Learning Outcome

Evaluate social identity theory, making reference to relevant studies

Key vocabulary
Downward comparison: In a study by Taylor, Wood & Lichtman (1983), they found that breast cancer patients who engaged in downward comparison (comparing themselves to someone worse off than themselves) had better recovery times and more positive self-esteem; those who engage in upward comparison (comparing themselves to someone better off than themselves) tended to have longer recovery times and were more likely to suffer from depression. In-group favoritism: When an individual gets self-esteem from being a member of a group and sees his/her group as superior to others. Actions taken tend to benefit the group. Out-group homogeneity: A result of social categorization, this is when all members of the out- group are seen to have the same characteristics. They are all cheaters or rich or snobby or fashion unaware. Social categorization: The cognitive process of allocating people to groups - either as an "in-group" to which one belongs, or an "out-group.." This process helps us to describe and predict the world more efficiently. Social comparison: Individuals evaluate their own opinions and abilities by comparing themselves to others in order to reduce uncertainty in these domains, and learn how to define the self. It is a way to build self-esteem and a way to resolve ambiguity.

Context of SIT
Henri Tajfel's (1919-1982) greatest contribution to psychology was social identity theory. Social identity is a persons sense of who they are based on their group membership(s). Tajfel (1979) proposed that the groups people belong to (e.g. social class, family, football team etc.) are an important source of pride and self-esteem. Groups give us a sense of social identity: a sense of belonging to the social world. In order to increase our self-image we enhance the status of the group to which we belong. For example, England is the best country in the world! We can also increase our self-image by discriminating and holding prejudiced views against the out group (the group we do not belong to), for example, the Americans are a bunch of losers! Therefore we divided the world into them and us based through a process of social categorization (i.e. we put people into social groups). This is known as in-group (us) and out-group (them). Social identity theory states that the in-group will discriminate against the out-group to enhance their self-image. The central hypothesis of social identity theory is that group members of an in-group will seek to find negative aspects of an out-group, thus enhancing their self-image. Prejudiced views between cultures may result in racism; in its extreme forms, racism may result in genocide, such as occurred in Rwanda between the Hutus and Tutsis and, more recently, in the former Yugoslavia between the Bosnians and Serbs. Henri Tajfel proposed that stereotyping (i.e. putting people into groups and categories) is based on a normal cognitive process: the tendency to group things together. In doing so we tend to exaggerate: 1. the differences between groups 2. the similarities of things in the same group. We categorize people in the same way. We see the group to which we belong (the in-group) as being different from the others (the out-group), and members of the same group as being more similar than they are. Social categorization is one explanation for prejudice attitudes (i.e. them and us mentality) which leads to in-groups and out-groups. Examples of In-groups Out-groups Northern Ireland: Catholics and Protestants Rwanda: Hutus and Tutsis Yugoslavia: the Bosnians and Serbs Politics: Labor and the Conservatives Football: Liverpool and Man United Gender: Males and Females Social Class: Middle and Working Classes

Social Identity Theory:

Tajfel and Turner (1979) proposed that there are three mental processes involved in evaluating others as us or them (i.e. in-group and out-group. These take place in a particular order.

Social Categorization:
The first is categorization. We categorize objects in order to understand them and identify them. In a very similar way we categorize people (including ourselves) in order to understand the social environment. We use social categories like black, white, Australian, Christian, Muslim, student, and bus driver because they are useful. If we can assign people to a category then that tells us things about those people, and as we saw with the bus driver example we couldn't function in a normal manner without using these categories; i.e. in the context of the bus. Similarly, we find out things about ourselves by knowing what categories we belong to. We define appropriate behavior by reference to the norms of groups we belong to, but you can only do this if you can tell who belongs to your group. An individual can belong to many different groups.

Social Identification:
In the second stage, social identification, we adopt the identity of the group we have categorized ourselves as belonging to. If for example you have categorized yourself as a student, the chances are you will adopt the identity of a student and begin to act in the ways you believe students act (and conform to the norms of the group). There will be an emotional significance to your identification with a group, and your self-esteem will become bound up with group membership. Social Comparison: The final stage is social comparison. Once we have categorized ourselves as part of a group and have identified with that group we then tend to compare that group with other groups. If our self-esteem is to be maintained our group needs to compare favorably with other groups. This is critical to understanding prejudice, because once two groups identify themselves as rivals they are forced to compete in order for the members to maintain their self-esteem. Competition and hostility between groups is thus not only a matter of competing for resources (like in Sherifs Robbers Cave) like jobs but also the result of competing identities.

