Social Psychology - Prejudice
SHERIF ET AL.’S (1954) ROBBER’S CAVE EXPERIMENT
MR. HOPTROFF
TINYURL.COM/SHERIFNKS
REALISTIC CONFLICT THEORY RE-CAP
 Developed by Muzafer Sherif (1966).
 States that prejudice, discrimination, and conflict occurs between
groups when there is competition for resources.
 Severity of the conflict depends on the scarcity of the resource
they are competing for.
 Conflict can be resolved by giving the groups super-ordinate goals
to complete together.
 How is this different from Social Identity Theory?
 What other psychological approach can Realistic Conflict Theory
be explained by?
REALISTIC CONFLICT THEORY IN FILM
SHERIF ET AL.’S (1954) THE ROBBER’S CAVE EXPERIMENT:
BACKGROUND & AIMS OF THE STUDY
Background
 Conducted by Sherif et al. (1954) at the Robber’s Cave State Park,
Oklahoma, USA.
 The summer camp was an already existing summer camp.
 Before this study, people believed that mere contact between
opposing groups will reduce conflict.
 Studying group prejudice was important following World War 2.
Aims
 To study inter-group relations in a natural setting.
 To study the origins and reduction of prejudice between groups.
SHERIF ET AL.’S (1954) THE ROBBER’S CAVE EXPERIMENT:
DESIGN
 Participants: 22 boys, aged 11 from middle-class families.
 Type of study: Field Experiment.
 Experimental design: Matched pairs.
 Sampling method: Opportunity Sampling.
 Data collection methods: Observations, experiments,
socio-metrics, & tape recordings.
Socio-graph
 3 stages: Formation, Friction, & Integration.
SHERIF ET AL.’S (1954) THE ROBBER’S CAVE EXPERIMENT:
STAGE 1 - FORMATION
 Participants were matched based upon athletic ability and
Bonding Activities
behaviour.
 Groups were not initially aware of the other groups
existence.
Some eagles cut
and distribute
meat.
 Groups named themselves ‘The Eagles’ & ‘The Rattlers’.
 Bonding activities were used to increase the cohesiveness of
the group & group norms were developed.
 After a week, the two groups were made aware of each
other, and verbal hostility began.
Rattlers practice
tent pitching.
SHERIF ET AL.’S (1954) THE ROBBER’S CAVE EXPERIMENT:
STAGE 2 – FRICTION
Competition
 The two groups were introduced, and hostilities started
immediately.
 Organised tournaments were created and prizes were
Rattlers and
Eagles sizing up
each other prior
to first contest.
given to winners.
 There were no prizes for the losers.
 Children organised their own competitions.
Eagles in one of
their huddles
praying for
victory prior to
a contest.
SHERIF ET AL.’S (1954) THE ROBBER’S CAVE EXPERIMENT:
STAGE 3 – INTEGRATION
Reducing Conflict
 First tried merely introducing the groups in a non-
competitive environment, did not reduce conflict.
 Introduced super-ordinate goals – tasks that required the boys
to work together to complete.
Members of
both groups sit
down to watch
the film they had
organised.
 Tasks included:
 Fixing a sabotaged water tank & pump.
 Pooling resources to watch a film together.
 Fixing a broken truck whilst on a trip to the lake.
Members of
both groups take
it in turns to try
and fix the
water tank.
SHERIF ET AL.’S (1954) THE ROBBER’S CAVE EXPERIMENT:
KEY FINDINGS
Stage 1 – Formation
 Both groups had a recognised leader and developed group hierarchies.
Observations
 The Rattlers were initially more verbally hostile than The Eagles once
they knew of the existence of the other group.
Stage 2 – Friction
 Group members overestimated the abilities of their in-group &
The Eagles
burned The
Rattlers’ flag.
underestimated the abilities of the out-group.
 The Eagles burned the Rattlers’ flag & The Rattlers raided The Eagles
Cabin.
Stage 3 – Intergration
 The Rattlers considered 36.4% (up from 6.4%) of Eagles to be their
friends & The Eagles considered 23.2% (up from 7.5%) of The Rattlers
to be their friends.
YouTube video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PRuxMprSDQ
Fights broke out
between groups
& they had to be
separated.
SHERIF ET AL.’S (1954) THE ROBBER’S CAVE EXPERIMENT:
ETHICS
Which ethical issues did the Robber’s Cave Experiment have?
 Informed Consent
 Debriefing
 Psychological Harm
 Deception
 Physiological Harm
 Confidentiality/Anonymity
 Right to Withdraw
 Use of vulnerable participants
SHERIF ET AL. (1954) & RIOTING BEHAVIOUR
Robber’s Cave
Experiment
Rioting
Behaviour
EVALUATING SHERIF ET AL.’S (1954) ROBBER’S CAVE EXPERIMENT
Descriptive Point
Strength/Positive
Weakness/Negative
22 boys, aged 11, from middleclass American families
Participants would normally go to
summer camps – increasing ecological
validity
Generalisability – can not be applied to
girls, older people, and non-US
populations
Field experiment
Ecological validity
Harder to control for
extraneous variables
Matched-pairs design
Internal validity – individual differences
are reduced if groups are matched evenly
Matching criteria may not be
connected to prejudice behaviour
3 stages to the study: Formation,
Friction, & Integration
Replicability
Reductionist
Ethics – lack of informed
consent
Necessary to stop participants
acting unnaturally
Some of the boys may not want
to be part of an experiment
CONCLUSION
 Sherif et al. (1954) showed that group norms and identities can be developed within a group, despite
members not knowing each other and group division being arbitrary. Once these groups came into
competition with each other over resources, such as trophies, prejudice and conflict occurred.
Members of the in-group overestimated the ability of their group, whilst underestimating the ability of
the out-group, showing that members associated strongly with their group, and had negative attitudes
towards the out-group. The negative attitudes towards the out-group was evident when The Eagles
burned The Rattlers’ flag, and, in retaliation, The Rattlers raided The Eagles cabin.
 Sherif et al. (1954) provided findings that were contradictory to the common belief at the time, that
mere contact between opposing groups reduces conflict and prejudice. Sherif et al. (1954)
demonstrated that in order to reduce conflict and prejudice between opposing groups, super-ordinate
goals need to be created, whereby members of the group need to co-operate to achieve a common
goal.