Skip to main content

What happened in the “Robber’s Cave” experiment? Why is that study significant?

The Robber's Cave experiment was conducted in 1954 by a famous social psychologist, Muzafer Sherif. In this experiment, 22 12-year-old boys from white, middle-class, Protestant backgrounds with two parents were brought to Robber's Cave State Park in Oklahoma. They did not know each other before the study and were randomly assigned to one of two groups. Each group spent a week developing their own group norms without being aware of the other group. One group called itself the Rattlers, while the other group called itself the Eagles. During the competition part of the experiment, the boys engaged in competitions that led to all-or-nothing awards (the winners got everything, while the losers got nothing). For example, picnics were staged in which the first group to arrive ate all the food. The conflict between the groups started as verbal harassment and developed into stealing each other's property and then physical attacks. During the last two days of the experiment, the boys spoke in a debriefing exercise of the negative qualities of the other group and the positive qualities of their group. The conflict between the groups was lessened through inter-group activities that involved teamwork. 


The experiment is important because it corroborates Sherif's Realistic Conflict Theory, which states that conflicts between groups are an outgrowth of limited resources and situations in which only one group can achieve rewards. This type of conflict results in the members of one group developing negative stereotypes about the other group, even if the individuals in one group are quite similar to the individuals in the other group.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more