The Robbers Cave experiment, conducted by Muzafer Sherif in the 1950s, studied intergroup conflict and cooperation among 22 boys in Oklahoma. Initially separated into two groups, they developed group identities. Introducing competitive tasks led to hostility between groups. Later, cooperative tasks reduced this conflict, highlighting the role of shared goals in resolving group tensions.
The Robbers Cave experiment is one of the most cited studies in social psychology.
Muzafer Sherif, Carolyn Sherif, and others in the 1950s conducted the study.
Muzafer Sherif argued that intergroup conflict (i.e., conflict between groups) occurs when two groups compete for limited resources.
The hypotheses tested were:
- When individuals who don’t know each other are brought together to interact in group activities to achieve common goals, they produce a group structure with hierarchical statuses and roles.
- Once formed, two in-groups are brought into a functional relationship under conditions of competition, and group frustration, attitudes, and appropriate hostile actions about the out-group and its members will arise; these will be standardized and shared in varying degrees by group members.
Study Procedure
The field experiment involved two groups of 11- to 12-year-old boys at Robbers Cave State Park, Oklahoma, America.
The twenty-two boys in the study were unknown to each other and all from white middle-class backgrounds.
They all shared a Protestant, two-parent background and were judged well-adjusted, with no history of behavioural problems.
This matching was deliberate. If hostility still emerged among such ordinary, well-adjusted boys, it could not be blamed on disturbed personalities or existing prejudice.
The researchers randomly divided the boys into two groups, with efforts being made to balance the groups’ physical, mental, and social talents.
Neither group was aware of the other’s existence.
None of the boys knew they were taking part in a psychological study. They believed they were simply at summer camp. The researchers posed as camp counsellors, a janitor and a caretaker to observe them unnoticed.
Individual groups were picked up by bus on successive days in the summer of 1954. Each group was transported to a 200-acre Boy Scouts of America camp at Robbers Cave State Park, Oklahoma.
Phase 1: In-group Formation (5-6 Days)
The members of each group got to know one other, social norms developed, leadership and group structure emerged.
At the camp the groups were kept separate from each other and were encouraged to bond as two individual groups through the pursuit of common goals that required cooperative discussion, planning and execution.
During this first phase, the groups did not know of the other group’s existence.
The boys developed an attachment to their groups throughout the first week of the camp, quickly establishing their own cultures and group norms, by doing various activities together like hiking, swimming, etc.
The boys chose names for their groups, The Eagles and The Rattlers, and stenciled them onto shirts and flags.
Toward the end of this first week, the groups discovered each other’s existence. Before any competition began, an “us and them” language appeared immediately, with each side pressing camp staff to let them challenge the outsiders.
Phase 2: Group Conflict (4-5 Days)
The now-formed groups came into contact with each other, competing in games and challenges, and competing for control of territory.
Sherif now arranged the “competition stage” where friction between the groups was to occur over the next 4-6 days.
In this phase it was intended to bring the two groups into competition with each other in conditions that would create frustration between them.
Competitive Activities and Rising Tension
A series of competitive activities (e.g. baseball, tug-of-war etc.) were arranged with a trophy being awarded on the basis of accumulated team score.
There were also individual prizes for the winning group, such as a medal and a multi-bladed pocket knife. No consolation prizes were given to the “losers.”
The Rattlers’ reaction to the informal announcement of a series of contests was absolute confidence in their victory!
They spent the day talking about the contests and making improvements on the ball field, which they took over as their own. They even spoke of putting a “Keep Off” sign there!
They ended up putting their Rattler flag on the pitch. At this time, several Rattlers made threatening remarks about what they would do if anybody from The Eagles bothered their flag.
Situations were also devised whereby one group gained at the expense of the other. For example, one group was delayed getting to a picnic and when they arrived the other group had eaten their food.
Escalation and Intergroup Hostility
At first, this prejudice was only verbally expressed, such as through taunting or name-calling.
As the competition wore on, this expression took a more direct route. The Eagles burned the Rattlers’ flag.
Then the next day, the Rattlers ransacked the Eagles’ cabin, overturned beds, and stole private property. The groups became so aggressive with each other that the researchers had to physically separate them.
