Discuss Sherifs famous Robbers cave experiment.? Describe and extend the findings using Cohen and Inskos 2008 article.? How do these articles extend to other areas? Cohen, T. R., &
Discuss Sherif’s famous Robber’s cave experiment. Describe and extend the findings using Cohen and Insko’s 2008 article. How do these articles extend to other areas?
- Cohen, T. R., & Insko, C. A. (2008). War and Peace: Possible Approaches to Reducing Intergroup Conflict. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(2), 87–93. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00066.x Cohen, T. R., & Insko, C. A. (2008). War and Peace: Possible Approaches to Reducing Intergroup Conflict. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(2), 87–93. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00066.x – Alternative Formats
- Fine, G. A. (2004). Forgotten Classic: The Robbers Cave Experiment. Sociological Forum, 19(4), 663–666. Fine, G. A. (2004). Forgotten Classic: The Robbers Cave Experiment. Sociological Forum, 19(4), 663–666. – Alternative Formats
- Sherif, M. (1956). Experiments in group conflict. Retrieved from Sherif, M. (1956). Experiments in group conflict. Retrieved from – Alternative Formats http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Sherif/chap1.ht
.
.
.
.
Forgotten Classic: The Robbers Cave Experiment Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment by Muzafer Sherif; O. J. Harvey; B. Jack White; William R. Hood; Carolyn W. Sherif Review by: Gary Alan Fine Sociological Forum, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Dec., 2004), pp. 663-666 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4148836 Accessed: 30/09/2012 15:38
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Sociological Forum.
http://www.jstor.org
Sociological Forum, Vol. 19, No. 4, December 2004 (C 2004) DOI: 10.1007/s11206-004-0704-7
Forgotten Classic: The Robbers Cave Experiment
Gary Alan Fine1
Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment. Muzafer Sherif O. J. Harvey, B. Jack White, William R. Hood, and Carolyn W Sherif Norman: University of Oklahoma Book Exchange, 1961. Reprint edition, Wesleyan University Press, 1988.
What has become of the small group? Although the group itself has by no means vanished (Harrington and Fine, 2000), the idea of the group has decayed since its prominence in the heyday of group dynamics research dur- ing the 1950s. A half century has passed, and social scientists have embraced networks, global systems, and cognitive structures. Yet, a social science that is intent on exploring the meaning, the potential, and the power of social interaction has nowhere to turn but to the group, or so it would seem.
Some classic works are known more than read-blame the reader, the writer, or the access of the text. It is this last that is potentially the easi- est to correct. And so it is with the masterpiece of Muzafer Sherif (and his colleagues), Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation: The Robbers Cave Ex- periment. What is arguably the most significant book in social psychology was published as a printed typescript through a university bookstore: the University of Oklahoma Book Exchange and then reprinted by Wesleyan University Press. Despite its methodological innovations, theoretical signif- icance, and the fame of the lead author, this project is infrequently read. 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 as group structures developed, as group idiocultures were created. Eventually the Eagles and the
1Department of Sociology, Northwestern University, 1810 Chicago Avenue, Evanston, Illinois 60208; e-mail: [email protected]
663
0884-8971/04/1200-0663/0 ? 2004 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.
664 Fine
Rattlers entered into conflict, and then, through a set of nifty experimental interventions overcame their hostility through solving tasks together.
It was Sherif's contention, based on a series of elaborate research studies in the late 1940s and early 1950s, that groups naturally develop status struc- tures and group cultures, and then establish boundaries, providing for the opportunity of intergroup conflict, particularly where resources need to be shared. The question-for both theory and policy-is how to overcome this
intergroup hostility. Sherif believed that the egocentric orientation of group members could be overcome if the rival groups were involved in achieving superordinate goals-goals that neither group by itself had the resources to achieve. While it might be an overstatement to suggest that such a claim had any direct bearing on firmly sedimented intergroup prejudice, much less on international relations, the idea that groups sometimes require others for the desired ends is surely accurate and behaviors may alter as a consequence. Sherif's point is valid in its focus on how groups defined their boundaries, and its assertion that this definition results from group goals and resources.