Conclusion
In conclusion, social identity theory the group membership is not something foreign or artificial that is attached onto the person, it is a real, true and vital part of the person. Again, it is crucial to remember in-groups are groups you identify with, and out-groups are ones that we don't identify with, and may discriminate against.

Some of the relevant research studies

* Outlined in this document

*Abram et al. (1990) the role of SIT in conformity (later) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/j.20448309.1990.tb00892.x/asset/j.20448309.1990.tb00892.x.pdf?v=1&t=hn3dxuib&s=ca4f1551c1cb368524e05e76d02390f2 071e0385 Bem (1996) theory on the origin of sexuality and SIT http://dbem.ws/Exotic%20Becomes%20Erotic.pdf Elliott (1968): A class divided: eye colour experiment http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/divided/etc/view.html Howarth (2002) study of the Brixton girls http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/2435/1/Struggle_for_recog_(LSERO).pdf Reicher & Haslams (2001) replication of the Stanford Prison Experiment http://crimepsychblog.com/?p=987 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaZCHpqEei0 *Sherif et al. (1961) Robbers cave experiment http://www.snow.edu/davida/2400/robbers.pdf *Taijfel (1970) in and out group experiment http://courses.washington.edu/pbafhall/514/514%20Readings/tajfel.pdf Zimbardo (1973) Stanford Prison Experiment http://www.prisonexp.org

Some evaluation strategies also see essay tips

Many of the early studies lacked ecological validity, but there are many studies that have been done in a naturalistic environment. The theory does not look at dispositional factors. Some people may be more competitive. The theory does not look at cultural factors. Collectivistic societies tend to be less consistent in this behavior. Overly theoretical and difficult to refute. For example, Bems theory of sexuality. Has high heuristic validity that is, it can be used to explain a lot of things. Cannot predict when someones individual identify will supersede that of the group. Why does some out-group discrimination lead to violence? Sherif said it was about limited resources. Is this a valid claim? Environmental factors, such as war or poverty, may play a greater role. Self-esteem may not play as great a role as once thought. It may be an initial reason for identifying with a group, but it does not appear to be sustainable.

Videos
In-group vs.out-group formation in a public school

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga4Zr7P25o0
Documentary on football hooliganism answer the question, what does this have to do with Social Identity Theory?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tBps0GUITM
Reicher & Haslams replication of the Stanford Prison Experiment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaZCHpqEei0

References
Abrams, D., Wetherell, M., Cochrane, S., Hogg, M. A. and Turner, J. C. (1990), Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29: 97119. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1990.tb00892.x/asset/j.20448309.1990.tb00892.x.pdf?v=1&t=hn3dxuib&s=ca4f1551c1cb368524e05e76d02390f2071e0385 Bem (1996) theory on the origin of sexuality and SIT http://dbem.ws/Exotic%20Becomes%20Erotic.pdf Elliott Jane, web site: http://www.janeelliott.com/index.htm Elliott, J. Video: A Class Divided the famous study from Frontline http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/divided/etc/view.html Howarth, C. (2002) 'So, you're from Brixton?': the struggle for recognition and esteem in a multicultural community. Ethnicities, Volume 2 (2). pages 237-260 http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/2435/1/Struggle_for_recog_(LSERO).pdf Reicher, A. & Haslam, S. (2001) replication of the Stanford Prison Experiment http://crimepsychblog.com/?p=987 Sherif, M., Harvey, O.J., White, B. J., Hood,, W.R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961) Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment. Norman: University of Oklahoma Book Exchange. Robbers Cave experiment http://www.age-of-the- sage.org/psychology/social/sherif_robbers_cave_experiment.html Sherif, M. (1956) Experiments in group conflicts. Scientific American, 195 54-8. http://www.snow.edu/davida/2400/robbers.pdf Tajfel, H. (1970) Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223, 96-102 available: http://courses.washington.edu/pbafhall/514/514%20Readings/tajfel.pdf Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The social psychology of intergroup relations?, 33, 47. http://web.comhem.se/u68426711/8/tajfel86.pdf Taylor, S.E., Wood, R. R., & Lichtman, R.R. (1983) It could be worse: selective evaluation as a response to victimization. Journal of Social Issues, Volume 39, number 2, pages 19-40 http://taylorlab.psych.ucla.edu/1983_It%20Could%20Be%20Worse_Selective%20Evaluation%2 0as%20a%20Response%20to%20Victimization.pdf Zimbardo (1973) Stanford Prison Experiment http://www.prisonexp.org

