Robbers Cave Experiment Conflict is not always something that can be easily overcome. When two groups have a similar goal to work for, many times the groups will find a way to work with the other group to finish the job. When faced with a task that requires people to work with another group they dislike it results in a successful solution. This experiment was originally tested by Muzafer Sherif is a famous social psychologist who worked on understanding groups and their members. This experiment is to test his Realistic Conflict Theory. The Realistic Conflict Theory studies, “group conflict, negative prejudices, and stereotypes as being the result of competition between groups for desired resources” (McLeod). This study of group conflict and cooperation shows how groups favor their own members, and how in group conflict can be resolved by groups working together on a common task that neither group can complete without the help of the other group. This is proven in this experiment when two groups have to work together to solve a given problem. In the first stage of this experiment there are two groups of boys that all have a similar family structure. Each team consisted of 11 members, who are introduced to each other and are taken to a boy scout camp …show more content…
(McLeod). The boys are then given a week to bond with their fellow group members. The two groups are unaware of the others existence (Robbers). During this time the boys chose a name for their own group, shirts and banners were made for each team (Green).This phase of this study allowed the boys to begin to have strong bonds within the group. This promoted friendships among the group members and this helps them work together in the next stage. In the second stage of this experiment the boys are put up to a series of physical challenges that require the teams to work with their own group to complete the task given to them. The groups also find out about the existence of the other group. The goal of this phase is to create conflict between the two groups. This conflict is sparked by a series of competitive activities in the form of a tournament (Green). Members of the winning group were rewarded, and the members of the opposing team did not receive anything. This created a tense environment between the two groups. This phase of the exercise tested group conflict. The group that didn’t win also later burned the flag of the winning team that was planted in the ground after they won the tournament (McLeod). This part of the experiment is very critical in the testing of this theory. The boys are so unhappy with each other that they turned to physical harm not just verbal threats. They boys also showed just what the researchers expected, a strong hatred towards the group that was newly introduced to the other team and soon after the fighting would turn physical. In the third week of this study the boys were forced to work as a team to solve a problem that is not possible to be completed by a single group (Robbers).
This phase, “ aims to study the process of reducing group conflict”(Sherif's). This portion of the study is important because they are studying how the two teams are going to react to the other team trying to give the other group advice and help to solve the problem. At the end of this week the boys had gotten over their hatred for the other group and all the boys left the camp in one bus becoming friends with one another (Green). This was one of the main findings of Sherif’s test. This portion of the test was a major factor that the experiment was
testing.
My analysis is on the film The Goonies. While I view the movie and determine the various norms, behaviors, roles and interaction between group members, as well as individuals the examination within the realm of film can present many of the same components. Thus, our group selected this movie to analyze based on its formation of a cohesive problem-solving group full of unforgettable characters. The Goonies portray many different theories and aspects of small group communication.
Sherif argued that intergroup conflict occurs when two groups are in competition for limited resources. This theory is supported by evidence from a famous study investigating group conflict: The Robbers Cave (Sherif, 1954, 1958, 1961). Sherif (1954) conducted an experiment with young boys in a summer camp. The participants were 24 schoolboys, came from the similar,
One theory is the 'Realistic conflict theory' by Muzafer Sherif. His experiment 'The Robbers Cave' was aimed to show negative prejudice, conflict and stereotypes between different groups can be resolved by the groups working on a common ground together. Sherif et al carried out a field experiment were he got two groups of twelve boys around the age of eleven. The first group called the Eagles and the other group the Rattlers. This experiment entailed three phases which lasted about a week for each phase. In the first week of phase one (in-groups) the two groups kept to themselves and did not interact with each other. The two groups were encouraged to bond with each other within their individual groups. Later on in that week the two groups were made aware of the other group and started to form their identities and started to take part in activities that involved competing against the other team, leading to having bias groups. At the end of the week the two groups were brought together and had to take part in competitive activities, working against each other to win awards for each
Muzafer Sherif helped clarify the conditions that produce intergroup conflict and harmony. He conducted an experiment called the Robbers Cave Experiment and studied a group of eleven-year-old boys in an unlikely setting: a summer camp located at Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma. Sherif pretended to be camp counselors as well as staff and the researchers began their research. First, they assigned the boys into two different groups than the two groups arrived on separate buses and were in different areas of the camp. One group of the boys called themselves the Eagles and the other group assigned their name as the Rattlers. After a week of the two boys being separated and being assigned to different areas of the summer campsite, Sherif started to conduct his research and told the two group of boys to meet one another and compete in a series of competitive games.
