage demonstrated the natural tendency of groups to form distinct social identities

Intergroup Competition

Introduction of the groups to each other.

The second stage of the experiment introduced the groups to each other, setting the stage for competition

Increased In-Group Solidarity and Out-Group Antagonism

The competitive environment led to increased in-group solidarity and out-group antagonism, with the boys exhibiting overt hostility towards their rivals

Manifestation of Hostility

This hostility manifested in various forms, from name-calling to physical altercations, illustrating the ease with which conflict can arise from competition

Mitigating Conflict through Cooperation

Ineffectiveness of mere co-presence.

Initial attempts at mere co-presence were ineffective in reducing intergroup conflict

Effectiveness of Shared Superordinate Goals

Shared superordinate goals that required collaboration led to a significant reduction in hostility, highlighting the effectiveness of interdependence in overcoming prejudice

Application of Findings in Educational Reforms

The principles derived from this study have been applied in various settings, including educational reforms like the Jigsaw Classroom technique, which promotes cooperative learning among diverse groups of students

Vuoi creare mappe dal tuo materiale?

Inserisci un testo, carica una foto o un audio su Algor. In pochi secondi Algorino lo trasformerà per te in mappa concettuale, riassunto e tanto altro!

Impara con le flashcards di Algor Education

Clicca sulla singola scheda per saperne di più sull'argomento.

Muzafer Sherif's study involved 22 boys, aged ______ to ______, with similar socio-economic and educational backgrounds, unaware of their participation in an experiment.

Stage 1 Focus in Sherif's Experiment

In-group formation via shared experiences to bond members.

Stage 2 Hypothesis in Sherif's Experiment

Intergroup competition would lead to conflict.

Stage 3 Expectation in Sherif's Experiment

Cooperative tasks introduced to mitigate conflict and restore harmony.

In the experiment's initial phase, boys were divided into two factions, engaging in activities that promoted ______ within each group.

in-group cohesion

The groups in the study created strong identities, calling themselves the ______ and the ______, and developed their own cultures and hierarchies.

Rattlers Eagles

Second stage experiment effect on group dynamics

Led to in-group solidarity increase and out-group antagonism

Hostility forms during competition

Ranged from name-calling to physical altercations

The last phase of the study demonstrated that ______ could lessen ______ by engaging groups in joint tasks.

cooperative tasks intergroup conflict

Impact of Robbers Cave Experiment on intergroup relations

Showed competition breeds hostility, cooperation bridges divides.

Jigsaw Classroom technique purpose

Aims to reduce prejudice, promotes cooperative learning in diverse student groups.

The ______ Cave Experiment is a seminal piece of research in social psychology, despite concerns about informed consent and participant harm.

The study had limitations like sample homogeneity, artificial setting, and absence of a ______ group, which advises against broad generalizations of the findings.

Ecco un elenco delle domande più frequenti su questo argomento

What was the main objective of the robbers cave experiment, how many stages were in the robbers cave experiment and what did they aim to test, how did the boys develop a group identity during the robbers cave experiment, what was the result of introducing competition between the groups in the experiment, what method was effective in reducing the conflict between the groups, how have the findings from the robbers cave experiment been applied in real-world settings, what are some ethical and methodological criticisms of the robbers cave experiment, contenuti simili, esplora altre mappe su argomenti simili.

Caucasian hand holding a lit cigarette between index and middle finger, with smoke rising from the glowing tip against blurred background.

Nicotine Dependence

Middle Eastern female therapist and South Asian male client in bright room with bookcase, coffee table, water and green apples.

Behavioral Interventions for Addiction

Detailed anatomical model of the human brain in lateral view with evident sulci and gyri on a light neutral background.

The Human Brain: A Complex Organ

Patient lying on a medical table with electrodes connected to the scalp for EEG in a calm and professional clinical environment.

Electroencephalograms (EEGs) and Event-Related Potentials (ERPs)

Face of a newborn baby looking with curiosity at a piece of furniture with suspended colored geometric shapes, in a serene environment tinged with blue.

Brain Development and Sensory Experiences

Close-up of a human eye with dilated pupil and vivid blue iris, white sclera with red blood vessels and outstretched hand on the gray blurred background.

The Fight-or-Flight Response

Messy desk with open book, glasses, cup with drink, colorful flower pot, green plant, tablet and notepad with pen.

