The danger of selectivity can be avoided (without disrupting the flow of interaction) by having outside observers in crucial problem situations and by having them make, for example, their own independent status ratings in terms of effective initiative in getting things started and done.
The most effective way of checking selectivity is the use of a combination of techniques. This consists of introducing, at a few choice points, laboratory-type experiments and sociometric questions. If the trends obtained through laboratory-type and sociometric checks are in line with trends obtained through observations, then selectivity of observation need not worry us as far as the relevant hypotheses and generalizations are concerned. The actual use of observational, experimental, and sociometric techniques in a combined way, whenever feasible without cluttering the main flow of interaction, has been a major point of emphasis in our study. In our previous work, the feasibility of using judgmental indices to tap norm formation and intra- and intergroup attitudes was established in various studies. This series of experiments, whose logic and techniques were made part and parcel of this large-scale experiment, are summarized in a paper “Toward Integrating Field Work and Laboratory in Small Group Research” (which appeared in Small Group Research Issue, American Sociological Review, December 1954).
The present study has for its background the invaluable experience of the 1949 and 1953 experiments, both carried out under my direction. In 1949 the design (in three stages) went as far as the end of Stage 2 of this 1954 study; namely, ingroups were formed and intergroup friction was produced experimentally. The 1949 study was jointly sponsored by the Attitude Change Project of Yale University and the Department of Scientific Research of the American Jewish Committee, to both of whom grateful acknowledgment is extended. Without the effective help of Professor Carl I. Hovland, this start could not have materialized. The second study was attempted in 1953 in four successive stages. We succeeded in completing only two stages in this attempt, which covered the experimental formation of ingroups. The experiment reported here, as well as other units during the last two years, were carried out with a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation to the University of Oklahoma, for which we are grateful.
It is a pleasure to note here the active participation of O. J. Harvey during the last four years in the development of this program of research. Especially his doctoral thesis, entitled “An Experimental Investigation of Negative and Positive Relationships Between Small Informal Groups Through Judgmental Indices,” constitutes a distinct contribution in demonstrating the feasibility of using laboratory- type judgmental indices in the study of intergroup attitudes. Without the untiring and selfless participation of O. J. Harvey, Jack White, William R. Hood, and Carolyn Sherif the realization of this experiment and the writing of this report would have been impossible.
This program of research in group relations owes a special debt to the dedication of the University of Oklahoma and its administrative agencies to making development of social science one of its distinctive features. President George L. Cross’s close interest in social science has been a constant source of encouragement and effective support. Professor Lloyd E. Swearingen, Director of the Research Institute, has cleared our way for smooth sailing whenever occasion arose. We have turned again and again to the encouragement and unfailing support of Professor Laurence H. Snyder, Dean of the Graduate College.
Muzafer Sherif 1954
The Robbers CaveExperiment
1 Integrating Field Work andLaboratory in Small Group Research
The study of small groups has become one of the most flourishing areas of research. The influences responsible for the increased preoccupation with small groups in various social sciences and psychology spring both from developments within various academic disciplines and from agencies instituted for devising practical solutions for immediate application. Brief mention of influences contributing to the flourishing state of affairs in small group research will be helpful as orientation.
Theoretically and empirically, works of sociologists have historical priority in showing persistent concern with the topic of small groups (Faris 1953). Since the early 1920s sociology related to small groups has undergone definite research development, as represented by the works of men like Thrasher, Anderson, Clifford Shaw, Zorbaugh, Hiller, and Whyte. In the recurrent findings reported in this line of research, which was carried out over a period of a good many years, one cannot help finding crucial leads for a realistic approach to experimentation in this area.
Another major instigator of the extraordinary volume of small group research stems from the practical concerns of business and military agencies. A series of studies, initiated by Elton Mayo and his associates at the Harvard Business School in the late 1920s, has proliferated in various institutions, both academic and technological. Another impetus along this line came from the concern of military
This chapter was prepared for the special issue on Small Group Research of the American Sociological Review 19, no. 6 (December 1954). Grateful acknowledgment is made to the editors of the Review for permission to reproduce this paper here in substantially the same form.
agencies with establishing effective techniques for the assessment of leaders.
Yet another major influence in the development of small group studies comes from psychological research. Regardless of the theoretical treatment, the results of psychological experiments almost always showed differential effects on behavior when individuals undertook an activity in relation to other individuals or even in their presence, as can be ascertained readily by a glance at Murphy, Murphy, and Newcomb’s Experimental Social Psychology. F. H. Allport’s experiments, which started around 1915, illustrate this point. In the 1930s, it became increasingly evident that social behavior (cooperation-competition, ascendance-submission, etc.) could not be properly studied when the individual is considered in isolation. Psychological “trait” theories or personality typologies fell far short in explaining social relations. Therefore, when Moreno’s sociometric technique for the study of interpersonal choices and reciprocities among individuals (i.e., role relations) appeared in the United States in the mid-thirties, it quickly found wide application. A few years later Kurt Lewin and his associates demonstrated the determination of individual behavior by the properties of group atmosphere. This line of experimentation was the basis of subsequent studies coming from the proponents of the Group Dynamics school. Some other major influences coming from psychology will be mentioned later.
Interdisciplinary Cooperation and the Concept of Levels
It becomes apparent from even a brief mention of the background that researchers from various disciplines contributed to make the study of small groups what it is today. As a consequence, there is a diversity of emphasis in formulating problems and hypotheses and diversity in the concepts used. This state of affairs has brought about considerable elbow-rubbing and interdisciplinary bickering among sociologists, psychologists, and anthropologists. This process and researchers’ critical appraisal of each other’s approaches have made the interdisciplinary approach a necessity for achieving a rounded picture.
Faced with the task of dealing with both psychological and sociocultural factors in human relations problems, psychologists have too often yielded to the temptation of improvising their own “sociologies” in terms of their preferred concepts. Sociologists, on the other hand, have sometimes engaged in psychological improvisations. While sociological or psychological improvisation at times proves necessary on the frontiers of a discipline, it is difficult to justify on topics for which a substantial body of research exists in sociology or in psychology, as the case may be.
On the whole, interdisciplinary cooperation has usually turned out to mean rallying psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, and other social scientists to toss their theories and concepts into the ring. But mere juxtaposition of utterances from these disciplines in the same room or between the covers of the same book does not bring interdisciplinary cooperation. Nor is interdisciplinary integration possible by laying down segments from each discipline along the same line—one yard of psychology, one yard of sociology, then a foot each of