As much as for the substance of its findings, the Robbers Cave study is notable for its methodology. Muzafer Sherif (1906-1988), received his PhD in psychology at Columbia University. He taught both psychology (at the
University of Oklahoma) and sociology (at Pennsylvania State University), and during his academic career authored two dozen books. Sherif insisted that the understanding of the dynamics of group life was not (only) to be found in the laboratory. Early in his career, Sherif became known for his research on what is labeled the autokinetic effect. This refers to the physi- ological process by which, when an individual views a point of light within a darkened room, that point of light appears to move as a function of the natural and uncontrolled movement of one's eyes. This, in itself, is not a socio- logical phenomenon. Sherif's concern was to explain the social construction of norms. By bringing groups of individuals into the darkened room and have them estimate publicly the movement of the light, Sherif discovered that individual groups created their own norms for movement-their own culture that affected how members perceived the world.
These laboratory experiments provided a thin basis on which to examine the creation of group standards. Examining the dynamics of preadolescent group formation provides the richness of detail from which cultural dynamics is evident. Sherif's approach countered the standard methodological mod- els of controlled laboratory research that characterized experimental social
psychology then and now. Even though the Robbers Cave study is funda-
mentally grounded on ethnographic data, its structure is also based on the rigorous testing of hypotheses (Fine and Elsbach, 2000). Sherif and his col-
leagues present a set of experimental hypotheses which they proceed to evaluate, sometimes through observation over time and sometimes as the
Forgotten Classic: The Robbers Cave Experiment 665
result of providing the preadolescents with challenges, such as a "broken truck," which could not be pushed without the aid of all the boys, or a break in the water supply to the camp, which could not be fixed without the effort of both groups. As with any approach that represents a blend, one must determine whether one has achieved the best of two worlds or the worst. The inexactitude, manipulation, systematic control, and richness abut each other, and each reader is forced to weigh the benefits and weaknesses of a
study that is, at the least, an innovative blend of qualitative and quantitative analysis. For experimental methods, the fact that one is watching subjects ac- tually interact with one other in real time and in a naturalistic environment carries power.
It is a great triumph of the Robbers Cave experiment to remind us force- fully that groups really do count. No matter how exquisite an experimental manipulation, we are not merely watching individuals who have become convinced through a set of experimental manipulations that they are in the same scene with others, but are observing those who know that their ties are continuing and are consequential. This is interaction with all its rawness and
humor–and when one is dealing with preadolescent boys there is plenty of each.
So, Sherif and his colleagues have created a monograph that stands proudly as a description of the life of preadolescents, as a field experiment of
group dynamics, and as a claim for social policy. We are left with the question that, given this significance, why was the work not embraced by a major pub- lisher. Putting aside choices of the authors(choices of which I am unaware), perhaps the answer is tied to a set of historical particulars-the fact that much social psychological work is not published in book form, the fact that the Uni-
versity of Oklahoma was on the academic periphery, or perhaps the fact that the interdisciplinarity of the book separated it from the scholarly memory of any one community. Perhaps what happened to the memory of Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation is akin to what happened to the examination of the small group generally. The small group, after all, represents society writ small. Small groups are too large for the study of the individual within the domain of the "cognitive revolution," dismissing metaphors of the mind as a
computer; they are too small to be included in the growth in organizational and network analysis, rising with the expansion of schools of management. Methodologically, the small group demands intense observation-whether systematic, as in the categorical coding tradition of Bales and his colleagues, or ethnographic, as in the insightful fieldwork traditions of Sherif, Whyte, and
Festinger. For such a tiny public, so much effort. Today, the group seems para- doxically both too large and too small. The methodology of group dynamics, a cross of ethnography and experimentation, seems both too sloppy and too
precise. And, so, the analysis of arenas of action has been shunted aside.
666 Fine
A need exists for the rebirth of research on the small group, and there is no better legitimating text than Sherif's Robbers Cave Study, with its close attention to culture, interaction, and structure. Muzafer Sherif understood that the content of group discussion (jokes, nicknames, collective symbols) is revealed through interpersonal behavior and is inextricably linked to a set of larger social processes. Issues with beneficial or malign effects on individuals operate on the group level, and changes in the orientation of groups affect these outcomes, for better or for worse. Within the group is a microcosm of the larger society that demands the creation of a sociological miniaturism- the ability to see social structure in light of the locations of action (Stolte, Fine, and Cook, 2001). It is in Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation that this critical nexus between structure, interaction, and culture can be discovered. It is worth searching out.