Understanding Addiction

Non trovi quello che cercavi?

Cerca un argomento inserendo una frase o una parola chiave

Understanding the Robbers Cave Experiment: Group Dynamics Unveiled

Two teams of children in red and blue shirts face each other on a grassy field with improvised goals, ready for a sporting competition.

Stages and Hypotheses of the Robbers Cave Experiment

Formation of group identity and cohesion, the emergence of intergroup conflict, reducing conflict through interdependence, implications and applications of the robbers cave findings, ethical reflections and study limitations.

Modifica disponibile

We’re fighting to restore access to 500,000+ books in court this week. Join us!

Corpus ID: 40195613

Intergroup Conflict And Cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment

M. Sherif , O. J. Harvey , +2 authors C. W. Sherif
Published 21 September 2013

878 Citations

Emergence and escalation of intergroup conflict: a review and future directives in social psychology, communication in intergroup conflicts, threat and parochialism in intergroup relations: lab-in-the-field evidence from rural georgia, affiliation motivational system, a multilevel test of allport’s contact conditions, the psychology of intergroup conflict: a review of theories and measures, a model for understanding positive intergroup relations using the in-group-favoring norm, when competition turns ugly: collective injustice, workgroup identification, and counterproductive work behavior, the effect of intragroup cohesion on negotiation processes, we the people, 25 references, social norms and the individual., here, ‘i’ am, the moral judgment of the child, in short order, on a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other, a study of some social factors in perception..

Highly Influential

It Doesn't Make Any Difference

Robbers Cave Experiment

Robbers cave experiment definition.

The Robbers Cave experiment demonstrated that an attempt to simply bring hostile groups together is not enough to reduce intergroup prejudice. Rather, this experiment confirmed that groups must cooperate and have common goals to truly build peace. Thus, although contact is vital to reducing tensions between groups, interdependence is essential for establishing lasting intergroup harmony. This experiment is a classic in social psychology and is important because it has implications for reducing conflict between real social groups. In addition, this study has implications for a number of prominent social psychological theories, including realistic conflict theory and social identity theory.

Robbers Cave Experiment Background

The study took place in three separate stages that were approximately 1 week apart: (1) group formation, (2) intergroup competition, and (3) intergroup cooperation. The purpose of the first stage was to encourage the development of unique ingroup identities among the groups. This occurred as a result of the boys engaging in shared activities (e.g., swimming, hiking) with their own groups, which indeed led to the spontaneous emergence of norms, leaders, and identities. In fact, the groups even chose distinct names for themselves, with one referring to itself as the Rattlers and the other as the Eagles.

In the second stage, the groups were introduced and placed in direct competition with one another. Thus, the boys competed in a series of contests involving activities such as baseball and tug-of-war. The group that won overall was to be awarded a trophy and other prizes, and the losing group was to receive nothing. The result was a vicious rivalry between the groups, with both verbal and physical attacks being commonplace. For instance, the boys engaged in name-calling and taunting, as well as more physical acts of aggression such as stealing the winning group’s prizes and burning each other’s team flags. Clearly, the researchers’ goal of creating intergroup conflict was easily achieved. However, resolving this conflict turned out to be a more difficult task.

In the final stage of the experiment, researchers arranged specific situations designed to reduce the severe hostility between groups. First, the groups were provided with noncompetitive opportunities for increased contact, such as watching movies and sharing meals together. However, these getting-to-know-you opportunities did little to defuse intergroup hostility. In fact, many of these situations resulted in an exchange of verbal insults and, occasionally, food fights.

As an alternative strategy, the groups were placed in situations that required them to cooperate with one another (i.e., the situations involved superordinate goals). For instance, one situation involved a broken-down truck carrying supplies to the camp. Another involved a problem with the camp’s water supply. In both cases, the groups needed to work together because the resources at stake were important to everyone involved. This cooperation resulted in more harmonious relations between groups, as friendships began to develop across group lines. As a telling sign of their newfound harmony, both groups expressed a desire to return home on the same bus.

Robbers Cave Experiment Implications and Importance

The Robbers Cave experiment has had an enormous impact on the field of social psychology. First, this study has implications for the contact hypothesis of prejudice reduction, which, in its simplest form, posits that contact between members of different groups improves how well groups get along. This experiment illustrates how contact alone is not enough to restore intergroup harmony. Even after the competition between the boys ended, the hostility did not disappear during future contact. Competition seemingly became incorporated into the groups’ identities. The hostility did not finally calm down until the context changed and cooperation between groups was required. Thus, beyond mere contact, groups also need to be interdependent and have common goals.

