robbers cave experiment by muzafer sherif

Robbers Cave Experiment | Realistic Conflict Theory

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

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 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

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.

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.

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 Drinking Water Problem

The problem of securing a movie, 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.

• 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.

Critical Evaluation

Key takeaways.

• In the Robbers Cave field experiment, 22 white, 11-year-old boys were sent to a special remote summer camp in Oklahoma, Robbers Cave State Park.
• The boys developed an attachment to their groups throughout the first week of the camp by doing various activities together, like hiking, swimming, etc.
• The boys chose names for their groups, The Eagles and The Rattlers.
• During a four-day series of competitions between the groups prejudice began to become apparent between the two groups (both physical and verbal).
• 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 favourable terms, and the other out-group in very unfavorable terms.
• Sherif then attempted to reduce the prejudice, or inter-group conflict, shown by each group. However, simply increasing the contact of the two groups only made the situation worse.
• Alternatively forcing the groups to work together to reach common goals, eased prejudice and tension among the groups.
• This experiment confirmed Sherif’s realistic conflict theory (also called realistic group conflict theory), the idea that group conflict can result from competition over resources.

Further Information

• Allport’s Intergroup Contact Hypothesis: Its History and Influence
• Aslam, Alex. “War and Peace and Summer Camp.” Nature, vol. 556, 17 Apr. 2018, pp. 306-307.

What Was the Robbers Cave Experiment in Psychology?

A Landmark Study on Group Conflict

Martin Barraud / Getty Images

• Archaeology
• Ph.D., Psychology, University of California - Santa Barbara
• B.A., Psychology and Peace & Conflict Studies, University of California - Berkeley

The Robbers Cave experiment was a famous psychology study that looked at how conflict develops between groups. The researchers divided boys at a summer camp into two groups, and they studied how conflict developed between them. They also investigated what did and didn't work to reduce group conflict.

Key Takeaways: The Robbers Cave Study

• The Robbers Cave experiment studied how hostilities quickly developed between two groups of boys at a summer camp.
• The researchers were later able to reduce the tensions between the two groups by having them work towards shared goals.
• The Robbers Cave study helps to illustrate several key ideas in psychology, including realistic conflict theory, social identity theory, and the contact hypothesis.

Overview of the Robbers Cave Experiment

The Robbers Cave experiment was part of a series of studies conducted by social psychologist Muzafer Sherif and his colleagues in the 1940s and 1950s. In these studies, Sherif looked at how groups of boys at summer camps interacted with a rival group: he hypothesized that “when two groups have conflicting aims… their members will become hostile to each other even though the groups are composed of normal well-adjusted individuals.”

The participants in the study, boys who were approximately 11-12 years old, thought that they were participating in a typical summer camp, which took place at Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma in 1954. However, the campers’ parents knew that their children were actually participating in a research study, as Sherif and his colleagues had gathered extensive information on the participants (such as school records and personality test results).

The boys arrived at camp in two separate groups: for the first part of the study, they spent time with members of their own group, without knowing that the other group existed. The groups chose names (the Eagles and the Rattlers), and each group developed their own group norms and group hierarchies.

After a short time, the boys became aware that there was another group at camp and, upon learning of them, the campers group spoke negatively about the other group. At this point, the researchers began the next phase of the Robbers Cave experiment: a competitive tournament between the groups, consisting of games such as baseball and tug-of-war, for which the winners would receive prizes and a trophy.

What the Robbers Cave Experiment Researchers Found

After the Eagles and Rattlers began competing in the tournament, the relationship between the two groups quickly became tense. The groups began trading insults, and the conflict quickly spiraled. The teams each burned the other group’s team flag and raided their cabin. The researchers also found that the group hostilities were apparent on surveys distributed to the campers: campers were asked to rate their team and the other team on positive and negative traits, and the campers rated their own group more positively than their rivals. During this time, the researchers also noticed a change within the groups as well: the groups became more cohesive.

How Conflict Was Reduced

To determine the factors that could reduce group conflict, the Robbers Cave experiment researchers first brought the campers together for fun activities (such as having a meal or watching a movie together). However, this didn’t work to reduce conflict; for example, meals together devolved into food fights.

Next, Sherif and his colleagues tried having the two groups work on what psychologists call superordinate goals , goals that both groups cared about, which they had to work together to achieve. For example, the camp’s water supply was cut off (a ploy by the researchers to force the two groups to interact), and the Eagles and Rattlers worked together to fix the problem. In another instance, a truck bringing the campers food wouldn’t start (again, an incident staged by the researchers), so members of both groups pulled on a rope to pull the broken truck. These activities didn’t immediately repair the relationship between the groups (at first, the Rattlers and Eagles resumed hostilities after a superordinate goal was achieved), but working on shared goals eventually reduced conflict. The groups stopped calling each other names, perceptions of the other group (as measured by the researchers’ surveys) improved, and friendships even began to form with members of the other group. By the end of camp, some of the campers requested that everyone (from both groups) take the bus home together, and one group bought beverages for the other group on the ride home.

Realistic Conflict Theory

The Robbers Cave experiment has often been used to illustrate realistic conflict theory (also called realistic group conflict theory ), the idea that group conflict can result from competition over resources (whether those resources are tangible or intangible). In particular, hostilities are hypothesized to occur when the groups believe that the resource they’re competing for is in limited supply. At Robbers Cave, for example, the boys were competing for prizes, a trophy, and bragging rights. Since the tournament was set up in a way that it was impossible for both teams to win, realistic conflict theory would suggest that this competition led to the conflicts between the Eagles and Rattlers.

However, the Robbers Cave study also shows that conflict can occur in the absence of competition for resources, as the boys began speaking negatively about the other group even before the researchers introduced the tournament. In other words, as social psychologist Donelson Forsyth explains, the Robbers Cave experiment also demonstrates how readily people engage in social categorization , or dividing themselves into an ingroup and an outgroup.

Critiques of the Robbers Cave Experiment

While Sherif’s Robbers Cave experiment is considered a landmark study in social psychology, some researchers have critiqued Sherif’s methods. For example, some, including writer Gina Perry , have suggested that not enough attention has been paid to the role of the researchers (who posed as camp staff) in the creation of group hostilities. Since the researchers usually refrained from intervening in the conflict, the campers may have assumed that fighting with the other group was condoned. Perry also points out that there are potential ethical issues with the Robbers Cave experiment as well: the children did not know they were in a study—and in fact, many did not realize that they had been in a study until Perry contacted them decades later to ask them about their experience.

Another potential caveat to the Robbers Cave experiment is that one of Sherif’s earlier studies had a very different result. When Sherif and his colleagues conducted a similar summer camp study in 1953, the researchers were not successfully able to create group conflict (and, while the researchers were in the process of trying to incite hostilities between the groups, the campers figured out what the researchers were trying to do).

