Robber's Cave

• what was the aim of the study?

  to look at intergroup relations over a period of time observing the effect of competition and conditions under which it can be resolved
• what was the curation of the experiment?

  2 weeks
• where was the experiment set?

  Robber's Cave Oklahoma
• what was specific about the sample?

  1. age 11-12
  2. all boys
  3. middle class
  4. protestant background
  5. never met the other boys before
  6. divided into 2 groups based on educational & athletic ability
• what type of experiment was it?

  field experiment
• what happened in stage 1?

  1. created cohesion between the separate groups - pitching tents
  2. 2 groups were not introduced to one another
  3. researchers (posing as camp staff) observed them
• what happened in stage 2?

  1. subordinate goals were created encouraging negative functional interdependence
  2. the 2 groups were introduced
  3. 2 groups competed against each other
• what were the games played in stage 2?

  tug of war, baseball, treasure hunt plus cabin inspections
• what were the results of stage 2?

  1. groups fought verbally (names like sissy or stinker)
  2. eagles group burnt the Rattler's flag
  3. raids occurred on each groups bases and cabins
  4. less than 10% of friendships were between each group
• what happened in stage 3?

  1. superordinate goals were introduced (groups worked together)
  2. encouraging cooperation
• what does superordinate mean?

  the group has shared goals that can only succeed if they work together
• what were examples of their superordinate goals?

  fix the water tank, gather money for a film night, camp and picnic
• what was the result of stage 3?


  1. boys formed inter-group relations between the once separate groups
  2. less name calling
  3. 30% friendships were inter-group
• what was the generalisability positivise of the study?

  similarity between the 2 groups ensured that no conflict was a result of prejudice before study began
• what were the details of the participant sample?

  1. normally adjusted, middle class boys aged 11-12
  2. group of 22
• what was the negative about the generalisability?

  hard to generalise findings to the wider population especially the female and older or younger people
• what is the conclusion for the generalisability?

  further research would be needed to generalise to the variety of population
• what was positive about the reliability of the study?

  external reliability - robbers cave was a partial replication to a 1949 study and they both had similar findings.

  competition brings hostility
• what was positive in reliability?

  internal reliability - procedure was standardised to some extent. each group was treated fairly and given similar tasks to build the bonds in stage 1 (pitching tents)
• what were the negatives for the reliability?

  1. they couldn't treat everyone the same due to the nature of the study - not completely standardised
  2. observations may be biased as some children did get suspicious and they could have changed their behaviour
• what were the negatives about the ethic in informed consent?

  unable to get from the children as they were 11 or 12 but got it from the parents
• how did they deceive the parents?

  didn't tell them the truth of the nature of the study - said it was leadership and not inter-group conflict
• did they protect the participants?

  no they let them have fist fights and name calling

  (fights were broken up)
• what is an important message about the ethics for this study?

  this study was conducted before the ethical guidelines were put into place
• where can this study be applied to?

  superordinate goals resolving conflict:

  European union - various countries all collaborated on joint projects and trade freely
• how is the ecological validity of this study?

  good as its a summer camp and they are a real life scenario, american children go on them every year.
• what is the negative ecological validity?

  summer camp is only a period within the year and not everyday situation for a year
• how was the internal validity good?

  the boys behaviour wasn't effected if they were watched or observed as camp staff were the experimenters
• what happened to reduce the internal validity?

  some boys did notice they were being watched closely and observations written down.