Second, this study validated the claims of realistic conflict theory, which specifies that prejudice and discrimination result when groups are placed in competition for valuable resources. The boys in this experiment clearly demonstrated that competition breeds intergroup hostility. More importantly, however, this study highlights the significance of the social context in the development of prejudice and discrimination. The boys selected to participate in this study were well-adjusted and came from stable, middle-class families. Thus, it is unlikely that individual characteristics such as socioeconomic status and family life were responsible for the observed effects because these factors were held constant. Rather, the context of intergroup relations (i.e., competition) led to the observed conflict and hostility. This suggests that prejudice is largely a product of social situations and that individual pathology is not necessary to produce outgroup hatred. Therefore, the results of this experiment speak to a number of social psychological theories that emphasize the importance of the social context in understanding group prejudice, such as social identity theory and self-categorization theory.

References:

LeVine, R. A., & Campbell, D. T. (1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes and group behavior. New York: Wiley.
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1988). The Robbers Cave experiment. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.

EN - English

DE - Deutsch

ES - Español

IT - Italiano

FR - Français

PT - Português

Table of content

Full table of contents

Mechanisms of Action of Superordinate Goals

Applications of Lessons from Robbers Cave

Recommend to library

JoVE NEWSLETTERS

JoVE Journal

Methods Collections

JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments

JoVE Business

JoVE Science Education

JoVE Lab Manual

Faculty Resource Center

Publishing Process
Editorial Board
Scope and Policies
Peer Review
Testimonials
Subscriptions
Library Advisory Board

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.

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.

Reader Interactions

March 6, 2019 at 9:39 pm

Pondering the possible results of this scenario among other groups, I wonder if people can see beyond their differences to Desire to cooperate, even for a common goal.

March 8, 2019 at 7:22 am

Great question! Psychologically speaking, we would suspect that other groups operate off of similar principles to the ones I described above; however, they may be stronger or weaker depending on the cohesiveness of the group. Nonetheless, getting people to share a common goal (or even a common enemy) can be enough to unite even the most conflicting groups.

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 Self-Concept in Psychology?
What Is a Schema in Psychology? Definition and Examples
What Is Attachment Theory? Definition and Stages
Psychodynamic Theory: Approaches and Proponents
What Is Behaviorism in Psychology?
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?
What Is Flirting? A Psychological Explanation
What Is a Conditioned Response?

Member-only story

The Robbers Cave experiment: a psychological experiment worth considering in today’s divided society

Fabio Manganiello

The Monolith

If there’s a lesson worth learning from history, it’s that the course history has been mainly shaped by the struggle between competition and cooperation among human beings. And while competition is a feature common to most of other primitive species too, cooperation is only found in more cognitive advanced species — and it could explain why our species succeeded more than others.

A corollary of this lesson is that the sole purpose of any politician, political movement or ideology built around an ideological framework that stresses identity is to maximise consent and egoistically improve its own conditions by flirting with our primitive instincts towards competition, without bringing any good to the rest of the world. There’s not a single exception worth a mention in history. The trick has been known for at least two millennia (Roman’s used to call this strategy divide et impera , “split and rule”), and if there’s anything worth learning from history is that you shouldn’t trust anyone who stresses identity as a core feature of his/her rhetorics.

The Robbers Cave experiment run in Oklahoma in 1953 shed some significant light on how identity can be embraced to provide our species with a false sense of purpose, and how it can be leveraged to create deep artificial divisions among us that are hard to fix.

In the experiment 22 kids from similar backgrounds aged between 11 and 12 were selected for a…

Written by Fabio Manganiello

Automation, IoT, programming, machine learning, science, math, economics and more. Powered by Fabio “BlackLight” Manganiello and Sneha.

Text to speech

Shopping Cart

Conflict and Cooperation: Psychological Insights from the Robbers Cave Experiment

The Robbers Cave Experiment, conducted by social psychologist Muzafer Sherif back in 1954, remains a landmark study in understanding group dynamics, conflict, and the process of people coming together in cooperation. This field experiment, set in a summer camp for boys, sought to explore the origins of intergroup conflict and the conditions under which it could be resolved.