What Robbers Cave Teaches Us About Human Behavior

Psychologists Michael Platow and John Hunter connect Sherif’s study to social psychology’s social identity theory : the theory that being part of a group has powerful effects on people’s identities and behaviors. Researchers studying social identity have found that people categorize themselves as members of social groups (as the members of the Eagles and Rattlers did), and that these group memberships can lead people to behave in discriminatory and hostile ways towards outgroup members. However, the Robbers Cave experiment also shows that conflict isn’t inevitable or intractable, as the researchers were eventually able to reduce tensions between the two groups.

The Robbers Cave experiment also allows us to evaluate social psychology’s contact hypothesis . According to the contact hypothesis, prejudice and group conflict can be reduced if members of the two groups spend time with one another, and that contact between groups is especially likely to reduce conflict if certain conditions are met. In the Robbers Cave study, the researchers found that simply bringing the groups together for fun activities was not enough to reduce conflict. However, conflict was successfully reduced when the groups worked together on common goals—and, according to the contact hypothesis, having common goals is one of the conditions that makes it more likely that conflict between the groups will be reduced. In other words, the Robbers Cave study suggests it’s not always enough for groups in conflict to spend time together: instead, the key may be to find a way for the two groups to work together.

Sources and Additional Reading

• Forsyth, Donelson R. Group Dynamics . 4th ed., Thomson/Wadsworth, 2006. https://books.google.com/books/about/Group_Dynamics.html?id=VhNHAAAAMAAJ
• Haslam, Alex. “War and Peace and Summer Camp.” Nature , vol. 556, 17 Apr. 2018, pp. 306-307. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04582-7
• Khan, Saera R. and Viktoriya Samarina. “Realistic Group Conflict Theory.” Encyclopedia of Social Psychology . Edited by Roy F. Baumeister and Kathleen D. Vohs, SAGE Publications, 2007, 725-726. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412956253.n434
• Konnikova, Maria. “ Revisiting Robbers Cave: The Easy Spontaneity of Intergroup Conflict. ” Scientific American , 5 Sept. 2012.
• Perry, Gina. “The View from the Boys.” The Psychologist , vol. 27, Nov. 2014, pp. 834-837. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04582-7
• Platow, Michael J. and John A. Hunter. “Intergroup Relations and Conflict: Revisiting Sherif’s Boys’ Camp Studies.” Social Psychology: Revisiting the Classic Studies . Edited by Joanne R. Smith and S. Alexander Haslam, Sage Publications, 2012. https://books.google.com/books/about/Social_Psychology.html?id=WCsbkXy6vZoC
• Shariatmadari, David. “A Real-Life Lord of the Flies: The Troubling Legacy of the Robbers Cave Experiment.” The Guardian , 16 Apr. 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/apr/16/a-real-life-lord-of-the-flies-the-troubling-legacy-of-the-robbers-cave-experiment
• Sherif, Muzafer. “Experiments in Group Conflict.”  Scientific American  vol. 195, 1956, pp. 54-58. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24941808
• What Is Self-Concept in Psychology?
• What Is a Schema in Psychology? Definition and Examples
• Psychodynamic Theory: Approaches and Proponents
• What Is Behaviorism in Psychology?
• Carl Rogers: Founder of the Humanistic Approach to Psychology
• Social Cognitive Theory: How We Learn From the Behavior of Others
• The Milgram Experiment: How Far Will You Go to Obey an Order?
• What Is Mindfulness in Psychology?
• What Is Positive Psychology?
• Diffusion of Responsibility: Definition and Examples in Psychology
• 5 Psychology Studies That Will Make You Feel Good About Humanity
• What Is the Law of Effect in Psychology?
• What Is Theory of Mind in Psychology?
• What Is the Recency Effect in Psychology?
• What Is a Conditioned Response?

The Robbers Cave Experiment: Realistic Conflict Theory

Categories Social Psychology

Psychologist Muzafer Sherif suggested that conflict between groups was the result of competition for limited resources. To put this theory to the test, he conducted a series of experiments that are today referred to as the Robbers Cave Experiment.

In this article, learn more about what happened in the Robbers Cave Experiment and the conclusions that Sherif made about what these findings meant with regard to intergroup conflicts. Also, explore some of the criticisms of the study and the impact the research had on the field of social psychology .

Table of Contents

An Overview of the Robbers Cave Experiment

During the summer of 1954, 22 boys between the ages of 11 and 12 arrived at a 200-acre camp at the Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma for what they believed was just a normal summer camp. What they didn’t know is that they were really about to take part in what would become one of the best-known psychological experiments , known today as the Robbers Cave Experiment.

Group Formation and Bonding Phase of the Experiment

The boys, all from similar backgrounds, were randomly assigned to one of two different groups. During the first week of the experiment, the two groups were kept separate and neither had any inkling that the other group even existed.

The boys in each group spent this time bonding with one another by participating in activities like hiking and swimming. As the researchers predicted, each group established its own norms, hierarchy, and practices.  They also selected names for their groups (the Rattlers and the Eagles) and had their names emblazoned on their shirts and camp flags.

What Muzafer Sherif and his colleagues were interested in was looking at how intergroup conflicts were influenced by factors such as competition, prejudice, and stereotypes.

The Competition Phase of the Robbers Cave Experiment

In phase two of the experiment, the two groups were made aware of each other’s existence and placed in direct competition with one another in a series of activities that included such things as swimming, baseball, and tug-of-war. The groups engaged in competitive activities in which both group prizes (a trophy) and individual prizes (a pocket knife and a medal) were awarded to the winning team.

As soon as each group learned of the other’s existence, conflicts arose. It began with various forms of verbal abuse such as name-calling and taunting. Once the two groups were placed in real competition with each other, the conflicts became even more pronounced.

As the competitions wore on, the hostilities became much greater. The teams refused to eat in the same room and they began making up derogatory songs about the competing team.  One team burned the opposing team’s flag, while both teams raided and vandalized each other’s cabins. At one point, the conflict became so great that the researchers had to separate the groups and give them a two-day period to calm down.

At this point, the researchers asked the boys to describe the features of each group. What they found was that while they tended to describe their own group in very favorable terms, they held unfavorable opinions of the opposing group.

The Integration Phase of the Robbers Cave Experiment

During the third and final phase of the Robbers Cave Experiment, the boys were brought together in an attempt to reduce or eliminate the previous friction generated by the competitions. The boys watched films, lit fireworks, and participated in contests, but the researchers found that none of these activities had any impact on the amount of tension between the members of each group.

In their next attempt to reconcile the groups, the experimenters took all the boys to a new location and engaged them in a series of problem-solving activities. For example, the boys were informed that the drinking water had been sabotaged and that they would need to work together to fix the water faucet.