In 1972, Irving Janis presented a set of hypothesis that he extracted from observing small groups performing problem solving tasks; he collectively referred to these hypotheses as groupthink¹. He defined groupthink as “a quick and easy way to refer to a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ striving for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action²” A successful group brings varied ideas, collective knowledge, and focus on the task at hand. The importance of groups is to accomplish tasks that individuals can not do on their own. The Bay of Pigs, Watergate, and the Challenger disaster are all forms of failure within a group. Specifically, you can see the effect of groupthink of Americans before September 11, 2001. The thought of harm to the United States was unfathomable, but only after the attacks did they realize they were not invincible. When a solid, highly cohesive group is only concerned with maintaining agreement, they fail to see their alternatives and any other available options. When a group experiences groupthink, they may feel uninterested about a task, don't feel like they will be successful, and the group members do not challenge ideas. Stress is also a factor in the failure of groupthink. An effective group needs to have clear goals, trust, accountability, support, and training. Some indicators that groupthink may be happening are; making unethical decisions, they think they are never wrong, close-minded about situations, and ignore important information. Many things can be done to prevent groupthink from happening. One way is to make each person in the group a “critical evaluator”. The leader must ...
n hypothesis of the experiment is that the group containing four members will perform better than the group containing two members. This is the foundation from which we have conducted our experiment.
Gilovich, T., & Gilovich, T. (2013). Chapter 12/ Groups. In Social psychology. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
In conclusion, something happens to individuals when they collect in a group, they act differently to the way they would on their own, regardless of whether the group has gathered to solve problems, make decisions or have fun, and regardless of whether the members know each other. (Psychology in perspective, third edition, Tavris and Wade, 2001)
People work in groups or teams everyday whether in their career, education, political organization, church, or any other social setting. Conflict while working in teams or groups is inevitable. When taking people of different backgrounds, personalities, moral, and ethical beliefs and putting them together in a group, conflict will arise. The key to achieving your team goals is to construct and conquer your goals with keeping the greater good of the team in mind. Conflict as it arises should be combated and abated through swift and thorough resolution techniques. When dealt with properly conflict resolution can give rise to a cohesive and productive team.
One of the biggest questions that humans have is “what is reality”. Plato suggests that, “ we are born in illusions,” (Plato) and that the truth is initially blinding. “The Myth of the Cave,” is a narrative story about the idea of reality, it is explored though an allegory about a man finding out the truth about reality coming from a life in the dark. They can only learn about true mainly through reason and truth. The story is told as a metaphor for what happens in the natural world and how people can be stuck in the dark about reality. Plato tells the story through the voice of Socrates, his mentor.
A group can only be called a team if the members are actively working together toward a common goal. A team must have the capability to set goals, make decisions, solve problems, and share responsibilities. For a team to be successful, trust must be earned between its members by being consistent and reliable (Temme & Katzel, 2005). When more than one person is working on a particular task, inconsistent views or opinions commonly arise. People come from different backgrounds and live through different life experiences therefore, even when working towards a common goal, they will not always see eye to eye. Major conflict that is not dealt with can devastate a team or organization (Make Conflict Work, 2008). In some situations, conflict can be more constructive than destructive. Recognizing the difference between conflict that is constructive to the team and conflict that is destructive to the team is important. Trying to prevent the conflict is not always the best way to manage conflict when working within a team setting. Understanding conflict, what causes it, and how to resolve conflict effectively, should consume full concentration.
Feedback influences the amount of time the group members spend discussing the topic and could be used to dispute flows. The experiment was conducted and presented to a dozens of individuals in large electronic rooms with the "Lost in the Desert" survival scenario. Participant were given a list of fifteen objects where they must select five that would help them survive. After the picked their items were instructed to enter an assigned chat room and discus the possible choices, they had no obligation choose the same item as other groups. The discussing ensued with no one knowing whose group they are in. This created disconnect to all for a more analytical process. The results indicated that positive feedback results more in the production blocking and less effective decision-making. Negative feedback increases the amount of time spent on group discussion. Evidence suggests that groups whom receive negative feedback during decision-making process engage in more argumentation, likely an effort to support their own argument in the face of criticism. The use of devil 's advocacy by a group requires more discussion to reach agreement than is normally needed. In comparison, groups who receive positive feedback will likely require less time to reach consensus by virtue of not requiring the same amount of argumentation. (Marler & Marett, 2013).
A group of people working on a team means a group of different sets of minds working together. Thus, it is inevitable that there may arise conflicts on a certain topic within the team, as certain viewpoint may seem right for the circumstances for some teammates and may different for others. However, it is not that they are not solvable.
This not only relates to the overall idea of the individual’s actions based on group influence but also alludes to the sub idea of the group of the classroom and how the individual does not want to be seen as lesser by giving a wrong answer. In doing this the group influences the individual to go along with the main idea of the group. In this experiment when given three lines to decide which one is more closely related to the original line it was found that the individual, that was part of the experimental group, would often pick the wrong answer to go along with the group (Baron, 2012). The influence stems from the group all choosing the wrong answer then the individual begins to believe that there is something wrong with the answer they had originally chosen due to the fact that the group overall has made a majority answer. The group itself can present tangible influence when they look to the individual to answer. That moment when the group looks toward the individual is where the influence becomes more concrete and the individual’s own beliefs begin to waiver because they believe that perhaps they are wrong and the group is correct
Several experiments and researches have been conducted that have focused on how people behave in groups. The findings have revealed that groups affect peoples’ attitudes, behavior and perceptions. Groups are essential for personal life, as well as in work life.