The history of social psychology is marked by prominent studies, including the Milgram Shock Experiment, the Stanford Prison Experiment, and Solomon Asch’s experiments on conformity. While lesser-known, the Robbers Cave Experiment still consistently ranks in the Top 5 or Top 10 most important social psychology experiments of all time, and is unique in that it took place in a simulated summer camp much like the camps still held across the country today. Conducted in 1954 by Muzafer Sherif, this pioneering study explored a key facet of social psychology—group dynamics and how individuals come to behave and conflict in group settings—and was among the first experiments in the then-burgeoning field of intergroup relations. In the spirit of summer camp and paying tribute to landmark research, this article overviews the main events and findings from Muzafer’s observations at his staged summer camp held at Robbers Cave.

Experiment Description

            Muzafer Sherif was born in Turkey in 1906, immigrated to the United States during the Great Depression, and studied psychology at Harvard under the prominent psychologist Gordon Allport, who went on to become one of the founders of the study of intergroup relations. After years of travelling back and forth between America and Europe against the ominous backdrop of World War 2, Sheriff was soon forced to flee to America due to his political views. In 1954, Sherif initiated the Robbers Cave Experiment by inviting 22 unsuspecting boys to a supposed Boy Scout summer camp at the Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma. Muzafer’s work investigated how social forces influenced people’s attitudes and behaviors, and through the Robbers Cave Experiment, he hoped to observe firsthand how intergroup conflict could be created and then resolved. Importantly, like Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment, Muzafer and the assistant researchers doubled as camp counselors who actively influenced the experiment’s events, raising criticism about potential experimenter bias, along with other ethical concerns. 

            After recruitment, the experiment commenced with the 22 twelve-year-old boys being randomly divided into two groups, who later named themselves the Rattlers and the Eagles, which arrived at the study-disguised-as-summer-camp at separate times. Phase 1 of the experiment involved the Rattlers and the Eagles being kept completely separate and each group, unaware of the existence of the other, participating in camp activities like creating group flags and t-shirts. The Eagles and Rattlers soon developed their own group norms and structures, illustrating intragroup dynamics like how group loyalty, distinctive culture, and hierarchy emerge. After a few days, Muzafer and the camp counselors initiated Phase 2 of the experiment, in which the groups were made aware of each other’s existence, and the researchers sought to create intergroup conflict. To accomplish this, the researchers had the two groups compete in a tournament including sports and games like tug-of-war. Despite only vying for prizes like trophies and pocket knives, hostility quickly emerged between the Eagles and Rattlers, which was further fueled by intentional planning on the part of the camp counselors. For instance, the researchers staged a picnic and told one group of boys that the other group had stolen all of the food. These situational forces of Phase 2 succeed in negatively impacting the boys’ intergroup attitudes and behaviors—according to reports, the two groups of boys went so far in their rivalry as to burn each other’s flags and rob each other’s cabins. On surveys, the boys were quick to display ingroup bias where they rated their own group more favorably and negatively perceived the other group’s behavior.

            After days of heated conflict, Phase 3, the last phase of the experiment, involved Muzafer and the researchers trying to reconcile the embittered and out-of-control groups. The researchers once again interfered with the experiment by staging shared tasks the boys had to collaborate on to solve, including fixing a broken-down water pump that limited water supply for the entire camp, towing a supply truck that contained both of their food supplies, and chipping in to purchase a whole-camp movie. After coordinating on these shared tasks, the Eagles and Rattlers exhibited far less animosity and began to interact cordially at mealtimes and in other shared spaces, thus achieving Muzafer Sherif’s final research goal.

Connection to Social Psychology Theories

            While imperfect in its methodology, Muzafer’s observations from the Robbers Cave Experiment helped him come up with new ways of thinking about group interactions and human behavior. A particularly important observation was the immediate animosity that arose between the Rattlers and Eagles during Phase 2 of the experiment, which led Muzafer to propose Realistic Conflict Theory, which has since become of the defining theories of intergroup relations. Realistic Conflict Theory seeks to identify the source of tension between groups, postulating that competition over limited resources is the “realistic” factor at the root of intergroup conflict, as opposed to intangible ideological or psychological mechanisms. According to Realistic Conflict Theory, a feeling of perceived resource scarcity and competition between groups, whether real or imagined, is enough to engender biased and prejudicial intergroup attitudes. It is important to keep in mind that the Rattlers and the Eagles were all boys from similar white, middle-class, Protestant backgrounds who, nevertheless, quickly exhibited bias when put in a low-stakes competition. Especially in impoverished regions of the world and for groups that have fundamental differences between them, Realistic Conflict Theory helps explain how modern-day clashes over limited land, water, or food can give rise to deeper prejudice and conflict between countries or ethnic groups.

           Although not a direct result of Sherif’s work, how quickly and proudly the Robbers Cave boys internalized their identities as either an Eagle or a Rattler also provides evidence for the vital intergroup relations notion of Social Identity Theory. Social Identity Theory states that people hinge central parts of their self-esteem and identity on their group affiliation. According to Social Identity Theory, people are fiercely loyal to their groups due to a need to protect their self-esteem, and, as such, are strongly predisposed to label their own group as superior, while naturally perceiving the outgroup as inferior. The Robbers Cave Experiment illustrated how a person’s group membership powerfully dictates social bias; all the boys at Robbers Cave were essentially similar, yet some boys were still perceived as better than others just because they belonged to the same randomly assigned group. Indeed, the human brain tends to organize people into “us versus them” categories, and once someone is deemed to be part of an outgroup, people tend to exaggerate the differences between them—which can explain how the Rattlers and Eagles came to view themselves as fundamentally different from each other. Social Identity Theory’s strong in-group favoritism can explain how outgroup bias arises between groups in the real world, even in the absence of direct competition or disagreement. 

            Lastly, the success of Phase 3 of the Robbers Cave Experiment led Muzafer Sherif to propose the concept of Superordinate Goals, or larger tasks that require collaboration between groups, as one of the most effective ways to reduce intergroup conflict. When groups frequently cooperate on shared goals, they develop more positive emotional impressions of each other, and recategorization occurs on a cognitive level, wherein the “us versus them” framework is broken down and the outgroup merges into one’s self-concept and common identity. During the reconciliation process of Phase 3, the Robbers Cave Experiment illustrated that undirected contact between groups is insufficient to reduce prejudice, as other theories including Intergroup Contact Theory might suggest. Rather, when trying to ease tension between two fiercely competitive groups, the Eagles and Rattlers had to be prompted to interact under norms of equal status and work together to solve larger problems, like a broken water spout that critically affected them both. 

            Overall, the Robbers Cave Experiment served as a fascinating summer camp demonstration of how people, in this case, young boys, form complex groups and compete and reconcile within these group identities. While just over 70 years old, the Robbers Cave Experiment’s legacy has gone on to support crucial theories of social psychology and laid the groundwork for how to promote better group reconciliation in the real world.

References

Dean, J. (2023, January 1). Social Psychology Experiments: 10 of the Most Famous Studies. PsyBlog. https://www.spring.org.uk/2023/01/social-psychology-experiments.php 

Kayaoğlu, A., Batur, S., & Aslıtürk, E. (2014, November 26). The Unknown Muzafer Sherif | BPS. British Psychological Society. https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/unknown-muzafer-sherif

McLeod, S. (2023, September 27). Robbers Cave Experiment | Realistic Conflict Theory. Simply Psychology.https://www.simplypsychology.org/robbers-cave.html#Study-Procedure