After cooperating to solve a number of similar problems, it was clear that peace had finally formed between the groups. By the end of the study, the two groups even chose to ride home together on the same bus. When they stopped for refreshments, the group that won prize money in the earlier competitions offered to use that money to pay for milkshakes for the boys from both groups.

Sherif’s Conclusions

Sherif noted that the researchers had made painstaking efforts to ensure that the boys were from similar ethnic, religious, family, and socio-economic backgrounds. None had behavioral problems or past issues with violence.

Since the boys were of similar, stable backgrounds, the results suggest that intergroup conflicts are not the result of mere group differences. Instead, Sherif suggested, each group establishes its own norms, rules, and patterns of behavior.

It is these self-created structures and hierarchies that lead to competition and conflict between groups.

The implications of Sherif’s study go beyond what creates conflict in groups, however. It also offers hope that these intergroup conflicts can be reconciled. Just as the boys in the Eagles and Rattlers learned to work together and eventually achieved amity, the results imply that perhaps such peace could also be reached between opposing groups and warring nations.

Criticisms of the Robbers Cave Experiment

As a field experiment, the Robbers Cave study attempted to create the sort of intergroup conflict that impacts people from all walks of life the world over. While the study was a success and had a good outcome, critics argue that the study suffers from a number of possible problems.

• Artificially-created situation : First, while Sherif and his colleagues attempted to create as realistic a situation as possible, the reality was that both the groups and the competition between the groups were artificial. The situation simply could not replicate the deeply rooted beliefs and other influences that can impact real-world conflicts, such as ideology-based wars or long-held sports rivalries.
• Ethical concerns : The study has also been criticized on ethical grounds since the boys did not know they were participating in a psychological study and did not give consent. The attempts to generate conflict and aggression also exposed the children to both psychological and physical harm.

Perhaps one of the greatest criticisms of the Robbers Cave Experiment is that it simply doesn’t tell the whole story. What the study does not mention is that Sherif and his colleagues had actually performed two previous versions of the experiment that were far less successful.

In the first version of the study, the two groups ended up ganging up on a shared enemy, while in the second study, they ended up turning on the experimenters themselves.

While the Robbers Cave experiment is not without criticism, it did have an important influence on our understanding of intergroup conflict. The results supported Sherif’s Realistic Conflict Theory, which suggested that intergroup conflicts arise from competition for resources and opposing goals. The study also reveals how such conflicts contribute to things like prejudice and stereotyping.

The study also hints that one of the best ways to overcome such conflicts is to focus on getting people to work together toward a shared goal. Through this type of socialization, out-group conflicts, prejudice, and discrimination can be effectively reduced.

Cherry F. The ‘Stubborn Particulars’ of Social Psychology: Essays on the Research Process . Florence, KY: Taylor & Francess/Routledge; 1995.

Dean J. War, peace and the role of power in Sherif’s Robbers Cave experiment . Psyblog. Published 2007.

Sherif M, Harvey OJ, White BJ, Hood WR, Sherif CW. Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment (Vol. 10). Norman, OK: Universi ty Book Exchange; 1961.

Robbers Cave Experiment

Life imitates art, and art imitates life. Many say, for example, that the Robbers Cave Experiment and  Lord of the Flies  are an example of art imitating life.

Did you read Lord of the Flies in middle school or high school? Even if you skimmed over the book, you might remember what it’s about. A group of boys finds themselves stranded on a desert island without adult supervision. As they try to establish a society, they turn on each other in desperation, and things get brutal.

The book has become a staple of Young Adult fiction and is known for being a reflection of society. It warns that anyone has the potential to get violent if they are desperate enough for scarce resources.

Lord of the Flies came out in 1954. The year before, the Rockefeller Foundation gave psychologist Muzafer Sherif $38,000 to conduct a fascinating research experiment. Tired of working with lab rats, Sherif set out to do something unusual - an experiment that one could say mirrored Lord of the Flies.  He ended up putting together the Robbers Cave Experiment.

What Is the Robbers Cave Experiment?

The Robbers Cave experiment, once known for its fascinating insight into group conflict theory, is now more infamous than famous. Regardless of its reputation, it remains one of the most well-known social psychology experiments of the 20th century. It attempted to reveal fascinating insights into group conflict and how easily people turn against each other. 

Who is Muzafer Sherif?

Muzafer Sherif is the man behind the Robber’s Cave Experiment. Born in Turkey, he witnesses a lot of violence due to the separation of ethnic groups. The violence encouraged him to become a psychologist and attend Harvard University. When he originally published the Robbers Cave Experiment, he earned praise for his work. In recent years, however, criticisms of the Robbers Cave experiment have overshadowed his accomplishments.

How the Robbers Cave Experiment Was Conducted

Sherif’s theory.

Sherif wanted to show how easily groups could turn on each other when they were fighting for limited resources. But he also wanted to show how easily those groups could set aside their differences and come together to defeat a common enemy. Observing these group dynamics couldn’t be done in a lab with rats or dogs. So he took his experiments to a summer camp.

The 22 boys at Robber’s Cave State Park did not know that their summer camp experience would be part of a larger social experiment. They didn’t even know how many people would be at the camp until the second day. On the first day, researchers posing as counselors established two groups of campers: The Eagles and the Rattlers. After the boys bonded within their groups, they were introduced to the others.

Setting Up the Robbers Cave Experiment

The researchers set up a series of competitions over 4-6 days, like baseball games and tug-of-war. Winners received prizes - and the losers would receive nothing. Eventually, they began to set up additional conflicts. For example, one group got access to food while the others were told to wait.

The boys eventually started to develop an “us vs. them” mentality. At first, they only exchanged threats and engaged in verbal conflict. Quickly, however, things became more physical. One group burned the other group’s flag, and one group raided the other group’s cabin and stole items from the boys in that group. Things got violent. In surveys taken during this period, the boys shared negative thoughts and stereotypes against the boys in the other group. This proved the first part of Sherif’s theory.

But he wasn’t done.

Final Results of Robbers Cave Experiment

The Robber’s Cave Experiment then went into a final “friction reduction” phase. All 22 boys were given tasks that would benefit the group as a whole. At one point, the researchers set up a challenge in which a truck delivering food was stuck and couldn’t deliver meals. The boys worked together to get the truck unstuck so they could all eat. In another challenge, the boys formed an assembly line to remove rocks that blocked access to the camp’s water tower. Even though the boys had originally felt hostile toward the boys in the opposing group, they were all able to work together to reach a goal that would benefit the whole group.

One thing to note here is that the boys  still  did not know they were a part of an experiment. Sherif never revealed this information to them. As you'll read later in this article, they didn't find out about their participation in the experiment until 50+ years later. That's a long time to not knowing that you impacted psychology forever!