By examining the methodology, findings, and implications of the Robbers Cave Experiment, we gain profound insights into the nature of human behavior, prejudice, and mechanisms of conflict resolution.

Methodology and Design

The Robbers Cave Experiment was meticulously designed to study the emergence and resolution of intergroup conflict among boys aged 11 to 12. Conducted at Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma, the experiment involved 22 boys who were unaware that they were part of a study. The boys were divided into two groups, each unaware of the other’s existence initially. These groups, named the Eagles and the Rattlers, were kept separate during the first phase, encouraging strong within-group bonds through cooperative activities such as hiking and team games.

In the second phase, the groups were introduced to one another and placed in direct competition through a series of contests designed to foster rivalry. These competitions included sports and other camp activities, with rewards for the winning group, thereby intensifying intergroup conflict. The researchers meticulously observed the behaviors and interactions of the boys, noting the development of animosity, derogatory attitudes, and aggression between the groups.

Key Findings

The Robbers Cave Experiment’s findings were both revealing and impactful. As competition between the groups intensified, the boys exhibited strong in-group favoritism and out-group hostility. Name-calling, physical altercations, and other forms of aggressive behavior became prevalent, demonstrating how easily intergroup conflict could arise from competitive circumstances. The experiment illustrated the power of group identity and the tendency for individuals to favor their own group while devaluing others.

However, the most significant insights emerged during the third phase of the experiment, which aimed to reduce the intergroup conflict. The researchers introduced superordinate goals—tasks that required cooperation between the groups to achieve a common objective. These tasks included repairing a broken water supply and pooling resources to watch a movie. Through these shared challenges, the boys gradually overcame their differences, developing positive intergroup relationships and reducing hostilities.

Implications for Understanding Group Dynamics

The Robbers Cave Experiment provided empirical evidence supporting the idea that intergroup conflict arises not from inherent differences between groups but from situational factors that promote competition and division. This understanding has profound implications for addressing prejudice and conflict in various contexts, from classrooms to workplaces to international relations. The experiment underscored the importance of creating environments that encourage cooperation and shared goals, rather than competition and rivalry.

By demonstrating that conflict could be resolved through superordinate goals, the Robbers Cave Experiment highlighted the potential for common objectives to unite disparate groups. This insight has been instrumental in developing conflict resolution strategies that focus on fostering cooperation and mutual understanding. The study suggested that when groups work together towards a common goal, they are more likely to see each other as allies rather than adversaries, reducing biases and promoting harmony.

Ethical Considerations

While the Robbers Cave Experiment yielded valuable insights, it also raised ethical concerns about the use of deception and the potential psychological impact on participants. The boys were unaware that they were part of an experiment, and the induced conflict could have caused emotional distress. Modern ethical standards emphasize the importance of informed consent, protecting participants from harm, and debriefing them after the study. The ethical controversies surrounding the Robbers Cave Experiment have influenced the development of guidelines to ensure the responsible conduct of research involving human subjects.

Broader Societal Impact

The Robbers Cave Experiment’s insights extend beyond academic discourse, offering practical applications for contemporary society. In educational settings, understanding the roots of intergroup conflict can inform the design of programs that promote inclusivity and cooperation among students. Educators can create collaborative projects and activities that encourage teamwork across diverse groups, fostering a sense of unity and reducing prejudices.

In organizational contexts, the principles derived from the Robbers Cave Experiment can guide efforts to manage diversity and mitigate workplace conflict. By emphasizing common goals and creating opportunities for collaboration, organizations can cultivate a more cohesive and harmonious work environment. Leaders can use team-building exercises and shared objectives to bridge divides and enhance intergroup relations, ultimately improving organizational performance and employee well-being.

Theoretical Contributions

The Robbers Cave Experiment made significant contributions to social psychology theories, particularly in understanding realistic conflict theory and social identity theory. Realistic conflict theory posits that intergroup conflict arises from competition over limited resources, leading to negative attitudes and behaviors towards out-groups. The experiment provided empirical support for this theory, demonstrating how competition can exacerbate tensions and drive conflict.

Additionally, the study contributed to social identity theory , which explores how group membership influences self-concept and behavior. The experiment showed that individuals derive a sense of identity from their group affiliations and are motivated to maintain a positive group image. This understanding of social identity has been pivotal in exploring the dynamics of in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination.