REFERENCES
Fine, Gary Alan, and Kimberly D. Elsbach and twenty-first century sociology." 2000 "Ethnography and experiment in Social Psychology Quarterly 63:312-
social psychological theory build- 323. ing: Tactics for integrating qualita- Stolte, John, Gary Alan Fine, and Karen Cook tive field data with quantitative lab 2001 "Sociological miniaturism: See- data." Journal of Experimental Social ing the big through the small Psychology 36:51-76. in social psychology." Annual
Harrington, Brooke, and Gary Alan Fine Review of Sociology 27:387- 2000 "Opening the black box: Small groups 413.
- Article Contents
- p. 663
- p. 664
- p. 665
- p. 666
- Issue Table of Contents
- Sociological Forum, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Dec., 2004), pp. 531-680
- Volume Information
- Front Matter
- From the Editor: Embracing and Interrogating Ideas [pp. 531-532]
- Conceptualizing Resistance [pp. 533-554]
- "I Did Not Get That Job Because of a Black Man…": The Story Lines and Testimonies of Color-Blind Racism [pp. 555-581]
- Authority, Autonomy, and Ambivalence: Moral Choice in Twentieth-Century Commencement Speeches [pp. 583-609]
- Double Jeopardy in Hollywood: Age and Gender in the Careers of Film Actors, 1926-1999 [pp. 611-631]
- Gender and Community Context: An Analysis of Husbands' Household Authority in Rural Guatemala [pp. 633-652]
- Review Essays
- Preface [pp. 653-654]
- Review: An Ethnographic Primer: How to Observe Morals and Manners [pp. 655-657]
- Review: Still Skeptical: Sceptical Sociology [pp. 659-662]
- Review: Forgotten Classic: The Robbers Cave Experiment [pp. 663-666]
- Review: Looking beyond Psychiatric Diagnostic Categories: Revisiting "The Social Control of Mental Illness" [pp. 667-670]
- Review: Revisiting an Underappreciated Classic: John Lofland's Deviance and Identity [pp. 671-673]
- Review: "The Active Society": Thirty-Six Years and Counting [pp. 675-676]
- Back Matter [pp. 677-680]
,
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Sherif/chap1.htm
yorku.ca
Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment
Muzafer Sherif, O. J. Harvey, B. Jack White, William R. Hood, Carolyn W. Sherif (1954/1961)
CHAPTER 1
The study of small groups has become one of the most flourishing areas of research, involving men in various social sciences and psychology. The influences responsible for the increased preoccupation with small groups spring both from developments within various academic disciplines and from agencies instituted for devising practical solutions for immediate application. Brief mention of influences contributing to the flourishing state of affairs in small group research will be helpful as orientation:
1. Theoretically and empirically, works of sociologists have historical priority in showing persistent concern with the topic of small groups (Faris, 1953). Since the early 1920's a definite research development in sociology related to small groups has been carried on, as represented by the works of men like Thrasher, Anderson, Clifford Shaw, Zorbaugh, Hiller, and Whyte. In the recurrent findings reported in this line of research, which was carried out over a period of a good many years, one cannot help finding crucial leads for a realistic approach to experimentation in this area.
2. Another of the major instigators of the extraordinary volume of small group research stems from the practical concern of business and military agencies. A series of studies initiated by Elton Mayo and his associates at the Harvard Business School in the late 1920's has proliferated in various institutions, both academic and technological. Another impetus along this line came from the concern of military agencies for establishing effective techniques for the assessment of leaders.
3. Another major influence in the development of small [p. 2] group studies comes from psychological research. Regardless of the theoretical treatment, the results of psychological experiments almost always showed differential effects on behavior when individuals undertook an activity in relation to other individuals or even in their presence, as can be ascertained readily by a glance at Murphy, Murphy, and Newcomb's . F. H. Allport's experiments which started around 1915 are illustrative of this point. In the l930's, it became increasingly evident that social behavior (cooperation – competition, ascendance – submission, etc.) could not be properly studied when the individual is considered in isolation. Psychological "trait" theories or personality typologies fell far short in explaining social relations. Therefore, when Moreno's work appeared in this country in the mid-thirties presenting his sociometric technique for the study of interpersonal choices and reciprocities among individuals (i. e., role relations), it quickly found wide application. A few years later Kurt Lewin and his associates demonstrated the weighty determination of individual behavior by the properties of group atmosphere. This line of experimentation was the basis of other subsequent studies coming from the proponents of the Group Dynamics school. Some other major influences coming from psychology will be mentioned later.
