activities within the group and with nonmembers and outgroups is standardized.3
Interaction is not made a separate item in these minimum features because interaction is the sine qua non of any kind of social relationship, whether interpersonal or group. Since human interaction takes place largely on a symbolic level, communication is here considered part and parcel of the interaction process.
When group structure is analyzed in terms of hierarchical status positions, the topic of power necessarily becomes an integral dimension of the hierarchy. Power relations are brought in as an afterthought only if this essential feature of group hierarchy is not made part of the conception of a group. Of course, power does in many cases stem from outside of the group, and in these cases the nature of established functional relations between groups in the larger structure has to be included in the picture.
Our fourth feature relates to the standardization of a set of norms. The term social norm is a sociological designation referring generically to all products of group interaction that regulate members’ behavior in terms of the expected or even the ideal behavior. Therefore, norm does not denote average behavior.4 The existence of norms, noted by sociologists, has been experimentally tested by psychologists in terms of convergence of judgments of different individuals (Sherif 1936), and in terms of reactions to deviation (Schachter 1952). A norm denotes not only expected behavior but a range of acceptable behavior, the limits of which define deviate acts. The extent of the range of acceptable behavior varies inversely with the significance or consequence of the norm for the identity, integrity, and major goals of the group.
With these minimum essential features of small informally organized groups in mind, a group is 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 norms or values regulating the behavior of the individual members, at least in matters of consequence to the group.
Common group attitudes or sentiments are not included in this definition because individuals form social attitudes in relation to group norms as the individuals become functioning parts in the group structure. At the psychological level, then, the individual becomes a group member to the extent that he or she internalizes the major norms of the group and carries on the responsibilities and meets expectations for the position occupied. As pointed out by various authors, individuals’ very identity and self conception, their sense of security, become closely tied to their status and role in the group through the formation of attitudes relating to their membership and position. These attitudes may be termed ego-attitudes, which function as constituent parts of the individual’s ego system.
On the basis of findings at a sociological level, hypotheses concerning the formation of small ingroups and relations between them were derived and tested in our 1949 camp experiment (Sherif and Sherif 1953). One of the principal concerns of that study was the feasibility of experimentally producing ingroups through controlling the conditions of interaction among individuals with no previous role and status relations.
We tested two hypotheses:
1. When individuals having no established relationships are brought together to interact in group activities with common goals, they produce a group structure with hierarchical statuses and roles.
2. If two ingroups thus formed are brought into functional relationship under conditions of competition and group frustration, attitudes and appropriate hostile actions in relation to the outgroup and its members will arise and will be standardized and shared in varying degrees by group members.
As sociologists will readily recognize, testing these hypotheses is not so much for the discovery of new facts as for getting a clearer picture of the formative process under experimentally controlled conditions. The testing aims at singling out the factors involved in the rise of group structure, group code or norms, and ingroup-outgroup delineations, which will make possible their intensive study with appropriate laboratory methods on the psychological level.
To test these hypotheses, 24 boys of about 12 years of age, from similar lower middle-class, Protestant backgrounds were brought to an isolated camp site wholly available for the experiment. The early phase (Stage 1) of the study consisted of a variety of activities permitting contact among all the boys and observation of budding friendship groupings. After being divided into two groups of 12 boys each, to split the budding friendship groupings and at the same time constitute two similar units, the two groups lived, worked, and played separately (Stage 2). All activities introduced embodied a common goal (with appeal value to all), the attainment of which necessitated cooperative participation within the group.
At the end of this stage, unmistakable group structures developed, each with a leader and hierarchical statuses, and also with names and appropriate group norms, including sanctions for deviate behavior. Friendship preferences were shifted and reversed away from previously budding relationships toward ingroup preferences. Thus our first hypothesis concerning ingroup formation was substantiated.
In the final phase (Stage 3) of the 1949 experiment, the two experimentally formed ingroups were brought together in situations that were competitive and led to some mutual frustration as a consequence of the behavior of the groups in relation to each other. The result of intergroup contact in these conditions was, on the one hand, enhancement of ingroup solidarity, democratic interaction within groups, and ingroup friendship. On the other hand, outgroup hostility, name calling, and even fights between the groups developed, indicating that ingroup democracy need not lead to democratic relations with outsiders when intergroup relations are fraught with conditions conducive to tension. The resistance that developed to postexperimental efforts at breaking down the ingroups and encouraging friendly interaction indicates the unmistakable effect of group products on individual members. Thus the results substantiated the second hypothesis, concerning determination of norms toward outgroups by the nature of relations between groups, and demonstrated some effects of intergroup relations upon ingroup functioning.
One of the main methodological considerations of this experiment was that subjects be kept unaware that they were participating in an experiment on group relations. The view that subjects cease to be mindful that their words and deeds are being recorded is not in harmony with what we have learned about the structuring of experience. The presence of a personage ever observing, ever recording our words and deeds in a situation in which our status and role concerns are at stake, cannot help but intrude as an important factor in the total frame of reference. Therefore, in our work, the aim is to establish definite trends as they develop in natural, lifelike situations and to introduce precision at choice points when this can be done without sacrificing the lifelike character that gives greatest hope for the validity of these trends.
The study just summarized illustrates the testing of hypotheses derived from sociological findings in experimentally designed situations. The next point relates to psychological findings, generalizations, and laboratory techniques relevant for the study of experience and behavior of individual group members. Here our task is to achieve a more refined analysis, on a psychological level through precise perceptual and judgmental indices, of individual behavior in the group setting. If such data are in line with findings concerning group relations on the sociological level, then we shall be moving toward integration of psychological and sociological approaches in the study of group relations.
Here we can state only the bare essentials of the psychological principles, from a major trend in experimental psychology, that have been used in designing the experiments to be reported.5
Judgments and perceptions are not merely intellectual and discrete psychological events. All judgments and perceptions take place within their appropriate frame of reference. They are jointly determined by functionally related internal and external factors operating at a given time. These interrelated factors—external and internal—constitute the frame of reference of the ensuing reaction. Observed behavior can be adequately understood and evaluated only when studied within its appropriate frame of reference or system of relations. The external factors are stimulus situations outside of the individual (objects, persons, groups, events, etc.). The internal factors are motives, attitudes, emotions,