289–292.
8. This experiment was carried out with a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation to the University of Oklahoma.
2 Approach, Hypotheses,and General Design of the Study
The focal concern of this study is intergroup relations. As an experiment in social psychology, the study undertook to trace over a period the formation and functioning of negative and positive attitudes, as a consequence of experimentally introduced situations, of members of one group toward another group and its members. Therefore, the main hypotheses relate to attitudinal and behavioral trends predicted as a result of controlled alterations of the conditions in which experimentally formed ingroups interact.
The general trend of findings from the sociology of small ingroups and their intergroup relations and relevant findings from the work of experimental psychologists led us to use successive stages in the experimental study of the problem of intergroup relations. The study in the summer of 1954 was carried out in three successive stages.
Stage 1 consisted of experimental production of ingroups with a hierarchical structure and set of norms (intragroup relations). In line with our 1949 and 1953 studies, this was done not through discussion methods or through lecture or exhortation by resource persons or experts, but through the introduction of goals which would arise as integral parts in the situations, would have common appeal value, and would necessitate facing a common problem and discussing, planning, and executing a solution in a mutually cooperative way.
Stage 2 brought the two experimentally formed groups into functional relations in situations in which the groups found themselves in competition for given goals and in conditions implying some frustration in relation to one another (intergroup tension).
Stage 3 introduced goals that could not be easily ignored by members of the two antagonistic groups, but the attainment of which was beyond the resources and efforts of one group alone. Such goals are referred to as superordinate goals throughout this report. Superordinate goals were introduced with the aim of studying the reduction of intergroup tension in order to derive realistic leads for the integration of hostile groups. Considerations that led to the selection of this approach rather than other possible alternatives (such as a common enemy, leadership technique, or discussion techniques) are stated briefly in the discussion of Stage 3 in the last part of this chapter.
It should be emphasized at the outset that individuals brought into an experimental situation to function as small groups are already members of actual groups in their social settings and thus have internalized values or norms (i.e., attitudes) that they necessarily bring to the situation. With this consideration in mind, and to give greater weight to experimentally introduced factors in the situation, this study made a special effort, in the formation and change of positive or negative attitudes toward respective ingroups and outgroups, not to appeal to internalized values or to prestige symbols coming from the larger setting.
Background
Rationale
The rationale that underlies the foregoing formulation of our approach to the study of intergroup relations stems from relevant findings in both sociology and psychology. They are stated more fully elsewhere.1 Here, only a summary of these lines of development will be given.
Empirical observations by social scientists and inferences made by psychologists without direct experimental verification present a rather confusing picture. Therefore it is necessary to state precisely the sense in which the concept group and the issue of relations between groups (intergroup relations) are used here.
A group may be defined as a social unit that consists of a number of individuals who, at a given time, stand in more or less definite interdependent status and role relationships with one another, and that explicitly or implicitly possesses a set of values or norms regulating the behavior of individual members, at least in matters of consequence to the group.
In order that this definition not be unwieldy, common attitudes, aspirations, and goals are omitted. Such shared attitudes, aspirations, and goals are related to and, in fact, are implicit in the concept of common values or norms of a group. From the point of view of the members within the group, the defined social unit may be referred to as an ingroup. Again from the point of view of members within the group, those social units of which they are not a part psychologically or to which they do not relate themselves may be referred to as outgroups. It follows that the term intergroup relations refers to the relations between two or more ingroups and their respective members. Whenever individuals belonging to one ingroup interact, collectively or individually, with another group or its members in terms of their group identification, we have an instance of intergroup relations.
From a survey of empirical literature, it can be stated that intergroup attitudes and behavior regulated by them arise, in the form of social distances and standardized stereotypes, as a consequence of functional relations between ingroups. Once these intergroup attitudes and stereotypes are standardized, they take their place in the cultural repertory of the group and in many cases, through the vehicle of language, outlast the very functional relations that were responsible for their formation.
These functional relations between groups, and their consequences, rather than the study of the deviate individual, constitute the central problem of intergroup relations. Of course, this focus does not imply a denial of various unique influences in the life history of the individual member (such as personal frustrations, special hardships in the family, or other situations). Such personal influences in the life history may have a great deal to do with the individual becoming a nonconformist or deviate in terms of the prevailing scale of attitudes of the group. But such unique or personal influences do not themselves determine the scale. Rather they come in an important way to determine the particular place the individual will occupy within the scale or, in the case of nonconformists or deviates, the acceptance of a position outside of the scale.
Considerations Determining the Approach, Plan, and Hypotheses
At present there are various and conflicting psychological approaches to the study of intergroup relations. It seems that no amount of argument on an abstract level will prove the advantage of one approach over another. Certain of the empirical considerations that led to the approach used in this study will be mentioned briefly in the pages that follow.
The consequential intergroup behavior of individuals (largely revealing friction and tension) is in terms of their membership in their respective groups. Intergroup behavior of an individual that deviates considerably from the prevailing trends is not a typical case. If the individual’s intergroup behavior is too much out of line with the prevailing trend of that individual’s group, it is brushed aside or dealt with as deviate by other members.
One approach to intergroup relations is through the study of leadership. Even though leadership undeniably contributes great weight in shaping intergroup relations, concentrating research on leadership alone leaves out functional ties to which leadership itself is organically related. Such an approach is contradictory to current trends in leadership studies, which increasingly point to the necessity of considering leadership in terms of the whole state of reciprocities within the group.
Another approach in intergroup problems concentrates efforts on ingroup relations. Empirical data seem to indicate that the nature of intergroup relations need not be in line with the prevailing character of ingroup relations. This approach, which concentrates on improving ingroup relations to improve intergroup relations, ignores the demonstrated consequences attributable only to the particular character of the interaction process between groups. Solidarity within the group need not be transferred to solidarity between groups, and in fact may contribute to sharpened delineations between groups with all the attendant by-products.
In short, the conception of the present study differs markedly from existing theories that posit one factor or a few factors as sole or primary determinants of the course of intergroup relations. (1) Inherent superiority or inferiority of human groups, (2) “national character” (“warlike people,” “peaceful people”), (3) deep-seated