Читать книгу The Robbers Cave Experiment - Muzafer Sherif - Страница 7

The report of this large-scale experiment dealing with factors conducive to conflict and cooperation between groups was first released in August 1954 and was sent in multilithed form to colleagues active in small group research. Since then, it has appeared in condensed form in books and journals and has been presented in lecture form at various universities and professional associations.

In view of numerous requests from colleagues engaged in small group research and instructors in institutions of higher learning, and the interest expressed by colleagues in political science, economics, and social work in the applicability of the concept of superordinate goals to intergroup problems in their own areas, the original report is being released now with very minor editorial changes.

Two new chapters have been added in the present volume. Chapter 1 presents a theoretical background related to small group research and to leads derived from the psychological laboratory. It was written originally at the request of Professor Fred Strodtbeck of the University of Chicago, editor for the special issue on small group research of the American Sociological Review (December 1954). This chapter summarizes our research program since the mid-thirties, which was initiated in an attempt to integrate field and laboratory approaches to the study of social interaction. Chapter 8 was written especially for this release to serve as a convenient summary of the theoretical and methodological orientation, the plan and procedures of the experiment, and the main findings, with special emphasis on the reduction of intergroup conflict through the introduction of a series of superordinate goals.

We are especially indebted to Mrs. Betty Frensley for her alert help in typing and other tasks connected with the preparation of this volume. Thanks are due Nicholas Pollis and John Reich for proofreading several chapters.

The experiment could not have been realized without the utmost dedication and concentrated efforts, beyond the call of duty, of my associates whose names appear with mine on the title page. However, as the person responsible for the proposal prepared for the Rockefeller Foundation in 1951 and with final responsibility in the actual conduct of the experiment and material included in the report, I absolve them from any blame for omissions or commissions in this presentation.

On this occasion it is a pleasure to acknowledge the understanding support and encouragement extended by the Social Science Division of the Rockefeller Foundation to this project on intergroup relations, a research area notably lacking in systematic experimental studies in spite of its overriding import in the present scheme of human relations.

This preface is being written with a heavy heart. The research program of which this experiment was an important part lost a great friend by the death of Carl I. Hovland, of Yale University, in April 1961. It was Carl Hovland who, from the very inception of the research project on intergroup relations in 1947, gave an understanding and insightful ear and an effective hand to its implementation. The give- and-take with his searching questions, wise counsel, and steadfast friendship through thick and thin will be sorely missed in the continuation of our research program.

Muzafer Sherif 1961

The chapters to follow report the main points of a large-scale experiment on intergroup relations. It was carried out as a part of the research program of the Intergroup Relations Project at the University of Oklahoma. In this first presentation, sufficient time and facilities were not available to make use of data contained in recorded tapes and half a dozen short moving picture reels. Nor was it found feasible to include introductory chapters surveying major theories on intergroup relations and elaborating the theoretical outlines of the present approach, which determined the formulation of the hypotheses advanced and the design of the study in successive stages. These are presented more fully in our Groups in Harmony and Tension (Harper 1953), which constituted the initial work unit in the present intergroup relations project.

Therefore, we here present a brief statement of the cardinal considerations that shaped the conception of this approach to the study of intergroup relations. It is not unfair to say that the major existing theories fall within two broad categories in terms of the emphasis placed in formulation of the problem and methods involved.

In one broad category of theories, the problems are expressed in terms of actualities of events in group relations as they exist in everyday life. On the whole, theories advanced by many social scientists fall in this broad category. In this concern over actualities, the problem is frequently not stated and discussion not developed in a way that can be tested rigorously. In the second broad category of theories, problems are stated and analysis carried out in terms of concepts and units of analysis that appear more rigorous. Theories coming from psychologists, and social scientists heavily influenced by them, fall within this broad category. In this line of approach, theories are advanced without due regard to actualities, and consequently they are plagued with serious questions of validity.