Realistic Conflict Theory

This experiment would go on to be key evidence in the Realistic Conflict Theory (RCT.) Donald Campbell coined this term a few years after Sherif’s experiment. At the time, psychologists had talked about group conflict using sex, food, and other basic needs as motivations. Campbell broadened the theory to include larger goals and a wider categorization of resources.

Thus, realistic conflict theory is based on the assumption that group conflict will become tense whenever these groups must compete for limited resources. These resources could be food, but may also be things like respect, power, or recognition. This tension may lead to stereotyping, violence, and other extreme forms of behavior.

Criticisms of the Robbers Cave Experiment

The Robbers Cave Experiment has continued to be one of the most well-known experiments in the world of social psychology. But not all psychologists sing Sherif’s praises. In fact, the Robbers Cave Experiment has become one of the most well-known experiments due to its questionable ethics.

The purpose of an experiment is to test out a hypothesis. If you cannot support your hypothesis with your experiment, the problem is with the hypothesis - not the experiment. When a psychologist approaches an experiment as a way to prove their hypothesis, things can get tricky. Some critics say that’s what Sherif did with the Robbers Cave Experiment.

Middle Grove Experiment

Before the Robbers Cave Experiment, Sherif conducted a similar experiment at a camp called Middle Grove. But the results didn’t work out like he thought they would. The boys never turned on each other - the bond that they had made at camp before the experiment began was too strong. The “counselors” and Sherif set up pranks to pit the boys against each other, but the boys ended up turning on the counselors instead. They eventually figured out they were being manipulated.

These results were thrown out and only came to light in recent years. With these new findings, psychologists began to refrain from using Robbers Cave as an example in textbooks and lectures.

Eventually, with tweaks to the experiment (rather than the hypothesis,) Sherif came up with a scenario that would support his theory. With results that supported his hypothesis, Sherif felt more comfortable publishing his results. The results attempted to reveal the deeper parts of humanity, but the process surrounding Robbers Cave really just revealed a lot about Sherif.

Robbers Cave Experiment vs. Lord of the Flies

Lord of the Flies didn't exactly have the same resolution as the Robbers Cave experiment. Although the book and experiment are often compared, there are significant differences in how the boys interacted and how their "stories" ended.

(If you haven't read  Lord of the Flies,  skip to the next section. There are spoilers ahead!)

In  Lord of the Flies,  (which, keep in mind, is a fictional story,) a group of boys are stranded on an island after their plane is shot down. They are immediately in distress. They also aren't split up into two groups, although ingroups and outgroups begin to form based on age later in the book. At first, the process of finding food and building a fire is fairly democratic. Rifts really form after individuals or pairs make mistakes. The violence also escalates far beyond what would have been allowed in the Robbers Cave experiment. One boy, Piggy, is killed.

The resolution in the Robbers Cave experiment is the result of a problem that all the boys work to solve together. These tasks start from the very beginning of  Lord of the Flies.  (The book ends with all the boys sobbing after they have been rescued.)

Remember that  Lord of the Flies  was fiction and came from the mind of William Golding. Although, many might argue that the results of the Robbers Cave Experiment were also manipulated...

Legacy of the Robbers Cave Experiment and Muzafer Sherif

Lord of the Flies  will likely be on reading lists for decades to come. Will Sherif's experiment also stand the test of time? It might not. A 2018 book by Gina Perry suggests that the experiment was not as groundbreaking or revealing as it might seem.

Gina Perry is a psychologist and the author of two books that dive into psychology's most famous experiments. (In 2013, Perry published "Behind the Shock Machine: The Untold Story of the Notorious Milgram Psychology Experiments." The book looks at Stanley Milgram 's personal life and how it may have affected the results of his experiment.) Her take on Sherif's work is particularly fascinating. She shows how Sherif actively worked to manipulate the results of the Robbers Cave Experiment to prove his theory.

Two interesting points stand out from her book, although the entire story is worth a read.

• The participants didn't know that they were a part of the study until Perry contacted them herself.
• Sherif was so proud of his experiment that he went back to Robbers Cave to celebrate his 80th birthday.

If you are interested in reading more about the legacy of the Robbers Cave experiment, buy Gina Perry's book "The Lost Boys: Inside Muzafer Sherif's Robbers Cave Experiment" or check it out of your local library. Learning the context behind the experiment puts the results into a different perspective.

Other Examples of Realistic Conflict Theory

While RCT’s most well-known experiment is no longer known for being ethically sound, there is still evidence to support this theory. A lot of this evidence comes from data related to racial tensions and immigration policy.

In 1983, a paper was published on the opposition to school busing and integration. Data taken around that time supported the idea that opposition to busing wasn’t just fueled by racism itself. Group conflict motives also played a role. The threat of another “group” taking scarce resources (access to education) scared whites during that time period.

We hear similar arguments in the present day. Have you ever heard one of your relatives or talk show commentators argue that “immigrants are taking our jobs?” Never mind the validity behind the threat - the perceived threat is enough to cause hostility and tension.

More data and experiments are looking at realistic conflict theory. Psychologists may change their perspectives on intergroup conflict and other related topics. But for now, the Robbers Cave Experiment offers an important reminder that experiments cannot be conducted simply to prove a hypothesis.

Related posts:

• The Monster Study (Summary, Results, and Ethical Issues)
• 40+ Famous Psychologists (Images + Biographies)
• Stanley Milgram (Psychologist Biography)
• The Asch Line Study (+3 Conformity Experiments)
• Facial Feedback Hypothesis (Definition + Examples)

Reference this article:

About The Author

PracticalPie.com is a participant in the Amazon Associates Program. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow Us On:

Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter

Psychology Resources

Developmental

Personality

Relationships

Psychologists

Serial Killers

Psychology Tests

Personality Quiz

Memory Test

Depression test

Type A/B Personality Test

© PracticalPsychology. All rights reserved

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.

• The Robbers Cave Experiment: Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation. [Orig. pub. as Intergroup Conflict and Group Relations]

In this Book

• Muzafer Sherif
• Published by: Wesleyan University Press
• View Citation

Table of Contents

• Title Page, Copyright
• Illustrations
• Introduction to the Wesleyan Edition
• pp. xiii-xxi
• Preface to the Wesleyan Edition
• pp. xxiii-xxv
• Preface to the Instituteof Group Relations Editions
• pp. xxvii-xxxi
• 1. Integrating Field Work and Laboratory in Small Group Research
• 2. Approach, Hypotheses, and General Design of the Study
• 3. Role of Staff; Subject Selection; Experimental Site
• 4. Experimental Formation of Ingroups
• 5. Intergroup Relations: Production of Negative Attitudes Toward the Outgroup
• 6. Intergroup Relations: Assessment of Ingroup Functioning and Negative Attitudes Toward the Outgroup
• pp. 120-149
• 7. Intergroup Relations: Reducing Friction
• pp. 150-198
• 8. Summary and Conclusions
• pp. 199-214
• pp. 215-220
• pp. 221-229

Additional Information

Project MUSE Mission

Project MUSE promotes the creation and dissemination of essential humanities and social science resources through collaboration with libraries, publishers, and scholars worldwide. Forged from a partnership between a university press and a library, Project MUSE is a trusted part of the academic and scholarly community it serves.