Essay Tips

Evaluate social identity theory, making reference to relevant studies

For this question, you'll first need to EXPLAIN the nature and components of social identity theory (SIT), then EVALUATE by talking about its strengths and weaknesses. Henri Tajfel - created SIT, which is basically states that all individuals are striving to improve their self-image based on the perceptions of others through SELF-ESTEEM People can do this through two major ways: Personal achievement Joining social groups to gain a sense of belonging The second of the two is the core of SIT, so after you've simplified SIT, address the following: 1. The concepts of In-group (the group you are a part of) and Out-group (those people who are outside your group) 2. How in- and out-groups lead to discrimination and stereotypes with supporting studies: e.g. Jane Elliot: Brown eyes/blue eyes study & Philip Zimbardos (1971) Stanford Prison Experiment (prisoners vs. wardens) and lack of importance of personality in behavior 3. Cultural schemas - help define who you are After these, you can get to the strengths and weaknesses, but avoid listing; try connecting them together with the two studies (as above), as well as SLOA principles and other relevant information. Strengths Lots of empirical evidence Takes the individual into account Explains the reason for commitment/loyalty Motivation to have certain actions Situational factors affect disposition of an individual Reason for boosted self-esteem Helps explain automatic formation of groups Explains range of social phenomena (ethnocentrism) An ETIC and can be studied cross-culturally < -- A great point to remember!!!! Bi-directional - environment and disposition and perspective all influence each other Explanation of individual differences, example, someone is more likely to discriminate than others Weaknesses Takes individual into account A person takes on the identity of a group Prejudice can be reduced with this - e.g. Blue/Brown eyes - switching to out-group created understand and sympathy not present before Not modern , old research (1970's) Mirror neurons could be a factor - feel how other people feel, simply enhanced by group setting Can only study humans for valid results DIFFERS BY CULTURE --> you HAVE to expand and develop this point e.g. Cover Collectivist vs. Individualist cultures

Key study: Tajfel (1970) Minimal group paradigm

Background Social Identity Theory is based on the assumption that the most important feature of peoples attempt to make sense of the social world is in the classification of groups as us and them. Psychologically, this means making a distinction between in-groups - that is, groups that we belong to - and out-groups - groups that we do not belong to. According to Tajfel people develop norms of behaviour towards in-groups and out-groups. Procedure The aim of Tajfel's research was to investigate if intergroup discrimination would take place based on being put into different groups with consequent categorisation into in---groups and out--- groups in a situation where people had just met. Tajfel hypothesised that it would and that categorisation and discrimination operate automatically, even when there is not necessarily any prior prejudice. The sample was made up of 64 schoolboys ages 14 -15 from a state school in the UK. They came to a psychology lab in groups of eight. All boys knew each other well before the experiment. The first part of the experiment was designed to create group categorisation, and the second part of the experiment investigated the effects of this. In the first part, the boys were told that the psychologists were interested in the study of visual judgement. Forty clusters of varying numbers of dots were flashed onto a screen. The boys were asked to estimate the number of dots in each cluster. The experimenters then pretended to assess the judgements of the boys, and told them what kind of judgements they had made. Some of the groups were categorised on the basis of accuracy, and some were categorised on the basis of over or underestimations. The boys were then assigned to groups at random and were told they were either an "overestimator" or "underestimator" in one condition, or highly accurate or poorly accurate in the other condition. The boys were then asked to give rewards of real money, though not very much, to the other boys in the experiment. They did not know the identity of the boys they were giving the money to, but they were told whether they were members of the same group (in-group) or another group (out- group). They could choose numbers that allocated specific amounts of money to the chosen boy. The participants were also told that they could not award money to themselves. Each boy was given an 18-page booklet with sets of numbers. They were asked to choose a pair of numbers that would allocate money to two other boys. Results The researchers found that a large majority of the boys gave more money to members of their own group than to members of the other group. It is important to remember that the boys came into the psychology laboratory as a group of eight, were arbitrarily divided into two subgroups of four by the psychologists, and were not aware of who else was in their subgroup. Procedure 2 Three new groups of 16 boys were tested. This time they were divided into groups based on their supposed artistic preferences. The boys were shown 12 paintings by the abstract expressionist painters Paul Klee and Wassily Kandinsky. The boys were then randomly told that they had

