The Robbers Cave Experiment. Muzafer Sherif

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ 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 innate instincts of aggression or destruction, (4) frustrations suffered individually, (5) direct economic gain, (6) the character of leadership—all have been variously advanced as sole or primary determinants of intergroup relations. Each of these theories still has its strong supporters.

      This study’s approach does not deny that some such factors (specifically excepting the first and third listed) may, singly or in combination, operate as factors in determining the course of intergroup relations. “National character,” frustrations suffered in common and experienced as a common issue, certain economic gains that become shared goals, or the particular character of the group’s leadership may variously become the more weighty determinant of intergroup relations under a given set of circumstances.²

      But conflicting evidence leads us to assert that the weighty factor determining intergroup relations will not be the same for all circumstances. For example, in settled times when ingroups are in a state of greater stability, national character as formed at the time and the existing scale of social distance (or prejudice) will regulate, on the whole, the particular pattern of intergroup relations. But in times of greater flux or crises (due to the impact of technological, cultural, socioeconomic, and even military events) some other factor or factors take the upper hand.

      One primary point of departure in our approach, then, is the principle that various factors are functionally interrelated. In this respect our approach opposes theories that make this or that factor sovereign in its own right; this approach attempts, rather, to ascertain the relative weights of all the possible factors that may be operative at the time.

      The functional relatedness of various factors leads us to the cardinal psychological principle of our whole plan of study: in the study of intra- and intergroup relations, the relative contribution of given external stimulus factors and internal factors pertaining to participating individuals (hunger, sex, status desire, complexes, etc.) have to be analyzed within the framework of the ongoing interaction process among the members in question.

      The relative contribution of an external stimulus factor, or of an attitude, a drive, or other internal factors, cannot be simply extrapolated from individual situations to interaction situations. Interaction processes are not voids. Whatever drives, motives, or attitudes the individual brings into the situation operate as deflected, modified, and at times, transformed in the interaction process among the several individuals, who stand, or come to stand in time, in definite role relations toward one another.

      The application of this cardinal principle to the study of group relations is derived from more basic findings in the field of judgment and perception. The judgment of a given weight is not determined solely by its absolute value, but also, within limits, by its relative position in the scale of which it is a part and by the presence or absence of other functionally related anchoring stimuli with values within and outside the scale. Likewise, placement of attitudinal items on a scale with categories specified by the experimenter or chosen by the subject is determined not only by whatever intrinsic value these items may have when considered singly, but also by their relation to one another and to the stand that the individual has taken on the issue.

      Following the implications of this general psychological principle, it may be plausible to state that behavior revealing discriminations, perceptions, and evaluations of individuals participating in the interaction process as group members will be determined not only by whatever motivational components and personality characteristics each member brings with him and not only by the properties of stimulus conditions specified in an unrelated way. Rather, such behavior will take shape as influenced, modified, and even transformed interdependently by these factors and the special properties of the interaction process, in which a developing or established state of reciprocities (roles, statuses) plays no small part. The developing state of reciprocities between individual members can be measured in various differentiated dimensions (e.g., status, popularity, initiative, etc.).

      In short, СКАЧАТЬ