2715 North Charles Street Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218

+1 (410) 516-6989 [email protected]

©2024 Project MUSE. Produced by Johns Hopkins University Press in collaboration with The Sheridan Libraries.

Now and Always, The Trusted Content Your Research Requires

Built on the Johns Hopkins University Campus

• Subscriber Services
• For Authors
• Publications
• Archaeology
• Art & Architecture
• Bilingual dictionaries
• Classical studies
• Encyclopedias
• English Dictionaries and Thesauri
• Language reference
• Linguistics
• Media studies
• Medicine and health
• Names studies
• Performing arts
• Science and technology
• Social sciences
• Society and culture
• Overview Pages
• Subject Reference
• English Dictionaries
• Bilingual Dictionaries

Recently viewed (0)

• Save Search
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Related Content

Related overviews, more like this.

Show all results sharing these subjects:

• Warfare and Defence

Sherif Summer Camp Study

Quick reference.

Muzafer Sherif’s Summer Camp Study, also widely known as the Robbers Cave experiment (Sherif et al., 1961), is a classic study in psychology. Performed over a three-week period in 1954 ...

From:   Sherif Summer Camp Study   in  The Oxford International Encyclopedia of Peace »

Subjects: Social sciences — Warfare and Defence

The Robbers Cave experiment Muzafer Sherif

The robbers cave experiment muzafer sherif et al (1954).

• Chinese Terracotta Warriors
• Otzi the Iceman
• The Antikythera Mechanism
• More Archaeology pages ...
• Stanley Milgram : Obedience to Authority Experiments
• Conformity under Social Pressure : Solomon Asch
• The Nature vs Nurture Debate
• More Social Psychology pages ...
• Point Rosee - Viking settlement site?
• Sarah Parcak ~ Space Archaeologist
• Dr Sarah Parcak discoveries
• Street plan of Tanis
• More Space Archaeology pages ...
• Stephen Fry quotations and quotes on God and Religion
• Stephen Fry's controversial interview on Irish TV
• Stephen Hawking : God & Religion quotes
• 'God is dead' - Nietzsche
• More Quotations & Quotes pages ...
• Maximilien Robespierre : Reign of Terror
• Otto von Bismarck
• More Historical Biography pages ...
• The European Revolutions of 1848
• Cavour & Italian Unification
• Bismarck & German Unification
• More History pages ...
• The Faith vs. Reason Debate
• World Religions Populations Statistics
• Central spiritual insights
• Other spiritual wisdoms
• More Spirituality pages ...
• Buddha's teachings
• Buddhist Philosophy
• Buddhism vs. Christianity
• More Buddhism pages ...
• Our Downloads page ...

The Robbers Cave Experiment: The Psychological Study Of Unsupervised Boys That Inspired Lord Of The Flies

In an effort to test one of his theories on social behavior, psychologist muzafer sherif released 22 twelve-year-old boys into a sparsely supervised wilderness camp — and then covertly provoked them to fight each other..

The British Psychological Society /University of Akron Some of 22 12-year-old boys unknowingly en route to participate in Sherif’s Robbers Cave experiment.

In the summer of 1954, world-renowned social psychologist Muzafer Sherif toted 22 boys to the foothills of the San Bois Mountains of southeastern Oklahoma. There, in Robbers Cave State Park, he intended to conduct an unprecedented social experiment that involved pitting sparsely supervised 12-year-old boys against each other in the Oklahoma wilderness.

This was the Robbers Cave experiment, and its startling outcome would inspire the harrowing book Lord of the Flies just a year later. Nearly six decades since, experts dub the experiment unethical as it appears to have left lasting mental damage on its subjects.

The First Experiment: Camp Middle Grove

Muzafer Sherif was born in the Ottoman Empire and won a slot to study psychology at Harvard. He quickly realized that lab research on rats was too confining and he wanted a more complex subject: humans.

Fascination with social psychology had, with reason, reached a peak following WWII, and so Sherif was able to secure a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation. 

His initial experiment required that 11-year-old boys be sent under the guise of a summer camp to Middle Grove park in upstate New York. There Sherif would split the boys into teams, pit them against each other for prizes, and then try to reunite them using a series of frustrating and life-threatening events — like a forest fire. Neither the parents nor the boys, obviously, knew this was a study.

The Robbers Cave experiment, then, was the second of Sherif’s, as his study at Middle Grove in the summer of 1953 had in his mind not accomplished the outcome he had hoped for. He was looking for confirmation of his “ Realistic Conflict Theory “, which stated that groups would compete for limited resources even against their friends and allies, but come together in the face of a common disaster regardless of those alliances.

The boys at Middle Grove had not cooperated with this theory. They stayed friends despite all hardships, even when Sherif had his staffers steal their clothes, raze their tents, and smash their toys all the while framing other campers.

The experiment ended in a drunken brawl between one of the leading social psychologists in the world, Muzafer Sherif, and his research assistants as his experiment had not cooperated with him.

Sherif resolved to try again with the Robbers Cave experiment.

The Robbers Cave Experimental Camp

Scientific American Blog A group of boys explore a cliff which overlooks their campsite.

Sherif still had money from the grant for the first study but after his failure, felt that his reputation was at risk. This time he would keep the boys separated from the beginning so that they couldn’t form the pesky friendships which had thwarted the study at Middle Grove. The groups were the Rattlers and the Eagles.

The two groups were unaware of each other for the first two days. They bonded with their own group through standard camp activities like hiking and swimming.

Once the groups seemed to be solidly formed, Sherif and his team instituted the ‘competition phase’ of the Robbers Cave experiment. The groups were introduced to each other and a series of rivalrous activities were scheduled. There would be a tug-of-war, baseball and so forth. Prizes would also be awarded, trophies at stake, and there would be no consolation prizes for the losers. The Rattlers declared they would be the winners and monopolized the baseball field in order to practice.

They put their flag up on the field and told the Eagles they had better not touch it.

The Conflict

Competition is apparent on this haughty flag.

The staffers began to interfere more aggressively in the Robbers Cave experiment. They deliberately caused conflict and once arranged for one group to be late for lunch so that the other group would eat all the food.

At first, the conflict between the boys was verbal with just taunts and name-calling. But under the careful guidance of Sherif and his staff, it soon became physical. The Eagles were supplied with matches and they burned their rival’s flag. The Rattlers retaliated, invaded the Eagles’ cabin, and wrecked it and stole their belongings.

