Читать книгу The Robbers Cave Experiment - Muzafer Sherif - Страница 10

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 norms of a group. From the point of view of the members within the group, the defined social unit may be referred to as an ingroup. Again from the point of view of members within the group, those social units of which they are not a part psychologically or to which they do not relate themselves may be referred to as outgroups. It follows that the term intergroup relations refers to the relations between two or more ingroups and their respective members. Whenever individuals belonging to one ingroup interact, collectively or individually, with another group or its members in terms of their group identification, we have an instance of intergroup relations.

From a survey of empirical literature, it can be stated that intergroup attitudes and behavior regulated by them arise, in the form of social distances and standardized stereotypes, as a consequence of functional relations between ingroups. Once these intergroup attitudes and stereotypes are standardized, they take their place in the cultural repertory of the group and in many cases, through the vehicle of language, outlast the very functional relations that were responsible for their formation.

These functional relations between groups, and their consequences, rather than the study of the deviate individual, constitute the central problem of intergroup relations. Of course, this focus does not imply a denial of various unique influences in the life history of the individual member (such as personal frustrations, special hardships in the family, or other situations). Such personal influences in the life history may have a great deal to do with the individual becoming a nonconformist or deviate in terms of the prevailing scale of attitudes of the group. But such unique or personal influences do not themselves determine the scale. Rather they come in an important way to determine the particular place the individual will occupy within the scale or, in the case of nonconformists or deviates, the acceptance of a position outside of the scale.

Considerations Determining the Approach, Plan, and Hypotheses

At present there are various and conflicting psychological approaches to the study of intergroup relations. It seems that no amount of argument on an abstract level will prove the advantage of one approach over another. Certain of the empirical considerations that led to the approach used in this study will be mentioned briefly in the pages that follow.

The consequential intergroup behavior of individuals (largely revealing friction and tension) is in terms of their membership in their respective groups. Intergroup behavior of an individual that deviates considerably from the prevailing trends is not a typical case. If the individual’s intergroup behavior is too much out of line with the prevailing trend of that individual’s group, it is brushed aside or dealt with as deviate by other members.

One approach to intergroup relations is through the study of leadership. Even though leadership undeniably contributes great weight in shaping intergroup relations, concentrating research on leadership alone leaves out functional ties to which leadership itself is organically related. Such an approach is contradictory to current trends in leadership studies, which increasingly point to the necessity of considering leadership in terms of the whole state of reciprocities within the group.

Another approach in intergroup problems concentrates efforts on ingroup relations. Empirical data seem to indicate that the nature of intergroup relations need not be in line with the prevailing character of ingroup relations. This approach, which concentrates on improving ingroup relations to improve intergroup relations, ignores the demonstrated consequences attributable only to the particular character of the interaction process between groups. Solidarity within the group need not be transferred to solidarity between groups, and in fact may contribute to sharpened delineations between groups with all the attendant by-products.

In short, the conception of the present study differs markedly from existing theories that posit one factor or a few factors as sole or primary determinants of the course of intergroup relations. (1) Inherent superiority or inferiority of human groups, (2) “national character” (“warlike people,” “peaceful people”), (3) deep-seated innate instincts of aggression or destruction, (4) frustrations suffered individually, (5) direct economic gain, (6) the character of leadership—all have been variously advanced as sole or primary determinants of intergroup relations. Each of these theories still has its strong supporters.

This study’s approach does not deny that some such factors (specifically excepting the first and third listed) may, singly or in combination, operate as factors in determining the course of intergroup relations. “National character,” frustrations suffered in common and experienced as a common issue, certain economic gains that become shared goals, or the particular character of the group’s leadership may variously become the more weighty determinant of intergroup relations under a given set of circumstances.²

But conflicting evidence leads us to assert that the weighty factor determining intergroup relations will not be the same for all circumstances. For example, in settled times when ingroups are in a state of greater stability, national character as formed at the time and the existing scale of social distance (or prejudice) will regulate, on the whole, the particular pattern of intergroup relations. But in times of greater flux or crises (due to the impact of technological, cultural, socioeconomic, and even military events) some other factor or factors take the upper hand.

One primary point of departure in our approach, then, is the principle that various factors are functionally interrelated. In this respect our approach opposes theories that make this or that factor sovereign in its own right; this approach attempts, rather, to ascertain the relative weights of all the possible factors that may be operative at the time.

The functional relatedness of various factors leads us to the cardinal psychological principle of our whole plan of study: in the study of intra- and intergroup relations, the relative contribution of given external stimulus factors and internal factors pertaining to participating individuals (hunger, sex, status desire, complexes, etc.) have to be analyzed within the framework of the ongoing interaction process among the members in question.