During the subsequent two-day cooling-off period, the boys listed features of the two groups.
The boys tended to characterize their own in-group in very favorable terms, and the other out-group in very unfavorable terms.
Keep in mind that the participants in this study were well-adjusted boys, not street gang members.
Findings and Conclusion
This study clearly shows that conflict between groups can trigger prejudiced attitudes and discriminatory behavior.
This experiment confirmed Sherif’s realistic conflict theory.
Phase 3: Conflict Resolution (6-7 Days)
Sherif and colleagues tried various means of reducing the animosity and low-level violence between the groups.
The Robbers Cave experiments showed that superordinate goals (goals so large that it requires more than one group to achieve the goal) reduced conflict significantly more effectively than other strategies (e.g., communication, contact).
A number of improvised reconciliatory opportunities (such as a bean-collecting contest, or the showing of a film, or the shooting of Firecrackers to celebrate the Fourth of July) did not lead to any appreciable lessening of tensions between the Eagles and the Rattlers.
Sherif et al. concluded that such contrived contact opportunities were not going to lessen tensions between the groups.
They now arranged for the introduction of a number of scenarios presenting superordinate goals which members of the two antagonistic groups could not easily ignore, but the attainment of which was beyond the resources and efforts of one group alone.
These scenarios were played out at a new location in the belief that this would tend to inhibit recall of grievances that had been experienced at Robbers Cave.
The Drinking Water Problem
The first superordinate goal to be introduced concerned a common resource used by both groups. Their water supply, which had suddenly stopped flowing.
All of the drinking water in the camp came from a reservoir on the mountain north of the camp.
The water supply had failed, and the Camp staff blamed this on “vandals.”
Upon investigations of the extensive water lines by the Eagles and the Rattlers as separate groups, they discovered that an outlet faucet had a sack stuffed into it.
Almost all the boys gathered around the faucet to try to clear it.
Suggestions from members of both groups concerning effective ways to unblock the obstruction were thrown in from all sides simultaneously which led to cooperative efforts clearing the obstacle itself.
The joint work on the faucet lasted over 45 minutes.
When the water finally came on, there was common rejoicing.
The Rattlers did not object to having the Eagles get ahead of them when they all got a drink, as the Eagles did not have canteens with them and were thirstier.
No protests or “Ladies first” type of remarks were made!
The Problem of Securing a Movie
The next superordinate goal to be introduced was a favorite feature-length movie for boys of their age.
Two films had been chosen in consultation with children’s movie experts and brought to the camp along with other stimulus materials.
In the afternoon, the boys were called together, and the staff suggested the possibility of watching either “Treasure Island” or “Kidnapped”: Both groups yelled approval of these films.
After some discussion, one Rattler said, “Everyone that wants Treasure Island raise their hands.”
The majority of members in both groups gave enthusiastic approval to “Treasure Island” even though a few dissensions were expressed to this choice.
Then the staff announced that securing the film would cost $15 and the camp could not pay the whole sum!
After much discussion, it was suggested that both groups would pay $3.50 and the camp would pay the balance.
This was accepted even though, as a couple of homesick Eagles had gone home, the contribution per person per group was unequal.
At supper that night, there were no objections to eating together.
Some scuffling and sticking chewing gum on each other occurred between members of the two groups, but it involved fewer boys on both sides than were usually involved in such encounters.
Other problem-solving superordinate goals introduced in this phase included the joint use of a tug-of-war-rope, and both groups of boys “accidentally” came across a stuck-in-a-rut truck carrying food for both groups.
In the event, the joint pursuit of such superordinate goals saw a lessening of intergroup conflict.
At breakfast and lunch on the last day of camp, the seating arrangements were considerably mixed up insofar as group membership was concerned.
Friendship choices shifted markedly toward the former enemy group. By the end of camp, roughly two-thirds of friendship choices crossed group lines. The boys also asked to travel home together on a single bus, rather than travelling separately.
Realistic Conflict Theory
Realistic conflict theory posits intergroup hostility and conflict arise when groups compete for limited resources. It emphasizes that competition over scarce resources (material goods, power, or social status) can lead to prejudice, discrimination, and animosity between groups.