Interdisciplinary Cooperation and the Concept of "Levels"
It becomes apparent even from a brief mention of the background that men from various disciplines contributed to make the study of small groups the going concern that it is today. As a consequence there is diversity of emphasis in formulating problems and hypotheses, and diversity in concepts used. This state of affairs has brought about
Page 1 of 14 08/10/2012 14:11 PM
II
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Sherif/chap1.htm considerable elbow-rubbing and interdisciplinary bickering among sociologists, psychologists, and anthropologists. In this process and through critical appraisal of each others' approaches, the interdisciplinary approach has become a necessity for achieving a rounded picture.
Faced with the task of dealing with both psychological and sociocultural factors in human relations problems, psychologists have too often yielded to the temptation of improvising their own "sociologies" in terms of their preferred concepts. Sociologists, on the other hand, have sometimes engaged in [p. 3] psychological improvisations. While sociological or psychological improvisation at times proves necessary on the frontiers of a discipline, it is difficult to justify on topics for which a substantial body of research exists in sociology or in psychology, as the case may be.
On the whole, interdisciplinary cooperation has usually turned out to mean rallying psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, and other social scientists to toss their theories and concepts into the ring. But, mere juxtaposition of utterances made by psychologists, sociologists, etc., in the same room or between the covers of the same book does not bring interdisciplinary cooperation. Nor is interdisciplinary integration possible by laying down segments from each discipline along the same line — one yard from psychology, one yard from sociology, then a foot each from history and economics.
The outlines of an interdisciplinary approach appear more clearly with the realization that "psychological" and "sociological" signify different levels of analysis. Men studying human relations are approaching related, similar, or even the same problems at different levels of analysis, necessitating units and concepts appropriate for dealing with events on that level. If we are working on the psychological level, our unit of analysis is the ; hence our treatment must be in terms of his psychological functioning — in concepts such as motives, judging, perceiving, learning, remembering, imagining, etc. If we are working on a sociological or cultural level, our concepts are in terms of social organization, institutions, value systems, language, kinship systems, art forms, technology, etc. (Note 1).
The concept of levels holds a fairly obvious but invaluable check on the validity of research findings. If it is valid, a generalization reached on a topic at one level of analysis is not contradicted and, in fact, gains support from valid generalizations reached at another level. For example, the psychologist's findings of differential behavior of an individual when participating in the activities of his group should be (and are) substantiated by findings on the sociological level, namely that collective action in a group has properties peculiar to the group. Checking and cross-checking findings obtained at one level against those obtained at another level on the same topic will make interdisciplinary cooperation the integrative meeting ground that it should [p. 4] be.
During the last century in the social sciences and more recently in psychology, the dependence of sub-units upon the setting or superordinate system of which they are parts has gained increased attention, especially in view of unrewarding attempts to account for the functioning system in an additive way. Understanding part processes is possible only through analysis of their relations within the functioning system, as well as by analysis of unique properties of the part process itself. Unless knowledge of the superordinate or larger functioning system is gained first, before tackling the part processes, there is the likelihood of unwarranted generalizations concerning the parts, and misinterpretation of the true functional significance of the processes observed.
In this connection, an illustration from Malinowski (1922) is instructive. Malinowski describes the complex exchange system of the Argonauts of the Western Pacific called the Kula. The Argonauts themselves "have no knowledge of the of any of their social structure…Not even the most intelligent native has any clear idea of the Kula as a big, organized social construction, still less of its sociological functions and implications. If you were to ask him what the Kula is, he would answer by giving a few details, most likely by giving his personal experiences and subjective views on the Kula…Not even a partial coherent account could be obtained. For the integral picture does not exist in his mind; he is in it, and cannot see the whole from the outside."