The Robbers Cave Experiment conducted by Muzafer Sherif remains a cornerstone in the study of group dynamics, conflict, and cooperation. Through its innovative design and rigorous methodology, the experiment revealed the powerful influence of situational factors in shaping intergroup relations. The findings underscored the potential for conflict to arise from competition and the effectiveness of superordinate goals in fostering cooperation and reducing hostilities.

As we reflect on the Robbers Cave Experiment, its lessons continue to resonate in various domains, from education to organizational management to international diplomacy. The study highlights the importance of creating environments that promote shared objectives and collaborative efforts, demonstrating that unity and cooperation are achievable even in the face of division. By applying these insights thoughtfully, we can address the root causes of conflict and build more inclusive and harmonious communities.

Enduring Insights: Lessons from the Life, Works and Wisdom of Fyodor Dostoevsky

Timeless wisdom: valuable lessons from the life and works of friedrich nietzsche, ancient stoic solutions: ancient philosophical strategies to mental & emotional problems, living life with integrity: 10 timeless quotes to captivate your moral compass, essential character traits for personal growth and development | a guide to self-improvement, the smart goal setting framework for life coaching excellence, embracing the darkness: 20 lessons for personal growth from gerard egan’s ‘the shadow side’, the art of eloquence: key principles for impactful and captivating conversations, trust at the core: cultivating healthy relationships that stand the test of time.

Mastering the Art of Balance: The Seven Aspects of a Completely Balanced Lifestyle

An Antidote to Narcisism: Some People Prefer the Version of You they Can Control

Behaviorism Revolution: Shaping Modern Psychology & our Understanding of Behavior

Unraveling the Human Psyche: The Impact of Psychoanalytic Theory by Sigmund Freud

Dark History of The Holmesburg Prison Experiments: Ethical Violations and Implications

Manipulating Moods: Understanding the Impact of the Facebook Emotional Contagion Study

The Dark Side of Human Behavior: The Impact of The Zimbardo Deindividuation Study

Enhancing Learning Through Cognitive Load Theory: Insights from John Sweller’s Experiment

The Dark Legacy of Project MK-ULTRA: Unraveling the CIA’s Mind Control Experiments

Shining a Light on Productivity: The Impact of the Hawthorne Studies by Elton Mayo

Get updates from the academy of modern applied psychology.

About Achology

There was a problem reporting this post.

Block Member?

Please confirm you want to block this member.

You will no longer be able to:

Mention this member in posts

Please allow a few minutes for this process to complete.

IMAGES

The Robbers Cave Experiment Of 1954
Survivor'da da Kendini Gösteren "Robbers Cave Deneyi" Nedir?
Robbers Cave Experiment by Luanne Kwok on Prezi
Inside Robbers Cave
5 Robbers Cave Experiment
The Dark Side of Science: The Robbers Cave Experiment 1954 (Short Documentary)

VIDEO

Best Place To Visit In Summer (Robbers Cave)
Geologist Cave Experiment !
Robbers cave Dehradun
Probeer Dit Nooit In Rainbow Friends! (Roblox)
Robbers Cave Dehradun #nature
Third Wave Experiment #science #experiment #shorts

