Running Head: Robert’s Cave 1

Robert’s Cave

Student’s Name

Institution Affiliation
Robert’s Cave 2

Robert’s Cave

Introduction

“Robert's Cave” experiment was a celebrated psychology study aimed at discovering how

the conflict unfolds between groups. The experiment was just after the Second World War.

Muzafer Sherif, together with his friends, were the key directors. Robbert's cave experiment

studied how antagonism quickly developed between two groups. The experiment involved two

groups of boys aged 11 -12 years. All phases in the experiment show some behavioural and

cognitive reactions from the boys. Briefly, the paper analyzes the video, “Roberts’s Cave and

identifies the various scientific methods employed in psychology.

Robert cave is related to human behaviour, as observed by Eagles and Rattlers did in the

camp. Members of these two groups developed some behaviours that led to discrimination and

hostility towards their counterparts. However, the study proves that conflict is not infallible since

eventually, the tensions cooled between the two groups (McCarthy, 2018). In addition, I could

evaluate some of social psychology's reactions. Bringing two groups for fun activities cannot

resolve conflict.

Phase 1: Group formation

At this point, all participants from both sides developed social norms and finally set the

structure that would enable them to compete favourably. In the camp, the boys formed their

culture and could have some activities such as swimming and hiking to get prepared

psychologically.

Phase 2: Group Conflict

Robert’s Cave 3

This phase long lasted for almost five days. The two groups now came into contact with

one common goal. In the environment where the competition could occur, it is evident that

psychological frustration would arise. Baseball and haul – of – war among took place with a

trophy for the winning side (Bohm, 2018). Some discriminations were showed, and attitudes

began to appear in the process. This experiment proved Sheriff's naturalistic conflict theory.

Phase 3: Conflict Resolution

During this stage, researchers designed drafts that could reduce tension between the two

groups. The provision of noncompetitive platforms seemed to be more effective. Such

opportunities were watching a movie together and having meals together but instead increased

verbal insults and fights. Instead, Roberts cave suggests that involving the two groups in an

exercise that would drive into a common goal would be more effective (Bohm, 2018). For

instance, working towards a particular purpose would lead to harmony and develop a friendship.

In conclusion, this study highlights the importance of social composition in the development of

preconception and discrimination.

This study demonstrated that an attempt to bring uncongenial groups together is

insufficient to minimize intergroup presumption (Bohm, 2018). Even after the competition,

hostility from both sides did not disappear. The psychological effects of the competition

seemingly integrate into the groups' identities. Hatred came to an end after context changed, and

working together towards a common goal seemed practical (Bohm, 2018). The study formalized

the claims of realistic conflict theory, which states that; discrimination and presumption results in

groups enter into a competition for particular resources. Robert's cave study aimed to put

psychology to work to reshape world peace. Besides, all events in Robert's Cave imitated the
Robert’s Cave 4

sorts of conflicts that may develop whenever people compete for scarce resources (Bohm, 2018),

for example, jobs, land and other basics in modern-day society.

Besides, this study portrays some methods. Scientific methods learned, such as

employing superordinate goals to reduce hostility, can improve and promote relationships

between people in different fields (Bohm, 2018). Various institutions can also apply Robert cave

after merging their workers to facilitate service delivery. Also, when a group's conflict goes

beyond nations or tribes, scientific methods demonstrated in Roberts's shelter are theoretically

applied to bring solutions.

Resources can lead groups into war. Two groups competing for a particular help believe

hostility is the way to go. Researchers in the study scientifically tested psychological

perspectives by letting them into an environment that encouraged hostility. However, from

scientific reasoning, Robert's cave study demonstrates how conflict can also arise in the absence

of competition for resources (McCarthy, 2018). For instance, the boys in the camp started

speaking ill about the other group even before the researchers presented the tournament. Social

psychologists professionals also explain Robert cave study illustrates how promptly people adopt

social categorization, leading to grouping either according to a social class or race.

The observation was the research method employed in studying the Robert Cave study.

Sheriff, in his compliments, wrote "were reached on the basis of observation data "considering

Roberts cave study in the 1950 (McCarthy, 2018). The observation was the most used method.

The two groups reacted once they came together. The boy's hostility was very clear about the

objective they had planned as a group. Conflicts arose after several competitions, and both

parties claimed to the best, claiming discrimination and some level of biasness in the camp. The

observation method was the best means to note down all the happenings in the centre. Through
Robert’s Cave 5

observation, researchers could notice the cooperation demonstrated by the boys (Appelbaum et

al., 2018). From comments, the boys stopped calling each other weird names, ill perceptions and

developed cohesion.

Use of experimental techniques. For instance, the boys involved in beans collection at the

end gauged how many each boy had collected (McCarthy, 2018). Each side also intended to

compete in the bean collection. The atmosphere in the camp encouraged aggressive competition.

Also, researchers used the sociometric method. Socio - metric plan look at patterns of friendship

between the boys. This method enabled the researchers to note and study friendship formation

whenever persons find themselves in a particular environment as the boys did while in the camp.

Finally, tape recording was the last method used by the researchers in approving their research

(McCarthy, 2018). The boys developed some adjectives and ill phrases and exchanged word

orally. Researchers recorded some of them for future references.

Robert's cave study is associated with severe unethical issues. Two groups existed in the

camp where the researchers conducted the experiment, whereby hostile behaviours developed

towards the other group. Parents of the children involved in the research did not consent to their

children's participation in the experiment (Appelbaum et al., 2018). Also, boys were not allowed

to withdraw from the investigation, due to that most of them were stressed up by the conditions,

causing psychological harm to the boys throughout the entire process.

Physical harm was another problem faced by the boys while in the camp (Appelbaum et

al., 2018). The study leaders came out and justified to the public that no single child met such

problems, but the public domain questioned the truth behind the justifications. The experiment

did not adhere to ethical principles. For instance, researchers did not protect the rights and
Robert’s Cave 6

welfare of the boys in the first place since the investigation influence the boys in a more negative

manner leading to hostility.

Robert's cave experiment lacked integrity and professionalism because there was a lot of

manipulation to attain the desired results (Appelbaum, 2018). I also believe the research lacked

transparency and honesty. Besides, the boys did not benefit from the study. The field of

psychology believes in equality and fairness. Psychologists believe in respect and upholding the

dignity of all participants in any research conducted, but that was very different from the Robert

cave experiments, the boys were underage, and even their parents had no consent about the same.

There was much exploitation in Robert's cave research.

References
Robert’s Cave 7

Appelbaum, M., Cooper, H., Kline, R. B., Mayo-Wilson, E., Nezu, A. M., & Rao, S. M. (2018).

Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA

Publications and Communications Board task force report. American Psychologist, 73(1),

3.

Böhm, R., Rusch, H., & Baron, J. (2018). The psychology of intergroup conflict: A review of

theories and measures. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization.

McCarthy, K. A., & Rhodes, E. (2018). A resource dependence perspective on intergroup

conflict: The synthesis of two theories. Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology, 2(3),

85-93.