One might ask, and reasonably so: what can eleven-year old boys who were sent to a summer camp in a remote area of Oklahoma possibly tell us about intergroup conflict? Well, let me tell you a story.
An experiment, called the The Robbers Cave experiment, was conducted by Muzafer and Carolyn Sherif in the hopes of finding out more about intergroup conflict and co-operation. It all began, one fine day, when the boys arrived at the camp, called Robber’s Cave. They boys were, unbeknownst to them, randomly assigned in two different groups and placed in well separated cabins. Initially, the boys in each cabin engaged in ‘enjoyable’ activities, like hiking, swimming, and other sports, unaware that the other group even existed. 
The boys rapidly developed strong attachments to their own group, choosing names (Rattlers and Eagles) [is it just me or is there an ‘Eagles’ group in nearly every group that has been made that has been allowed the option?] and making up flags with their groups’ symbols on them. In the second phase of the study, the groups were brought together, and they began a series of competitions. They were told that the winning team would receive a trophy and various desirable prizes, because the boys wanted the prizes badly, the stage was set for intense competition.
The question for this phase of the study was: would such conflict generate prejudice amongst the two groups? As the boys competed, the tension between the groups rose. At first it was limited to verbal taunts but soon escalated into direct acts, like the Eagles burning the Rattlers’ flag; the Ratters responded to this by breaking into the Eagles’ cabin, overturning beds, tearing out mosquito netting, and generally wreaking havoc. The two groups voiced increasingly negative views of each other as the competitions carried on, while heaping praise on their own group members. In short, strong prejudice developed. 
In the final phase, Sherif and others attempted to reduce the negative reactions the competition had instilled. Increasing the amount of contact between the groups seemed only to fan the metaphorical flames of the boys’ hostility. But when conditions were altered so that the groups found it necessary to work together to reach common goals – ones they both desired but neither group could achieve alone – dramatic changes occurred. The boys worked cooperatively together to restore their supply (which was secretly sabotaged by the researchers), combined funds to rent a movie, and jointly repaired a broken down truck so they could all go to town. The tensions between the groups gradually decreased, and many cross-group friendships developed.
A story with a happy ending, d’aw.