The conflict escalated to violence so that the groups had to be separated for two days.

Now that the kids hated each other, Sherif decided it was time to vindicate his theory and bring them back together. So he shut off the drinking water.

The Rattlers and Eagles set off to find the water tank which was on a mountain. The only water they had was what was in their canteens. When they arrived at the tank, hot and thirsty, the groups had already begun to merge.

Resolution and Legacy Of The Robbers Cave Experiment

The campers found the valve to the tank but it was covered with rocks, so they joined together and removed the rocks as quickly as possible. This pleased Sherif immensely as it was in direct agreement with his theory: the groups would fight over limited resources but band together when faced with a common threat.

Nevermind that the experiment was ethically and procedurally dubious, as Sherif had gotten the results that he wanted and his theory, along with the study itself, garnered great publicity. But even professionals who used the study in their textbooks doubted its value.

Six decades of development in the field have led modern psychologists to criticize the study. Sherif conducted his experiment under the belief that it was meant to showcase his theory, not either prove or disprove it. In this way, he could very easily and in many ways did, finagle the outcome he desired.

Further, the boys were all middle-class and white, and all shared a Protestant, two-parent background. The study in this way was not reflective of real-life and was considered limited. There was also the ethical issue surrounding the participants’ deception: neither the children nor their parents knew what they had consented to, and the boys were in many cases left unattended or in danger of harm.

Regardless of these qualms, the Robbers Cave experiment has left a legacy — particularly on the participants.

Now-grown camper Doug Griset recalls ironically: “I’m not traumatized by the experiment, but I don’t like lakes, camps, cabins or tents.”

If you enjoyed this article about the Robbers Cave experiment, then read about how the Stanford Prison Experiment ended in disaster or cringe at this list of the most evil scientific experiments ever performed.

PO Box 24091 Brooklyn, NY 11202-4091

(Stanford users can avoid this Captcha by logging in.)

• Send to text email RefWorks EndNote printer

The Robbers Cave experiment : intergroup conflict and cooperation

Available online.

• EBSCO Academic Comprehensive Collection

More options

• Find it at other libraries via WorldCat
• Contributors

Description

Creators/contributors, contents/summary.

• Introduction to the Wesleyan Edition
• Preface to the Wesleyan Edition
• Preface to the Institute of Group Relations Editions
• 1. Integrating Field Work and Laboratory in Small Group Research
• 2. Approach, Hypotheses, and General Design of the Study
• 3. Role of Staff
• Subject Selection
• Experimental Site
• 4. Experimental Formation of Ingroups
• 5. Intergroup Relations: Production of Negative Attitudes Toward the Outgroup
• 6. Intergroup Relations: Assessment of Ingroup Functioning and Negative Attitudes Toward the Outgroup
• 7. Intergroup Relations: Reducing Friction
• 8. Summary and ConclusionsReferences.
• Integrating field work and laboratory in small group research
• Approach, hypotheses, and general design of the study
• Role of staff; subject selection; experimental site
• Experimental formation of ingroups
• Intergroup relations: production of negative attitudes toward the outgroup
• Intergroup relations: assessment of ingroup functioning and negative attitudes toward the outgroup
• Intergroup relations: reducing friction
• Summary and conclusions.

Bibliographic information

Browse related items.

• Stanford Home
• Maps & Directions
• Search Stanford
• Emergency Info
• Terms of Use
• Non-Discrimination
• Accessibility

© Stanford University , Stanford , California 94305 .

We’re fighting to restore access to 500,000+ books in court this week. Join us!

Internet Archive Audio

• This Just In
• Grateful Dead
• Old Time Radio
• 78 RPMs and Cylinder Recordings
• Audio Books & Poetry
• Computers, Technology and Science
• Music, Arts & Culture
• News & Public Affairs
• Spirituality & Religion
• Radio News Archive

• Flickr Commons
• Occupy Wall Street Flickr
• NASA Images
• Solar System Collection
• Ames Research Center

• All Software
• Old School Emulation
• MS-DOS Games
• Historical Software
• Classic PC Games
• Software Library
• Kodi Archive and Support File
• Vintage Software
• CD-ROM Software
• CD-ROM Software Library
• Software Sites
• Tucows Software Library
• Shareware CD-ROMs
• Software Capsules Compilation
• CD-ROM Images
• ZX Spectrum
• DOOM Level CD

• Smithsonian Libraries
• FEDLINK (US)
• Lincoln Collection
• American Libraries
• Canadian Libraries
• Universal Library
• Project Gutenberg
• Children's Library
• Biodiversity Heritage Library
• Books by Language
• Additional Collections

• Prelinger Archives
• Democracy Now!
• Occupy Wall Street
• TV NSA Clip Library
• Animation & Cartoons
• Arts & Music
• Computers & Technology
• Cultural & Academic Films
• Ephemeral Films
• Sports Videos
• Videogame Videos
• Youth Media

Search the history of over 866 billion web pages on the Internet.

Mobile Apps

• Wayback Machine (iOS)
• Wayback Machine (Android)

Browser Extensions

Archive-it subscription.

• Explore the Collections
• Build Collections

Save Page Now

Capture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in the future.

Please enter a valid web address

• Donate Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape

Intergroup conflict and cooperation; the Robbers Cave experiment

Bookreader item preview, share or embed this item, flag this item for.

• Graphic Violence
• Explicit Sexual Content
• Hate Speech
• Misinformation/Disinformation
• Marketing/Phishing/Advertising
• Misleading/Inaccurate/Missing Metadata

plus-circle Add Review comment Reviews

933 Previews

7 Favorites

DOWNLOAD OPTIONS

No suitable files to display here.

EPUB and PDF access not available for this item.

IN COLLECTIONS

Uploaded by LannetteF on January 25, 2010

SIMILAR ITEMS (based on metadata)

A New Look at the Classic Robbers Cave Experiment

A sports tournament led boys to something like inter-tribal war..

Posted December 9, 2009

[ Social media counts reset to zero on this post.]

I begin with a research story, a true one.

In the early 1950s, the social psychologist Muzafer Sherif and his colleagues conducted a now-classic experiment, on intergroup conflict and resolution of conflict, with 11- and 12-year-old boys at a summer camp in Oklahoma's Robbers Cave Park.[1] Sherif's procedure involved three phases:

(1) He began by dividing the boys, by a random procedure, into two distinct groups, who slept in different parts of the camp and were given separate sets of chores and activities, so they could develop a sense of group identity .

(2) Then he established conditions designed to induce hostility between the two groups. (Experiments of this sort could be done in the 1950s--a time before the era of research ethics review boards, and a time, before cell phones, when parents did not feel compelled to check up on their camping kids. The boys did not know they were participants in an experiment; they thought that they had been invited to take part in a regular camping experience.)