preferred either Klee or Kandinsky. Tajfel then asked the boys to fill out similar sets of reward booklets to the first experiment. In this experiment, Tajfel was interested in which of the three variables would have the greatest effect on the boys choices: maximum joint profit (giving the largest reward to members of both groups); largest possible reward to in---group (giving the largest reward to the member of the in-group regardless of the reward to the boy from the other group); or maximum difference (giving the largest possible difference in reward between members of the different groups, i.e. in-group favouritism).

Paul Klee painting

Wassily Kandinsky painting

Results Tajfel found that the most important factor in the boys choices was maximizing the difference between the two groups. This was a bit surprising since it meant that the boys left the study with less money than if they had all given each other the largest amount of money possible. Tajfel therefore concluded that out---group discrimination is very easy to trigger and that once it has been triggered, we have norms of behaviour for out-groups which include discriminating against them.

Discussion The results indicated that the boys clearly adopted a strategy of in---group favouritism although the groups were indeed very minimal since they had been created on the basis of flimsy criteria, had no past history or possible future, the boys did not even know the identity of other members of each group, and there was no self---interest involved since they could not award money to themselves. Social identity theory was therefore supported. Since this classic study, Social Identity Theory has been associated with group behaviours such as ethnocentrism, in---group favouritism, conformity to in---group norms and stereotyping. The study is important because it contributed to the development of social identity theory, which states that social groups and categories to which we belong are an important part of our self--- concept, and therefore a person will sometimes interact with other people as a representative of a whole group or category of people rather than as a single individual. Tajfel demonstrated that a "minimal group" is all that is necessary for individuals to exhibit discrimination against an out--- group. This experiment is considered a classic in psychology because it demonstrates that intergroup conflict is not required for discrimination to occur. The study thus challenged previous beliefs that competition was necessary and sufficient to produce prejudice. The study has been criticised for artificiality. The experimental set---up is so far from natural behaviour that it can be questioned whether it reflects how people would react in real life. This criticism relates to demand characteristics of experimental design that is that the boys in this experiment perhaps interpreted the experimental task as a sort of a competitive game and therefore reacted the way they did. It has also been argued that competition and discrimination demonstrated in the experiment is less likely to happen in other cultural settings. References Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223, 96-102 available: http://courses.washington.edu/pbafhall/514/514%20Readings/tajfel.pdf

Key study: Abrams et al (1990)

Aschs 1951 study of conformity and its myriad of replications that followed is one of the great studies of psychology. The Asch paradigm explored factors that have an effect on the likelihood of an individual conforming to a group norm, even if the individual may personally disagree with the group. The study that follows looks at the role of social! identity on ones likelihood to conform. The researchers used the basic procedure of the Asch paradigm (though they used computers and projected the lines!), but they looked at the role of in-groups and out-groups on the nave participants behavior. Design and procedure Abrams et al (1990) used an independent measures design which included four groups and manipulated two different independent variables. One independent variable was whether the confederates were from an in-group (psychology students) or an out-group (ancient history students). The second independent variable was whether the participants responses were public or private. So, it used a 2 X 2 factorial design that looked like this: In-group public response In-group private response Out-group public response Out-group private response

