Sherif's robbers cave

• What was the procedure of Sherif's Robbers Cave Experiment?

  • Field experiment with IV (what you change) : Co-operation or competition atmosphere in the camp and
  • DV (what you measure): many such as how many friends were made. 22 eleven year old boys from USA were divided into 2 equal groups.
• Findings of Sherif's Robbers Cave Experiment

  Stage 1: Group Formation

  • Boys named themselves and established leaders
  • Social norms became visible within groups (the ‘Rattlers’, the “Eagles”)

  Stage 2: Friction

  • Hostility developed quickly (name-calling, fights, etc.)
  • Negative views of out-group members (sneaky)
  • Positive views of in-group members (brave, tough)
  • Little friendship between groups

  Stage 3: Reducing Friction

  • Hostility reduced over time
  • Eventual entertainment and friendship between groups
  • Boys left camp as friends on the last day
• Evaluation using GRAVE:


  Generalisability (G)

  • Small sample size: 22 boys
  • Limited to boys from the same state in the USA
  • Lack of representation from other demographics

  Application (A)

  • Yes, can be applied to improve society
  • Helps to understand how to reduce prejudice and conflict

  Ethics (E)

  • No informed consent: participants did not know the true nature of the study
  • Unable to withdraw: participants were not allowed to leave the study once it began
  • Protection from harm: participants were put in stressful and potentially harmful situations (e.g. fights, name-calling)
• Strengths:

  Strengths

  • Careful matching of the 2 groups: researchers spent over 300 hours ensuring that the groups were similar in terms of personality, skills, and interests
  • This reduces individual differences as a potential explanation for the results
  • Control over the environment: the careful matching and control over the environment helps to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between the independent variable (cooperation or competition) and the dependent variable (behavior)
• Limitations (Competing Argument)


  • Loss of control due to participant withdrawal: 2 boys left the study early, which disrupted the balance between the 2 groups (11 in one group, 9 in the other)
  • Potential unfair advantage: the group with 11 members (the Rattlers) may have had an unfair advantage over the group with 9 members (the Eagles)
  • Change in behaviour due to external factors: the Eagles may have changed their behaviour to be more friendly due to witnessing the upset caused by the 2 boys leaving, which reduces the internal validity of the study
• Weaknesses

  • Lack of replication: subsequent research has failed to replicate the findings of the Robbers Cave Experiment
  • Contradictory findings: research into sea scouts found that after a 2-week trip, the boys were more friendly than at the start, and there was little conflict, which contradicts the findings of the Robbers Cave Experiment