(3) Once the groups were sufficiently hostile, he tried various methods to reduce the hostility.

The famous result of the experiment--repeated in most introductory psychology textbooks, including my own--was that hostilities were best reduced by establishing superordinate goals , defined as goals that were desired by both groups and could be achieved best through intergroup cooperation . For example, to create one such goal the researchers staged a breakdown in the camp's water supply. In response to this crisis, the boys temporarily forgot their differences and worked cooperatively to explore the mile-long water line and find the break. With each such cooperative adventure, hostilities between the groups abated, and by the end of a series of such adventures the boys were arranging many friendly cross-group interactions on their own initiative.

Sherif's focus in this experiment was on ways to reduce intergroup hostility, but my focus here is on his method for creating the hostility, something not generally discussed in the textbooks. His procedure was remarkably simple. In phase two he invited the two groups of boys to compete with one another in a tournament involving a series of competitive games--including several games of baseball, touch football, and tug of war--all refereed by the camp staff. The members of the winning team would receive prizes, such as pocketknives, that were much valued by the boys. Formal sports conducted for prizes--that was how Sherif and is colleagues generated animosity between the groups. It apparently worked like a charm, not just in this experiment, but also in others that Sherif and his colleagues had conducted earlier.

As the series of games progressed, the two groups became increasingly antagonistic. Initial good sportsmanship gave way gradually to name-calling, harassment, accusations of cheating, and cheating in retaliation. As the hostilities mounted, they spread to camp life outside of the games as well as in the games. Even though the boys all came from the same background (white, Protestant, middle class) and had been divided into groups by a purely random procedure, they began to think of the boys in the other group as very different from themselves--as dirty cheaters who needed to be taught a lesson. Serious fistfights broke out on several occasions. Raids were conducted on the cabin of the opposing group. Some boys carried socks with stones in them, to use as weapons "if necessary." One group pulled down and burned the other group's flag. Many of the boys declared a desire not to eat meals in the same mess hall with the other group; and joint meals, when held, became battlegrounds where boys hurled insults and sometimes food at members of the other group. What at first was a peaceful camping experience turned gradually into something verging on intertribal warfare, all created by a series of formal sporting events.

Formal sports occupy a precarious space between play and reality

Let's step back momentarily from this experiment and reflect a bit on boys' play in general.

Much of boys' play involves mock battles. In some cases the battles lie purely in the realm of fantasy . The boys collaboratively create the battle scenes, decide who will play which parts, and, as they go along, decide who is wounded, or dies, or is resurrected. Some people, who don't understand boys' play, mistake such play for violence and try to stop it, especially when it is acted out in a vigorous, rough-and-tumble manner. But it isn't violence; it's play. We should think of those players not as warriors but as junior improvisational Shakespeares. They are using their imaginations to create and stage dramatic, emotion -inspiring stories. Play of this sort is non-competitive as well as nonviolent. No score is kept; nobody wins or loses; all are just acting out parts. There are also no fixed teams in play of this sort. If the play involves pretend armies, the players arrange the armies differently for each bout of play. Such play does not create enemies; rather, it cements friendships.

A step removed from such fantasy battles is the informal play of team games such as baseball, soccer, and basketball--games that are referred to as "sports" when played formally. These games, too, can be thought of as mock battles. There are two teams (armies), who invade one another's territory, defend their own territory from invaders, and strive to conquer one another, all ritualized by the rules of the game. By "informal" play of these games, I mean that the games are organized entirely by the players and have no obvious consequences outside of the game context. There are no trophies or prizes, no official records of victories or losses kept from one game to the next, no fans who praise winners or disparage losers. These games may be classed as "competitive," but they are really, at most, only pseudo-competitive. A score may be kept, and the players may cheer happily each time their team scores, but, in the end, nobody cares who won. The "losers" go home just as happy as the "winners." These games, too, cement friendships and do not create enemies. I wrote about the valuable lessons learned in play of this sort in my post of Nov. 11, 2009 .

If the boys in Sherif's experiments had played informal games of baseball, touch football, and tug of war, rather than formal ones, I doubt that hostilities would have resulted. With no prizes or acknowledgments of victories and losses from outside authorities, the players would have focused more on having fun and less on winning. With no adult referee, the players would have had to cooperate to establish the ground rules for each game and judge consensually when rules had or had not been broken. They would have had to argue out and negotiate their differences. Cheating and name calling, if they went too far, would destroy the fun and end the game. Players who weren't having fun would quit, so the only way to keep the game going would be to play in ways designed to ensure that everyone had fun. Boys everywhere know how to do that. In fact, it is reasonable to suppose that such informal games, if they occurred, would have brought the two groups of boys closer together because of the cooperation required, much like searching for the break in the water line.

Fantasy battles and informal sports are pure play, and pure play creates friendships, not enemies. Formal sports are not pure play, and therefore they have the capacity, under some conditions, to create enemies. Formal sports lie outside of the realm of pure play because they are controlled by officials who are not themselves players and because they have clear out-of-game consequences, in such forms as prizes or praise for victory. (See Nov. 19, 2008 , post on the definition of play.) In formal sports it is not as clear as it is in informal sports that the battle is merely a pretend battle.

Formal sports occupy a space somewhere between play and reality, and, depending on a wide array of factors, a formal game can shift more toward one than the other. When the balance shifts too far toward reality, a defeat is a real defeat, not a pretend one, and those defeated may begin to perceive the other team as real enemies. Sherif and his colleagues apparently found a formula for setting up formal sports in a manner that quickly moved from play to real battles.

And now, what do you think about this? … This blog is, in part, a forum for discussion. Your questions, thoughts, stories, and opinions are treated respectfully by me and other readers, regardless of the degree to which we agree or disagree. Psychology Today no longer accepts comments on this site, but you can comment by going to my Facebook profile, where you will see a link to this post. If you don't see this post near the top of my timeline, just put the title of the post into the search option (click on the three-dot icon at the top of the timeline and then on the search icon that appears in the menu) and it will come up. By following me on Facebook you can comment on all of my posts and see others' comments. The discussion is often very interesting.

----------- NOTES [1] Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. E., & Sherif, C. S. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment . Norman: University of Oklahoma Book Exchange.

Peter Gray, Ph.D. , is a research professor at Boston College, author of Free to Learn and the textbook Psychology (now in 8th edition), and founding member of the nonprofit Let Grow.

• Find Counselling
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United Kingdom
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Sorry, there was a problem.

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required .

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

Image Unavailable

• To view this video download Flash Player

Follow the author

The Lost Boys: inside Muzafer Sherif's Robbers Cave experiment Paperback – April 2, 2019

An investigative history of one of social psychology’s classic―and most controversial―studies: the Robbers Cave experiment

In 1954, a group of American boys attended a remote summer camp where they were split into two groups, and encouraged to bully, harass, and demonize each other. The results would make history as one of social psychology’s classic studies, and one of the most controversial: the Robbers Cave experiment.