The theory was solidified by the classic Robbers Cave experiment conducted by Muzafer Sherif in the 1950s.
Three key points from RCT are:
- Resource Scarcity and Competition: When groups perceive that they compete for limited resources, hostility can arise.
- Formation of Ingroup and Outgroup Dynamics: Through competition, groups develop a strong sense of “us” (ingroup) versus “them” (outgroup). This distinction can lead to negative stereotyping and increased animosity.
- Superordinate Goals: Intergroup hostility can be reduced when conflicting groups collaborate on goals that neither group can achieve on its own. These goals supersede their smaller individual goals and encourage cooperation.
Realistic Conflict Theory suggests that competition over limited resources can drive intergroup hostility, but collaborative efforts towards shared objectives can help mitigate this conflict.
Critical Evaluation
The Robbers Cave study captured genuine, unscripted intergroup behaviour in a real summer camp. This gives it strong ecological validity.
Real-world patterns fit its central claim too. Periods of high unemployment often coincide with rising hostility toward outgroups competing for scarce jobs.
Even so, the study faces several important criticisms:
- Artificial Groups and Competition: the rivalry was manufactured for the study, unlike entrenched real-world conflicts.
- Ethical Concerns: the boys were deceived and exposed to real harm without informed consent.
- Small, Unrepresentative Sample: only 22 white, middle-class, Protestant boys took part.
- The Social Identity Theory Challenge: mere categorisation into groups, with no competition at all, can also produce hostility.
- The Tyerman and Spencer Critique: familiar, cooperatively led groups stayed friendly under direct competition.
Artificial Groups and Competition
Middle-class boys randomly assigned to two summer-camp teams are not rival inner-city gangs, feuding ethnic groups, or opposing football supporters.
Real rivalries run deeper. Those real-world conflicts carry histories, ideologies and material stakes that a two-week summer camp cannot reproduce.
The two groups were strangers before the study began. Their competition was staged entirely by the research team.
It did not arise from any genuine dispute over land, jobs or status. The boys had no grudge to begin with.
Researchers built one from scratch, on a tight schedule of games, trophies and prizes.
Critics argue this artificiality matters. The hostility Sherif recorded may reflect the transitory, invented nature of the experimental groups, not a general law about how real communities compete.
Ethical Concerns
The boys were deceived about the true purpose of the camp. They did not know they were research participants.
Neither they nor their parents could give fully informed consent to having hostility deliberately provoked in them.
Researchers manufactured real conflict: fights, raids, thefts, humiliation, flag-burning.
This exposed children to genuine physical and psychological harm, with no adequate protection built into the design.
The camp staff had to physically separate the boys more than once when fighting broke out between the groups.
This was not incidental to the design. Provoking real hostility was necessary to produce the very conflict the researchers wanted to study.
The conflict was resolved by the end, and the boys reportedly left on good terms. Still, the distress was real while it lasted.
Provoking it in children is difficult to justify by modern standards.
Small, Unrepresentative Sample
Only 22 boys took part, all of a single age, sex, ethnicity, religion and social class.
They were white, Protestant, middle-class 11- to 12-year-olds. Girls, adults, and children from different backgrounds were excluded entirely.
Findings from such a narrow sample may not generalise. The results may say more about this one group of boys than about intergroup conflict in general.
Wetherell (1982) found that Polynesian children in New Zealand were far more generous and welcoming to outgroups than Sherif’s American boys.
Culture shaped the outcome. This reflects cooperative cultural norms, not a fixed human tendency toward hostility.
Intergroup hostility is not inevitable. It appears to be moderated by culture, which the homogeneous Robbers Cave sample could never reveal on its own.
The Social Identity Theory Challenge
Tajfel and Turner’s (1979) Social Identity Theory mounts the most serious theoretical challenge to Sherif’s account.
Using the minimal group paradigm, Tajfel’s team assigned strangers to groups on a trivial, arbitrary basis. There was no competition, no interaction, no shared history.
That alone was enough to produce ingroup favouritism.
No prize was at stake. If people favour their own group with nothing to compete over, competition cannot be a necessary cause of bias.