Fifty undergraduate students (23 males and 27 females) enrolled in an introductory psychology course participated. At the start of the experiment, the three confederates were introduced either as first-year students from the psychology department of a prestigious university (in- group) or as students of ancient history (out-group) from that same university. The participants were instructed not to talk to each other. As in the Asch paradigm, the participants were shown a stimulus line, and then three other lines - one of which was the same length as the stimulus line. The task was to identify which of the three lines matched the stimulus line. There were 18 trials. In nine of the trials, the confederates gave the correct response. In nine of the trials the confederates gave a unanimous, incorrect response. In each session the confederates and one naive participant sat in a row, facing the monitor. The participant was always placed at one end of the row. The group always gave their judgments in turn, beginning at the opposite end from the participant. In the public condition all four members of the group gave their judgments aloud, and the experimenter recorded the real participants responses. In the private condition, however, the experimenter asked if one of the participants would note down the responses, in order to leave her free to 'operate the computer'. The real participant, who 'happened to be nearest', was asked if he or she would like to record responses. The three confederates then gave their judgments aloud in turn and the real participant recorded their responses on a score sheet along with his or her own, privately. Results Preliminary analyses revealed no sex differences in conformity. Seventy-seven per cent of all participants conformed to the erroneous confederate judgments

on at least one trial. The actual proportion of conforming responses was 138 out of a possible 432 (i.e. 32 per cent). This is very similar to the results of the original Asch experiments. Conformity was maximized in the ingroup public condition with a mean number of conforming responses of 5.23 and minimized in the out-group public condition (M = 0.75). The ingroup private and out-group private conditions did not differ significantly (Ms = 3.00 and 2.33, respectively).

Discussion The results seem to indicate that social categorization can play a key role in ones decision to conform publicly. When compared to Aschs original findings, the overall conformity levels are about the same. But when we consider social categorization, public conformity exceeded the usual level in the in-group condition but was far below normal in the out-group condition. The explanation for this, from self-categorization theory, is that we tend to exaggerate the difference between us and the out-group, while feeling that members of our own group share a common set of traits. Thus, in this experiment, in-group members may be seen as more correct, while out-group members are seen as less likely to be correct, when participants are made conscious of their group membership. As with the original Asch experiment, there are several strengths and limitations of the study. The situation in which the participants found themselves was highly artificial - both because the task was not something that you would everyday and because the event was staged. Thus, it is difficult to know whether the results predict what would happen in a naturalistic situation. However, the control over the experiment by the researchers allows us to see a causal relationship between the independent variable - group membership - and the dependent variable - rate of conformity to an incorrect response.

Reference Abrams, D., Wetherell, M., Cochrane, S., Hogg, M. A. and Turner, J. C. (1990), Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29: 97119.

Sherif et al. (1961) Robbers Cave Experiment

In Sherif, M., Harvey, O.J., White, B.J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C.W. (1961) Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment. Norman: University of Oklahoma Book Exchange 1961. Background
Mustafa Sherif set out to study whether conflict between groups could be diminished if they worked together on a superordinate goal. Superordinate goals are defined as goals that are achieved by the contribution and co-operation of two or more people, with individual goals that are normally in opposition to each other, working together. The study is also important because it focuses on the formation of group norms, as well as arguing that prejudice may be based on "realistic conflict theory". This was a field experiment

Procedure
The aim of the study was to study informal groups and observe the natural and spontaneous development of group organization, attitudes (prejudice) and group norms. The study also tested "Realistic conflict theory" which is based on the assumption that groups interacting with each other generate attitudes towards each other. The theory predicts that Groups that are positively independent - that is, they work toward common goals - will have good intergroup relations. The participants of the first experiment were 22 boys, aged 11-12. They were carefully selected and matched so that they were all healthy, socially well adjusted, somewhat above average intelligence and from stable, White, Protestant, middle-class homes. None of the boys knew each other before the study. The matching of the sample was done in order to reduce the chances of bringing established social conflicts to the study. The researchers organized a regular summer camp in the Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma with camp staff so that the boys did not know that they were taking part in an experiment. This was done to guarantee ecological validity of the research, which was done within the framework of regular camp activities and games. The researchers collected data by making written records of the observed behaviour, as well as sometimes using cameras and microphones. Part one of the study: Defining group identity Prior to the start of the study, the researchers observed the development of relationships and Groups that are negatively independent - that is, they are in competition for scarce resources - will create conflict and ethnocentric attitudes.

