and other methods, then we could say the generalizations reached are valid. If this could be established, the laboratory-type experiment could be offered as a more precise and refined method of assessing the effects of interaction processes in group relations.
This approach considers the behavior of individuals as an outcome of interaction processes into which factors enter both from the individual, with his or her unique characteristics and capacities, and from properties of the situation. As an approach, it affords a naturalistic behavioral setting against which the claims of various personality tests can be evaluated.
This comprehensive experimental plan includes the following successive phases:
1. Experimental production of ingroups with a hierarchical structure and set of norms (intragroup relations). In line with our 1949 and 1953 studies, this is done not through discussion methods, but through the introduction of goals that arise in the situations, have common appeal value, and necessitate facing a common problem, leading to discussion, planning, and execution in a mutually cooperative way.
2. Bringing the two experimentally formed groups into functional relations in situations in which the groups find themselves in competition for given goals and in conditions that imply some frustration in their relation to one another (intergroup tension).
3. Introducing goals that cannot be easily ignored by members of the two antagonistic groups, but whose attainment is beyond the resources and efforts of one group alone. In short, superordinate goals are introduced with the aim of studying the reduction of intergroup tension to derive realistic leads for the integration of hostile groups.
This experimental plan was carried out during the summer of 1954 at Robbers Cave in Oklahoma. The remaining chapters of this book give an account of its planning, execution, and findings.
__________
1. “The human group is an organization of two or more individuals in a role structure adapted to the performance of a particular function. As thus defined the group is the unit of sociological analysis.” R. Freedman, A. H. Hawley, W. S. Landecker, H. M. Miner, Principles of Sociology (New York: Holt, 1952), 143, emphasis added.
2. This feature, long noted by sociologists, has received repeated laboratory confirmation by psychologists, as mentioned earlier.
3. It is not possible here to review sociological findings on which these features are based or to discuss them more fully. They have been elaborated in our Psychology of Ego-involvements (with H. Cantril) (New York: Wiley, 1947), Chapter 10; An Outline of Social Psychology (New York: Harper, 1948); and Groups in Harmony and Tension (with C. W. Sherif) (New York: Harper, 1953), Chapter 8.
4. See E. T. Hiller, Social Relations and Structure (New York: Harper, 1947); and Freedman, Hawley, Landecker, Miner, Principles of Sociology.
5. Fuller accounts of these principles from the works of psychologists and of their background can be found in Sherif, The Psychology of Social Norms (New York: Harper, 1936), and Outline of Social Psychology; Sherif and Sherif, Groups in Harmony and Tension, Chapter 6.
6. See M. Sherif, “Contact with Modern Technology in Five Turkish Villages,” in Outline of Social Psychology, Chapter 15, 374–385.
7. Study by C. W. Sherif summarized in Sherif, Outline of Social Psychology, 289–292.
8. This experiment was carried out with a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation to the University of Oklahoma.
2 Approach, Hypotheses,and General Design of the Study
The focal concern of this study is intergroup relations. As an experiment in social psychology, the study undertook to trace over a period the formation and functioning of negative and positive attitudes, as a consequence of experimentally introduced situations, of members of one group toward another group and its members. Therefore, the main hypotheses relate to attitudinal and behavioral trends predicted as a result of controlled alterations of the conditions in which experimentally formed ingroups interact.
The general trend of findings from the sociology of small ingroups and their intergroup relations and relevant findings from the work of experimental psychologists led us to use successive stages in the experimental study of the problem of intergroup relations. The study in the summer of 1954 was carried out in three successive stages.
Stage 1 consisted of experimental production of ingroups with a hierarchical structure and set of norms (intragroup relations). In line with our 1949 and 1953 studies, this was done not through discussion methods or through lecture or exhortation by resource persons or experts, but through the introduction of goals which would arise as integral parts in the situations, would have common appeal value, and would necessitate facing a common problem and discussing, planning, and executing a solution in a mutually cooperative way.
Stage 2 brought the two experimentally formed groups into functional relations in situations in which the groups found themselves in competition for given goals and in conditions implying some frustration in relation to one another (intergroup tension).
Stage 3 introduced goals that could not be easily ignored by members of the two antagonistic groups, but the attainment of which was beyond the resources and efforts of one group alone. Such goals are referred to as superordinate goals throughout this report. Superordinate goals were introduced with the aim of studying the reduction of intergroup tension in order to derive realistic leads for the integration of hostile groups. Considerations that led to the selection of this approach rather than other possible alternatives (such as a common enemy, leadership technique, or discussion techniques) are stated briefly in the discussion of Stage 3 in the last part of this chapter.
It should be emphasized at the outset that individuals brought into an experimental situation to function as small groups are already members of actual groups in their social settings and thus have internalized values or norms (i.e., attitudes) that they necessarily bring to the situation. With this consideration in mind, and to give greater weight to experimentally introduced factors in the situation, this study made a special effort, in the formation and change of positive or negative attitudes toward respective ingroups and outgroups, not to appeal to internalized values or to prestige symbols coming from the larger setting.
Background
Rationale
The rationale that underlies the foregoing formulation of our approach to the study of intergroup relations stems from relevant findings in both sociology and psychology. They are stated more fully elsewhere.1 Here, only a summary of these lines of development will be given.
Empirical observations by social scientists and inferences made by psychologists without direct experimental verification present a rather confusing picture. Therefore it is necessary to state precisely the sense in which the concept group and the issue of relations between groups (intergroup relations) are used here.
A group may be defined as a social unit that consists of a number of individuals who, at a given time, stand in more or less definite interdependent status and role relationships with one another, and that explicitly or implicitly possesses a set of values or norms regulating the behavior of individual members, at least in matters of consequence to the group.
In order that this definition not be unwieldy, common attitudes, aspirations, and goals are omitted. Such shared attitudes, aspirations, and goals are related to and, in fact, are implicit in the concept of common values or