Conducted at the height of the Cold War, the experiment officially had a happy ending: the boys reconciled, and psychologist Muzafer Sherif demonstrated that while hatred and violence are powerful forces, so too are cooperation and harmony. Today it is proffered as proof that under the right conditions warring groups can make peace. Yet the true story of the experiments is far more complex, and more chilling.

In The Lost Boys , Gina Perry explores the experiment and its consequences, tracing the story of Sherif, a troubled outsider who struggled to craft an experiment that would vanquish his personal demons. Drawing on both on archival material and new interviews with the subjects, now in their 70s and none aware that the summer camps they’d attended had in fact been experimental ruses, Perry pieces together a story of drama, mutiny, and intrigue that has never been told before.

• Print length 384 pages
• Language English
• Publisher Scribe US
• Publication date April 2, 2019
• Dimensions 5.5 x 1.25 x 8.5 inches
• ISBN-10 1947534602
• ISBN-13 978-1947534605
• See all details

Editorial Reviews

“When the first punch is thrown in the opening chapter, you know you’re in for a wild ride. In The Lost Boys , academic sleuth Gina Perry investigates the back story of a real-life Lord of the Flies study of human behavior at a summer camp. The fascinating journey―which takes us through the history of psychology, Turkey, and even American summer camps―reads more like a detective novel than a psychological history book.” ― Susannah Cahalan, author of the New York Times bestseller Brain on Fire

“Perry writes about Sherif’s complicated past, why he was able to carry out the test, and how the boys banded against each other at the camp. But she also digs into the theory behind it, which feels spookily relevant now: the idea that we easily pick sides based on arbitrary circumstances, and that can lead to violence.” ― Outside Magazine

“[F]ascinating and not a little chilling.” ― Esquire

“This is a wonderful book; I couldn’t stop reading once I started. Gina Perry is not only a thorough researcher, she’s also a great writer. A lot of psychology textbooks will have to be updated after her groundbreaking research.” ― Rutger Bregman, author of Utopia for Realists

“A cleareyed assessment of a significant chapter in the history of psychology and social science.” ― Kirkus

"This brilliant reexamination of a study that resonates today should interest scholars as well as undergraduate and graduate psychology students." STARRED REVIEW ―Library Journal

"In assessing the ostensible success of the experiment and the work of Sherif, who emerges as an extremely difficult man, arrogant and conceited, Perry has done prodigious research." ―Booklist

"[This] long profile of him [Sherif], and description of his experiment, will likely remain unsurpassed." ―Publishers Weekly

“In The Lost Boys , Gina Perry has created a meticulously-researched, skilfully crafted account of a decades-old experiment that still casts a shadow over the lives of its subjects. This is a fascinating, disturbing and utterly compelling cautionary tale about the dangers of scientific obsession.” Michael Brooks, author of The Quantum Astrologer's Handbook

“In The Lost Boys , Gina Perry puts these extraordinary experiments under the microscope. As in her 2013 book Behind the Shock Machine , which probed psychologist Stanley Milgram’s 1960s research on obedience, she is unsatisfied with the half-truths lazily handed down in textbooks…The result is an enlightening read, and a ripping yarn.” ― Nature

“[A] fascinating study.” ― The Guardian

About the Author

Product details.

• Publisher ‏ : ‎ Scribe US (April 2, 2019)
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• Paperback ‏ : ‎ 384 pages
• ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 1947534602
• ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-1947534605
• Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 14.4 ounces
• Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 5.5 x 1.25 x 8.5 inches
• #191 in Medical Experimental Psychology
• #324 in Popular Experimental Psychology
• #445 in Psychologist Biographies

About the author

I'm a factual writer by day, fiction writer by night. I grew up loving books and reading. But it wasn't until I'd worked as a psychologist for a few years that I thought I'd try my hand at writng. After I started writing classes I began to get published in Australian newspapers, magazines and literary journals.

One story that had always fascinated me was the Stanley Milgram obedience experiments. I always wondered what happened to the people involved who had been hoodwinked into thinking they had electrocuted someone. What happened to them afterwards? How would be involved in an experiment like that change you? I decided to find out and I described my surprising and troubling findings in an award winning 2008 ABC Radio National documentary and wrote the full story in my 2012 book Behind the Shock Machine.

My next book, The Lost Boys, was an account of my search to discover more about he 1954 Robbers Cave experiments, often described as a real life version of Lord of the Flies. I tracked down some of the children who'd taken part - now aged in their 70s - as well as some of the original research team to discover how and why the experiment had come about and the impact on those involved.

In the meantime, my fiction writing was on the back burner. But when Melbourne went into COVID lockdown I pulled a half finished novel out of my desk drawer and set to work, getting it into shape. I submitted the finished manuscript for the Harper Collins Banjo prize and it was shortlisted. I was subsequently offered a publishing contract and My Father the Whale will be published in Australia in June 2023.

Customer reviews

• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 5 star 58% 17% 18% 0% 6% 58%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 4 star 58% 17% 18% 0% 6% 17%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 3 star 58% 17% 18% 0% 6% 18%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 2 star 58% 17% 18% 0% 6% 0%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 1 star 58% 17% 18% 0% 6% 6%

Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.

• Sort reviews by Top reviews Most recent Top reviews

Top reviews from the United States

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. please try again later..

Top reviews from other countries

• About Amazon
• Investor Relations
• Amazon Devices
• Amazon Science
• Sell products on Amazon
• Sell on Amazon Business
• Sell apps on Amazon
• Become an Affiliate
• Advertise Your Products
• Self-Publish with Us
• Host an Amazon Hub
• › See More Make Money with Us
• Amazon Business Card
• Shop with Points
• Reload Your Balance
• Amazon Currency Converter
• Amazon and COVID-19
• Your Account
• Your Orders
• Shipping Rates & Policies
• Returns & Replacements
• Manage Your Content and Devices

• Conditions of Use
• Privacy Notice
• Consumer Health Data Privacy Disclosure
• Your Ads Privacy Choices

Review Essay: Forgotten Classic: The Robbers Cave Experiment

• Published: December 2004
• Volume 19 , pages 663–666, ( 2004 )

Cite this article

• Gary Alan Fine 1  

563 Accesses

3 Citations

Explore all metrics

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Sociology, Northwestern University, 1810 Chicago Avenue, Evanston, Illinois, 60208

Gary Alan Fine

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Fine, G.A. Review Essay: Forgotten Classic: The Robbers Cave Experiment. Sociol Forum 19 , 663–666 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11206-004-0704-7

Download citation

Issue Date : December 2004

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11206-004-0704-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Social Issue
• Review Essay
• Cave Experiment
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research