Experiments in Group Conflict
Sherif, M. (1958). Experiments in Group Conflict. Scientific American, 54–58.
Arhe Vaninetti
Research Methods, PSY301, Pacific University, Oregon
April 11, 2023
In Sherif’s 1958 study, they aimed to create a naturalistic observation of group conflict in 11 to 12 year old boys. To reduce the potential confounds from the boy’s backgrounds, the selected subjects had to undergo extensive screening of their family, teachers, and get interviewed themselves. The selected subjects had homogenous backgrounds and were ‘normal’ in every respect—from personality to behavior. The background that each boy had consisted of being from a stable, white, middle-class, Protestant family (which allowed for the reduction of confounding variables in the study).
The subjects were taken to what they believed was a summer camp. In reality, this summer camp and its activities were experimental conditions as part of a study. Initially, the subjects were housed in one large bunkhouse, and the experimenters allowed the subjects to make friends and engage with the activities that were facilitated by the camp staff. Secondly, the subjects were asked who their close friends were in the larger group, which Sherif used to separate them apart. Once the subjects were placed into two groups (with no close friends), Sherif began to observe their cooperation and organizational behavior. Quickly, the subjects got to know each other, who had the best skills at what task, and after a couple of days, a clear leader emerged from each group. With the groups unofficially organized from within (one group was named the ‘Rattlers,’ and the other chose the ‘Eagles’), the subjects then began to subconsciously compare groupmates. In one situation, a target was placed for the subjects to throw balls at. Sherif recorded the actual scores of each subject, but they noticed that more highly ‘ranked’ subjects were given higher scores than other subjects.
In the experimental phase, the Eagles and the Rattlers were pitted against each other through games of baseball, football, tug-of-war, a scavenger hunt, and other games. Preestablished close friendships quickly disintegrated once the games became serious, and the subjects participated in name calling and avoidance of the other group. The groups began to conduct raids of the other’s camp, and started sabotaging each other—but morale was high. Sherif noted that while the groups did not get along, within each group, democratic behavior and organization was efficient.
In the second phase of the experiment, Sherif focused on uniting the groups towards a superordinate goal. Through a series of man-made events, the groups slowly began to become more friendly towards each other, and began to form friendships despite group affiliation.
Sherif’s (1958) study on naturalistic group conflict and subsequent cooperation illuminated the ease with which we form ingroups and fierce bias, as well as how consistent cooperation towards a greater goal can undo the bias.
This study could be improved through a contemporary replication of the original premise with increased data collection and analysis, as well as inter-rater agreement (as the reader does not know how many observers there were). The homogenous sample required extensive effort to collect, but provided reduced confounds. One factor that could be assessed would be the introduction of other gender subjects to the experiment, as this may provide insight into group conflict as well as the influence of gender roles within conflict (as 11 and 12 year olds are entrenched in gendered society by that point). Another factor to be considered would be the size of the groups, as larger or smaller groups may create different kinds of conflict. Finally, I would suggest tracking the subjects conflict handling styles to establish further data points for children in this age group, as this is a formative stage that may influence how an individual interprets and deals with strong conflict. Overall, this study holds historical and societal relevance on understanding group conflict theory.