group structure among the boy participants. The boys were housed in the same house and could choose their own friends. After a few days the researchers divided the boys into two groups and they separated "best friends" so that they were not in the same group. The boys participated in a range of challenging activities such as hikes, campouts, athletics and sports in this period. In each group, the boys divided up the tasks and organized duties. The hierarchy of each group became obvious as leaders emerged, and each group developed its own way of interacting with special jargon, jokes, secrets and special ways of performing tasks. They maintained social control by ridiculing boys who did not perform well at a particular task. Threats and social exclusion were also used as social control. Each group selected a symbol and a name which was put on their baseball caps and T-shirts. The groups called themselves "The Eagles" and "The Rattlers". The researchers invented a game of target practice to test whether the boys would show favoritism when they had to evaluate performance of their peers. The target board had no marks on it, but it was secretly wired so that the researchers had an objective measure of accuracy. The boys consistently overestimated efforts of highly regarded boys and underestimated the efforts of lowly regarded boys. The researchers asked each boy to name his friends in the group, and the boy who was chosen the most time was regarded as having the highest status. The boy who was chosen the least was seen as having the lowest status. Part two of the study: Introducing conflict The researchers introduced conflict through games in this phase. The games started well but the boys soon called each other names such as "stinkers" and "cheaters". The boys refused contact with the opposing group and they even turned against their previous friends. The boys also gave negative ratings to boys in the other group. In this stage solidarity increased within each group and they showed hostility towards the other group such as stealing the other group's flag and setting fire to it. The boys also had fights between the two groups and there were incidents of abuse. This confirmed that conflict and negative attitudes between groups can arise from group identity and fighting for resources. Part three of the study: Resolving conflict The researchers wanted to bring the conflict between the groups to a stop. Initial attempts to reconcile the groups were not successful so they developed another hypothesis that working together to reach a common goal would encourage a positive relationship between the groups. They created a series of situations such as making the camp truck break down during an outing; the boys had to cooperate to pull the truck. The introduction of these superordinate goals eased the tension between the groups. The result was that the boys ended up having new friends from the other group and they cooperated. This resulted in less negative ratings of the other group and there was no longer any intergroup hostility. Discussion The methodology of the study is quite inventive. The measures of social behaviour that were introduced were part of real-life situations. This assured a high degree of ecological validity. However, because it was a field experiment, the researchers could not control many of the variables; for example, behaviour of the leaders could not be controlled - nor the effects of

weather, the surroundings, or private conversations between the boys. Another limitation is a question as to how the dependent variable was actually measured. It was not possible to actually confirm that the levels of hostility were actually as the researchers reported. Through the self-reports of the sample, the researchers concluded that hostility had first increased, and then, because of the superordinate goals, decreased. However, in measuring the level of hostility after the superordinate goal, the results could be do to demand characteristics. It is also questionable how long these effects would last once the groups were no longer working on such tasks. It could also be argued that there are ethical issues in this study as the research brought about conflict between the groups. However, the results of this study justified the use of deception and the procedure since the boys were eventually reconciled. It could also be argued that what they experienced could happen in everyday life. The study revealed one of the ways that intergroup conflict and negative intergroup attitudes may emerge. The study has been used to explain how racial prejudice and discrimination may arise between ethnic groups as a result of competition for resources. However, this appears to be just one explanation for intergroup prejudice and conflict. ___________________________________________________________________________ Furthering our knowledge How could the results of this study be explained by social identity theory? Could this study be linked to the principle of "needing to belong?" Think about it: The Wave and The Lord of the Flies are pieces of literature that deal with group processes, social norms, conformity, social identity and obedience. What is it that literature and art can do when dealing with psychological issue that even the best conducted research study cannot? For more information about this study, see: http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Sherif/ References Muzafer Sherif, O.J. Harvey, B. Jack White, William R. Hood, Carolyn W. Sherif (1961) Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment. Norman: University of Oklahoma Book Exchange 1961. Sherif, M. (1956) Experiments in group conflicts. Scientific American, 195 54-8.