On this reading, Robbers Cave may over-credit competition. The hostility may instead flow from the simpler act of dividing boys into the Rattlers and the Eagles.
Categorisation alone may have done most of the work, before the first tournament game was even played.
The two theories are not fully exclusive. Sherif’s competition and Tajfel’s categorisation are now often taught as complementary sources of prejudice, rather than as rival explanations.
The Tyerman and Spencer Critique
Tyerman and Spencer (1983) ran a pointed field test with English boy scouts.
Unlike Sherif’s boys, these scouts already knew one another well and had a leader who actively encouraged cooperation.
Competition between four patrols in their camp stayed friendly throughout.
Solidarity held steady. It produced no rise in ingroup favouritism, and the boys’ sense of belonging to the whole camp remained intact.
The researchers concluded that Sherif’s hostility reflected the transitory, artificial nature of his experimental groups, not competition as such.
That is a strong claim.
Prior friendship, familiarity and cooperative leadership were all deliberately excluded from Robbers Cave.
Those factors may be decisive in whether competition turns into conflict at all. This directly challenges Sherif’s claim that competition alone is a sufficient condition for hostility.
Contemporary Research
Scholarship has moved on since 1961.
Gina Perry’s 2018 book The Lost Boys is the most influential modern reappraisal of Robbers Cave.
Drawing on Sherif’s own field notes and interviews with surviving participants, Perry examined an earlier, abandoned 1953 study at Middle Grove, New York.
That study used a similar design.
At Middle Grove, the boys worked out that the adults were engineering their conflict.
They turned their resentment on the researchers instead of on each other, forcing the study to be scrapped.
Perry argues that the “clean” 1954 narrative understates how heavily Sherif’s team stage-managed events at Robbers Cave.
The engineering ran deep.
As Perry’s archival analysis shows, this does not undo the study’s two robust lessons.
Contact alone still failed to reduce hostility, and cooperation toward superordinate goals still succeeded.
It does sharpen the researcher-effects and artificiality criticisms above.
Key Takeaways
- Setting: 22 white, 11-year-old boys were sent to a remote summer camp at Robbers Cave State Park, Oklahoma.
- Group Formation: Within a week, the boys bonded through shared activities like hiking and swimming, naming themselves the Eagles and the Rattlers.
- Rising Conflict: A four-day series of competitions triggered both verbal and physical prejudice between the two groups.
- Ingroup Bias: During a cooling-off period, each group rated its own members favourably and the other group unfavourably.
- Contact Failed: Simply increasing contact between the groups made tensions worse, not better.
- Superordinate Goals: Forcing the groups to cooperate on shared goals eased the prejudice and tension between them.
- Theory Confirmed: The study supported Sherif’s realistic conflict theory, the idea that competition over resources drives group conflict.
- Modern Critique: Social identity theory shows mere categorisation, without any competition, can also cause bias. Gina Perry’s 2018 research also shows how much the outcome depended on researcher intervention.
References
Campbell, Donald T. (1965). Ethnocentrism and other altruistic motives. In Nebraska symposium on motivation, vol. 13, edited by D. Levine, 283-311. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Levine, Robert A., and Donald T. Campbell. (1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes, and group behavior. New York: John Wiley.
Perry, G. (2018). The lost boys: Inside Muzafer Sherif’s Robbers Cave experiment. Scribe Publications.
Sherif, M. (1954). Experimental study of positive and negative intergroup attitudes between experimentally produced groups: robbers cave study. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma.
Sherif, M. (1956). Experiments in group conflict. Scientific American, 195(5), 54–59.
Sherif, M. (1958). Superordinate goals in the reduction of intergroup conflict. American Journal of Sociology, 63(4), 349–356.
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment (Vol. 10). Norman, OK: University Book Exchange.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–48). Brooks/Cole.
Tyerman, A., & Spencer, C. (1983). A critical test of the Sherifs’ Robber’s Cave experiments: Intergroup competition and cooperation between groups of well-acquainted individuals. Small Group Behavior, 14(4), 515–531.
Wetherell, M. (1982). Cross-cultural studies of minimal groups: Implications for the social identity theory of intergroup relations. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 207–240). Cambridge University Press.