The relative contribution of an external stimulus factor, or of an attitude, a drive, or other internal factors, cannot be simply extrapolated from individual situations to interaction situations. Interaction processes are not voids. Whatever drives, motives, or attitudes the individual brings into the situation operate as deflected, modified, and at times, transformed in the interaction process among the several individuals, who stand, or come to stand in time, in definite role relations toward one another.

The application of this cardinal principle to the study of group relations is derived from more basic findings in the field of judgment and perception. The judgment of a given weight is not determined solely by its absolute value, but also, within limits, by its relative position in the scale of which it is a part and by the presence or absence of other functionally related anchoring stimuli with values within and outside the scale. Likewise, placement of attitudinal items on a scale with categories specified by the experimenter or chosen by the subject is determined not only by whatever intrinsic value these items may have when considered singly, but also by their relation to one another and to the stand that the individual has taken on the issue.

Following the implications of this general psychological principle, it may be plausible to state that behavior revealing discriminations, perceptions, and evaluations of individuals participating in the interaction process as group members will be determined not only by whatever motivational components and personality characteristics each member brings with him and not only by the properties of stimulus conditions specified in an unrelated way. Rather, such behavior will take shape as influenced, modified, and even transformed interdependently by these factors and the special properties of the interaction process, in which a developing or established state of reciprocities (roles, statuses) plays no small part. The developing state of reciprocities between individual members can be measured in various differentiated dimensions (e.g., status, popularity, initiative, etc.).

In short, one cannot directly extrapolate from the knowledge of stimulus conditions alone or of motivational components of participating individuals alone. One has to study behavior in the framework of the actual interaction process, with its developing reciprocities.

Carrying this line of conceptualization to the area of intergroup relations, one should start with the recognition that the area of interaction between groups cannot be directly extrapolated from the nature of relations within groups or from prevailing practices within them, even though a careful analysis of intragroup relations is an essential prerequisite in any approach to intergroup relations. We could mention numerous instances of intergroup relations in which the pattern (positive or negative) is different from the pattern prevailing within the respective ingroups.

Thus, in addition to studying relations prevailing within the ingroups in question, one has to study the interaction process between groups and its consequences in their own right.

The conceptual orientation just outlined determined, first, the formulation of specific hypotheses; second, the design of the experiment through three successive stages; third, in selecting the subjects and choosing the setting, the choice of criteria that would not permit the direct intrusion of influences other than those experimentally introduced; and fourth, the special considerations related to observational and experimental techniques to be used in the collection of data, and the specific roles staff members would occupy.

Methodological Considerations

The problem of intergroup relations has not been the domain of experimentation. Literally, only a few studies have been specifically designed to experiment on intergroup relations. Therefore, the present study undertakes to define main functional relations involved in the problem and to point, on the basis of data obtained, to some unmistakable trends.

The experimental study of intergroup relations requires that various conditions between groups be experimentally introduced and manipulated; the nature of these conditions should be defined and the consequences of their variation predicted.

Recent research in both psychology and sociology and indications of attempts by practitioners in this area are making it increasingly evident that theoretical and practical problems of group relations have to be studied in terms of the interaction processes within and between appropriate group settings. This observation includes the study of attitudes and change of attitudes that regulate the behavior of individuals within their respective ingroups and in relations with outgroups.

The usual practice in attitude studies has been to study the effects of already existing attitudes or to measure attitudes that are already formed. When carried out apart from particular group settings, the study of motives (drives), frustrations, past experience, and similar factors (which certainly operate in the formation, functioning, and change of social attitudes pertaining to group relations) has given us items of information whose validity has not been proven in actual issues of group relations. The attempt in this study is to trace the formation, functioning, and change of attitudes toward one’s own group, toward its various members, and toward outgroups and their members as these attitudes develop within the setting of group interaction processes and as consequences thereof.

The study’s method was to experimentally produce ingroups themselves and the attitudes of members toward one another and toward the ingroup as a whole. In other words, group attitudes (both intra- and intergroup) were to start from scratch and to be produced as a consequence of interaction processes in intra- and intergroup relations through the introduction of specified experimental conditions. We need not elaborate on the methodological gain from experimentally producing attitudes whose effects or change are to be studied or measured.

Considerations such as those briefly mentioned above determined the approach taken, the specific hypotheses formulated, and the design of the experiment in three successive stages. Likewise, they determined the choice of particular methods and cautions to be pursued in the collection of data.

To approximate as much as possible the natural process of spontaneous group formation—of ingroup and outgroup delineation with its consequences so abundantly reported in the literature on small groups—subjects were kept unaware that this was an experiment on intergroup relations. (See “Subject Selection” in the next chapter for information given to teachers and parents concerning the experiment.)