The present approach starts with a serious concern over the rise and functioning of actual small groups in social life. The hypotheses advanced are formulated on the basis of recurrent events reported in sociological accounts of small groups. Testing these hypotheses under conditions that appear natural to the subjects has been a theoretical and methodological consideration of prime importance, Therefore, a great point was made of carrying on observations without the awareness of subjects that they were being observed and of giving priority to the uninterrupted and uncluttered flow of interaction under experimentally introduced stimulus conditions. The techniques of data collection were adapted to the flow of interaction, rather than cluttering or chopping off interaction for the convenience of the experimenter. This imposed the task of securing an experimental site isolated from outside influences, so that results could not be accounted for primarily in terms of influences other than the experimentally introduced ones and the interaction on that basis.

In such a natural, lifelike interaction situation, there are so many items that can be observed at a given time that it becomes impossible to observe and report all behavioral events. Therefore, there is the possibility of being selective in the choice of events to be observed. In testing vital hypotheses related to intergroup relations, restricting the number of subjects to just a few is not the proper remedy. Circumscribing the number of reactions of the subjects is no remedy. Asking the subjects to remain within optimal distance of a microphone and asking them please to speak one at a time will destroy the very properties of the interaction process in which we are interested. The dining hall adjacent to the kitchen is not the place conducive to getting the subjects to cooperate in preparing a meal of their own accord. By trying to eliminate selectivity through such resorts, we would have eliminated at the same time the essential properties of the very things we set out to study.

One remedy lies in unmistakable recurrences of behavioral trends so that observers could not help observing them, even if they tried to ignore them. If these trends are independently reported by the observers of two different groups, then they serve as a check against each other. We have secured such checks time and again in this study.

The danger of selectivity can be avoided (without disrupting the flow of interaction) by having outside observers in crucial problem situations and by having them make, for example, their own independent status ratings in terms of effective initiative in getting things started and done.

The most effective way of checking selectivity is the use of a combination of techniques. This consists of introducing, at a few choice points, laboratory-type experiments and sociometric questions. If the trends obtained through laboratory-type and sociometric checks are in line with trends obtained through observations, then selectivity of observation need not worry us as far as the relevant hypotheses and generalizations are concerned. The actual use of observational, experimental, and sociometric techniques in a combined way, whenever feasible without cluttering the main flow of interaction, has been a major point of emphasis in our study. In our previous work, the feasibility of using judgmental indices to tap norm formation and intra- and intergroup attitudes was established in various studies. This series of experiments, whose logic and techniques were made part and parcel of this large-scale experiment, are summarized in a paper “Toward Integrating Field Work and Laboratory in Small Group Research” (which appeared in Small Group Research Issue, American Sociological Review, December 1954).

The present study has for its background the invaluable experience of the 1949 and 1953 experiments, both carried out under my direction. In 1949 the design (in three stages) went as far as the end of Stage 2 of this 1954 study; namely, ingroups were formed and intergroup friction was produced experimentally. The 1949 study was jointly sponsored by the Attitude Change Project of Yale University and the Department of Scientific Research of the American Jewish Committee, to both of whom grateful acknowledgment is extended. Without the effective help of Professor Carl I. Hovland, this start could not have materialized. The second study was attempted in 1953 in four successive stages. We succeeded in completing only two stages in this attempt, which covered the experimental formation of ingroups. The experiment reported here, as well as other units during the last two years, were carried out with a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation to the University of Oklahoma, for which we are grateful.

It is a pleasure to note here the active participation of O. J. Harvey during the last four years in the development of this program of research. Especially his doctoral thesis, entitled “An Experimental Investigation of Negative and Positive Relationships Between Small Informal Groups Through Judgmental Indices,” constitutes a distinct contribution in demonstrating the feasibility of using laboratory- type judgmental indices in the study of intergroup attitudes. Without the untiring and selfless participation of O. J. Harvey, Jack White, William R. Hood, and Carolyn Sherif the realization of this experiment and the writing of this report would have been impossible.

This program of research in group relations owes a special debt to the dedication of the University of Oklahoma and its administrative agencies to making development of social science one of its distinctive features. President George L. Cross’s close interest in social science has been a constant source of encouragement and effective support. Professor Lloyd E. Swearingen, Director of the Research Institute, has cleared our way for smooth sailing whenever occasion arose. We have turned again and again to the encouragement and unfailing support of Professor Laurence H. Snyder, Dean of the Graduate College.

Muzafer Sherif 1954