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.
Robbers Cave Experiment: Social Identity & Intergroup Relations
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.
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
A New Look at the Classic Robbers Cave Experiment
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 ...
Robbers Cave Experiment: Unveiling Human Nature's Dark Side
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 Robbers Cave Experiment: Investigating Intergroup Conflict and
The Robbers Cave Experiment, a landmark study in social psychology conducted by Muzafer Sherif and colleagues in 1954, sought to investigate the underpinnings of intergroup conflict and cooperation. This field experiment involved 22 boys, all 11 to 12 years old, who were carefully selected to ensure homogeneity in terms of socio-economic ...
Intergroup conflict and cooperation; the Robbers Cave experiment
Access-restricted-item true Addeddate 2010-01-25 18:48:15 Associated-names Sherif, Muzafer, 1906-1988 Bookplateleaf
Intergroup Conflict And Cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment
Intergroup Conflict And Cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment. M. Sherif, O. J. Harvey, +2 authors. C. W. Sherif. Published 21 September 2013. Psychology. TLDR. This chapter discusses the integration of field work and laboratory in Small Group Research and the role of staff, subject selection, and experimental site selection in the design ...
A Critical Test of the Sherifs' Robber's Cave Experiments:
Robbers Cave Experiment. Show details Hide details. Justin J. Lehmiller. Encyclopedia of Social Psychology. 2007. View more. Sage recommends: SAGE Knowledge. Entry . Realistic Group Conflict Theory. Show details Hide details. Janet Ward Schofield. Encyclopedia of Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 2010.
Robbers Cave Experiment (SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY)
Robbers Cave Experiment Definition. The Robbers Cave experiment demonstrated that an attempt to simply bring hostile groups together is not enough to reduce intergroup prejudice. Rather, this experiment confirmed that groups must cooperate and have common goals to truly build peace. Thus, although contact is vital to reducing tensions between ...
Robbers Cave Experiment: Social Identity & Intergroup Relations ...
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 ...
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 ...
The Robbers Cave Experiment
The Robbers Cave Experiment: Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation. [Orig. Pub. as Intergroup Conflict and Group Relations] Muzafer Sherif. Wesleyan University Press, 1988 - Psychology - 229 pages. 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 ...
The Robbers Cave Experiment
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. ... The Robbers Cave experiment (Vol. 10, pp. 150-198). Norman, OK: University Book Exchange. Share. Share. Tweet. Share. Share. Share. Tweet ...
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: a psychological experiment worth ...
The Robbers Cave experiment run in Oklahoma in 1953 shed some significant light on how identity can be embraced to provide our species with a false sense of purpose, and how it can be leveraged to ...
Classics in the History of Psychology -- Sherif (1954/1961) Chapter7
The Rattlers [p. 180] backed this idea strongly, since the Stone Corral was the site of their campfires, and was considered "theirs." Wilson (E) wanted to go to Robbers Cave, and most of the Eagles backed this idea. But the Rattlers replied that the Stone Corral was a part of Robbers Cave, and they couldn't build a fire at the Cave itself.
Ethically Questionable Insights from the Robbers Cave Experiment
The Robbers Cave Experiment, conducted by social psychologist Muzafer Sherif back in 1954, remains a landmark study in understanding group dynamics, conflict, and the process of people coming together in cooperation. This field experiment, set in a summer camp for boys, sought to explore the origins of intergroup conflict and the conditions ...
Robbers cave experiment
What was stage 1? There were clear differences between the two groups: The rattlers appeared much more "tough" compared to the eagles and swore a lot. In contrast, the eagles cried when injured more and were anti-swearing. What was stage 2? The boys discovered each other and both challenged each other to a basketball competition. Hostility ...
robbers cave experiment Flashcards
The robbers cave experiment. 9 terms. Sherona. Preview. Realistic Conflict Theory. 7 terms. amber_bulley. Preview. Astro Unit 2 Study Questions. 12 terms. aexanderrapo1. Preview. ASTR Chapter 14 HW The Bizzar Stellar Graveyard. 57 terms. SKH97. Preview. Terms in this set (22) where was the study. oklahoma.

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

Chapter 7: Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

Suggested Reading

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

A New Look at the Classic Robbers Cave Experiment

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

Bion’s Basic-Assumption Group

Group Dynamics

Mood Convergence

Psychology of Assassination

Utilitarianism

Interpersonal Theory

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

The Robbers Cave Experiment: Investigating Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation

Background and Purpose of the Experiment

The Participants and Selection Process

The Three Stages of the Experiment

In-Group Formation

Formation of Group Identity

Natural Tendency of Groups to Form Social Identities

Intergroup Competition

Increased In-Group Solidarity and Out-Group Antagonism

Manifestation of Hostility

Mitigating Conflict through Cooperation

Effectiveness of Shared Superordinate Goals

Application of Findings in Educational Reforms

Impara con le flashcards di Algor Education

Ecco un elenco delle domande più frequenti su questo argomento

Understanding the Robbers Cave Experiment: Group Dynamics Unveiled

Stages and Hypotheses of the Robbers Cave Experiment

Intergroup Conflict And Cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment

878 Citations

It Doesn't Make Any Difference

Robbers Cave Experiment

Robbers Cave Experiment Background

Robbers Cave Experiment Implications and Importance

References:

The Robbers Cave Experiment: Realistic Conflict Theory

An Overview of the Robbers Cave Experiment

Group Formation and Bonding Phase of the Experiment