The Robber's Cave Experiment Lessons - Assignment Example

The Robbers Cave Experiment Lessons Introduction The robbers cave experiment was part of a research group that used an interdisciplinary approach to studying various aspects of intergroup relations. The experiment tested the hypothesis that when individuals with no relationships are put together, they tend to form group structures and specific roles. The other tested hypothesis was that if two groups come together under competitive conditions, the members tend to work together in their respective groups. Certain criteria were used to select the 24 boys who participated in the experiment (Green, 2014). The research was in three primary phases, each having specific goals that relate to the general objectives of the study. Although many scholars have criticized the research for ethical issues and bias, there are many things we can learn from the experiment and apply to everyday lives. In-group formation One can learn from phase 1 that when people come together in groups, they tend to establish in-group bonds within the group. While bonding within the group members often develop belongingness and team spirit. When different individuals are put in particular contexts and events, the members tend to form group structures and dynamics where there are interpersonal interactions. Groups naturally develop their legal systems, culture, and boundaries that define the group from other groups. Such internal structures can result in between different groups. Formation of in-group relations may be applied to friction between work groups and functional teams in organizations. Organizations usually form groups to complete a specific task. Depending on the type of group, the members may be chosen based on particular characteristics. In fact, the formation of teams has become an integral part of today’s corporate world. Working in groups may increase the performance and productivity of employees in an organization. In groups, it is easier to complete tasks as different people bring in their diverse contributions to the group (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1999). However, certain groups may be detrimental to the organization. Depending on how the group was formed, it may pause a threat to the company. For instance, if people form groups in the workplace based on ethnic origins, color, and even race. Such groups may introduce chaos among the employees and destabilize many activities. We can learn from the robbers cave experiment that groups may form from the most arbitrary of situations. People may form groups in the workplace that are not related to the goals of the organization. It is also evident from the experiment that when such groups form, they may be hard to uniform (Konnikova, 2012). Friction Phase One can learn from phase two of the robbers cave experiment that conflicts may arise when members of two conflicting groups face each other in competitive situations. The friction may be due to strong relations already formed within each of the group (Green, 2014). One can also learn that uneasy conflicts between members of particular groups can produce stereotypes in relation to the groups and result in social distance. It is clear that the events at the Robbers Cave study mimicked everyday conflicts that people face all over the world. The best explanation for the conflicts may be competition. There is a lot of evidence to support the fact that hostility tends to rise when people compete for scarce resources. Explanations from the robbers cave experiments are based on functional relations that exist between groups. I have learned the different forms of functional relations between groups. When or more groups are in a negative interdependence, the relations between the groups may be hostile or marked by antagonism of the in-group. The most often result is a conflict between the two groups. Negative interdependence occurs in a situation where only one group can reach a goal that seems to be of importance to both groups. Usually, there is a conflict of interest between the two groups. The conflicts result in favoritism of members of the in-group (Valentim, 2010). Conflicts within two different teams may arise in the workplace. The social distance created by the tensions between any two groups can be very unhealthy for the organization. As such, management should ensure that they find ways to handle the conflicts. Situations that may result in shared interests may result in conflicts in the workplace. Competition for promotions, more pay, and personal interests are some of the factors that may result in conflicts in an organization. As such, the human resource should ensure that there is no team ganging against another team in the organization. However, we can learn from the robbers cave experiment that it may be tougher to reconcile two groups in conflict. It may be easier to bring together a group of eleven-year-old boys in a camp who are similar except for their group designation. The same may be quite difficult in the real world. In the real world, groups comprise of diverse people making it difficult to unravel enmity situations. Integration Phase One approach to solving a conflict between two teams and instill cooperation is to make the two teams work together after the conflict. When working towards achieving a common goal, two groups may cooperate with each other despite the groups having prior frictions. Cooperation between two groups due to a common goal was a vital result that was observed from the robbers cave experiment. When conflicting groups are brought together for a higher purpose or mission, they tend to form cooperation to join efforts and achieve the goal. The results from phase three of the experiment can be very applicable in workplace environments particularly when solving intergroup tensions within various teams. When conflicts arise between two teams, the HR can give a common task to the two groups to instill cooperation between the various members. The task is to ensure cohesion and socialization as the two groups work together. The result of such a collaboration is that the groups will assume their differences and work together. For the case of a company, this strategy can be applicable to multi-functional teams where individuals from different functional areas of the company may come together to accomplish a particular task. Members in the robbers cave experiment were able to overcome their individual differences while working together to achieve a common goal. This shows that working towards super coordinate goals can help reduce conflicts, prejudice and discrimination among groups. As evident in the experiment, working intergroup socialization can help reduce out-group prejudice and discrimination as people focus on achieving a common goal. The concept of superordinate goals applied in the robbers cave experiment can be applicable in various working environments. We can adopt the concept of superordinate goals in our daily lives at home or in the workplaces. An excellent example of utilizing the superordinate goals to reduce conflicts and increase productivity within organizations is to incorporate it in interpersonal networks among employees. In the workplace, the superordinate goals will help overlook personal and group conflicts so that the members can achieve a greater something. The goals serve as a magnet. It serves as a place where everyone in the workplace can look for motivation. It serves as a source of impression and ideation for the members to work towards a common goal. The result would be an increase in performance and productivity as each of the group member constructs their paths to achieve this common goal. No matter how small the goals may be, working towards a superordinate goal goes beyond an individual’s ability and grows to become something big that benefits the entire organization (Valentim, 2010). People can learn from the experiment that when two groups need to accomplish a common project or attain a common goal, hostility reduces. The two groups opt to work together, representations of the other group members becomes necessary, and relations between the teams tends towards harmony. However, these explanations may raise issues and challenges concerning its applicability in real life situations. References Dovidio, J., & Gaertner, S. (1999). Reducing Prejudice: Combating Intergroup Biases. Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 8., No. 4, 101-105. Green, C. (2014). Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment. Retrieved from York University: http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Sherif/chap7.htm Konnikova, M. (2012, Sept 5). Revisiting Robber Cave: The easy spontaneity of intergroup conflict. Scientific American. Valentim, J. (2010). Sherif's theoretical concepts and intergroup relations studies: notes for a positive interdependence. Psychologica, Vol 11, 585-598. Read More