Page 2 of 14 08/10/2012 14:11 PM
III
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Sherif/chap1.htm This point can be illustrated in relation to small group studies. Since Lewin's experiments in the 1940's comparing lecture and group discussion methods in changing attitudes, various studies have shown that skillfully conducted group discussion in which members participate is more effective than lecture presentation of the same material. On the basis of results obtained in the American setting, it would seem that the superiority of group discussion methods might be universal. That this is not the case is indicated by one of the studies in the UNESCO project in India (Murphy, 1953). In an attempt to modify caste attitudes among college students in India using various methods, the greatest changes arose as a result of a lecture method using emotional appeals. The [p. 5] experimenter wrote: "Contrary to our original expectation and hypothesis, these young boys do not seem to be in a position to exploit fully the discussion technique, in bettering their social relationships. Does it indicate that our boys have got to be used to the democratic ways of discussion and at present prefer to be told what are the right attitudes rather than to be allowed to talk them out?" Within a social organization whose values clearly encourage dependence on authority and effectively discourage settling issues on a give-and-take basis in small sub-units, particular dependencies may become so much a part of the individual's ego system that group discussion techniques would be less effective than methods more in harmony with the social organization in which they take place.
Such comparative results illustrate the value of starting with due consideration of the sociocultural setting with its organization and values before generalizations are made about small groups functioning as parts of that setting (cf. Whyte, 1951; Arensberg, 1951). For small groups are not closed systems, especially in highly complex and differentiated societies such as the United States.
Facts obtained concerning the group setting are in terms of concepts and units at the social or cultural level of analysis. They will not give the step-by-step analysis of the particular interaction process; they will not be adequate for the task of dealing with interpersonal relations or the behavior of particular individual members. At this point, psychological concepts are needed for a detailed analysis of reciprocal relations, for handling motives, perceptions, judgments, etc.
Experimental Steps toward Integration
The rest of the Chapter will be devoted to a summary statement of the prior attempts on our part toward pulling together some relevant findings in sociology and in psychology in the study of small groups. In these attempts the guiding considerations have been the following:
1. To extract some minimum generalizations from the sociological findings on small groups on the one hand; on the [p. 6] other, to extract relevant principles from the work coming from the psychological laboratory.
2. To formulate problems and hypotheses relating to one another the indications of the two sets of relevant findings, that is, from sociological and psychological research.
3. To test hypotheses thus derived with methods and techniques which are appropriate for the particular problem — experimental, observational, sociometric, questionnaire, or combinations thereof, as the case may be.
Let us start with the term "small group" itself. The term "small group" is coming to mean all things to all people. If the concept of small groups is considered at the outset, research on small groups will gain a great deal in the way of selection of focal problems for investigation, and hence effective concentration of efforts.
"Small group" may mean simply small numbers of individuals. If this is the criterion, any small number of individuals in a would be considered a small group. But a conception of small groups in terms of numbers alone ignores the properties of actual small groups which have made their study such a going concern today.
Page 3 of 14 08/10/2012 14:11 PM
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Sherif/chap1.htm
One of the objectives of concentrating on small group research should be attainment of valid generalizations which can be applied, at least in their essentials, to any group and to the behavior of individual members. Accordingly, one of our first tasks was that of extracting some minimum essential features of actual small groups from sociological work. In this task there is a methodological advantage in concentrating on , rather than formally organized groups in which the leader or head and other positions with their respective responsibilities are appointed by a higher authority, such as a commanding officer or board. In informally organized groups, group products and the particular individuals who occupy the various positions are determined to a much greater extent by the actual interaction of individuals. If care is taken at the beginning to refer to the general setting in which small groups form and function, their products and structure can be traced through of the interaction process.
[p. 7] On the basis of an extensive survey of sociological findings, the following minimum features in the rise and functioning of small groups were abstracted:
(1) There are one or more shared by individuals and conducive to their interacting with one another.
(2) on individual behavior are produced by the interaction process, that is, each individual's experience and behavior is affected in varying ways and degrees by the interaction process in the group (Note 2).
(3) If interaction continues, a consisting of hierarchical status and role relationships is stabilized, and is clearly delineated as an from other group structures.
(4) A set of norms regulating relations and activities within the group and with non-members and out-groups is standardized (Note 3).
Interaction is not made a separate item in these minimum features because interaction is the of any kind of social relationships, whether interpersonal or group. Since human interaction takes p
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.