A Critical Test of the Sherifs' Robber's Cave Experiments

Tyerman, Andrew; Spencer, Christopher

doi:10.1177/104649648301400407

Cited by 21 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this case, the boys in the camp quickly coalesced into competing factions and initial outliers in the groups conformed out of a desire to win competitions (i.e., be right). While the groundbreaking Robbers Cave experiments revealed a great deal about group behavior well beyond conformity, we focus specifically on this particular aspect of the findings, which have stood the test of time in numerous replications and extensions across a wide variety of social domains [ 46 – 52 ].…”

Section: Conformity and Political Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of information and social conformity on opinion change

Mallinson

Hatemi

2018

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Extant research shows that social pressures influence acts of political participation, such as turning out to vote. However, we know less about how conformity pressures affect one’s deeply held political values and opinions. Using a discussion-based experiment, we untangle the unique and combined effects of information and social pressure on a political opinion that is highly salient, politically charged, and part of one’s identity. We find that while information plays a role in changing a person’s opinion, the social delivery of that information has the greatest effect. Thirty three percent of individuals in our treatment condition change their opinion due to the social delivery of information, while ten percent respond only to social pressure and ten percent respond only to information. Participants that change their opinion due to social pressure in our experiment are more conservative politically, conscientious, and neurotic than those that did not.

show abstract

Section: Conformity and Political Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of information and social conformity on opinion change

Mallinson

Hatemi

2018

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We did not include military or firefighter training exercises when it was unclear whether the team lived together either while at training or while not at training (e.g., Oser et al, 1989; Hirschfeld and Bernerth, 2008). We excluded sources that included data on children (e.g., Tyerman and Spencer, 1983). We coded features of the analog environment and sample characteristics as moderators, rather than excluding studies based on specific features of the analog (e.g., mission length, autonomy).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What We Know About Team Dynamics for Long-Distance Space Missions: A Systematic Review of Analog Research

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: To anticipate the dynamics of future long-distance space exploration mission (LDSEM) teams, research is conducted in analog environments (e.g., Antarctic expeditions, space chamber simulations), or environments that share key contextual features of LDSEM such as isolation and confinement. We conducted a systematic review of research conducted on teams in LDSEM-analog environments to identify which factors have been examined with quantitative research, and to summarize what the studies reveal about team dynamics in LDSEM-analog environments. Methods: We used a comprehensive search strategy to identify research on teams that lived and worked together. Data on team dynamics were extracted where possible, and sources were coded for key contextual features. The data did not lend themselves to traditional meta-analysis. We used two approaches to summarize the data: a weighted averages approach when the study reported enough data to calculate an effect size, and descriptive figures when data across studies were directly comparable. Results: Seventy-two sources met our inclusion criteria, yielding 253 effect sizes and 1,150 data points. Results from our weighted averages approach suggested that the team cohesion and performance relationship may be operating differently in isolated and confined environments than other teams that lived and worked together (e.g., military teams), and that, given the available data, we can say very little about the magnitude and direction of the relationship. Our descriptive figures revealed important trends: (a) team members in longer missions generally spent less social time together than shorter missions; (b) consistent team efficiency over time was typical, whereas decreased team efficiency over time was atypical; (c) by 40% of mission completion or 90 days, all teams reported at least one conflict, (d) commanders' written communication with mission control decreased in length over time, and (e) team mood dynamics did not consistently support the third-quarter phenomenon. Conclusions: There are inherent limitations to our study, given the nature of the analog research (e.g., correlational studies, small sample size). Even so, our systematic review provides key insights into team dynamics in LDSEM-analog environments. We discuss the implications of our research for managing future space crews. Importantly, we also provide guidance for future research.

show abstract

“…A meta-analysis showed that presenting competitive versus individualistic settings in MGP studies did not increase discriminatory behavior (Jetten, Spears, & Postmes, 2004). Multiple studies have shown that contexts of intergroup competition did not affect participants’ evaluations of or behavior toward the target group(s) relative to conditions in which the relationship between groups was cooperative or independent (Brewer & Silver, 1978; Brown, 1984; Brown & Abrams, 1986; Judd & Park, 1988; Rabbie & de Brey, 1971; Tyerman & Spencer, 1983). A cross-cultural review found that although societies with greater levels of competition tend to show higher violence and crime rates than cooperative societies, some societies that practiced relatively high levels of competitive rituals and business practices had low crime rates as long as there was a strong cultural belief in nonviolence (Bonta, 1997).…”

Section: Competition and Intergroup Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Competition and intergroup bias: Toward a new construal process framework distinguishing competitive perceptions from competitive motivations

Maxwell-Smith

Barnes

Wright

et al. 2016

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on the effects of intergroup competition has relied on various conceptual approaches and has produced inconsistent findings. Following a review of the intergroup competition literature, we propose a framework which emphasizes that the influence of intergroup competition varies primarily according to participants' construal of potentially competitive events. We assess this via two variables: competitive intergroup perceptions (CIP), the perception that one's ingroup and another group(s) in the current situation are attempting to gain a reward at each other's expense; and competitive intergroup motivations (CIM), the individual desire for one's group to do better or acquire more of a reward than the other group(s). In four studies that presented participants with an ambiguously competitive intergroup setting and administered CIP and CIM scales adapted for the context, both variables were empirically nonredundant (Studies 1-4) and showed unique relations with intergroup outcomes: CIM, rather than CIP, was directly associated with greater intergroup bias (Studies 2-4), discriminatory intentions (Study 3), and discriminatory behavior (Study 4). CIP consistently registered an indirect effect on intergroup bias and behavior through CIM. Our results suggest that in ambiguous group contexts, CIM facilitates the pursuit of goals for the ingroup, which may involve expressing intergroup bias and more antisocial outgroup behavior, and that these tendencies are quite sensitive to corresponding changes in CIP. The current framework offers more precise insights into the influence of competitive group dynamics, and can easily be integrated with other research paradigms to determine how and when intergroup competition produces intergroup bias and discrimination.

show abstract

A Critical Test of the Sherifs' Robber's Cave Experiments

Cited by 21 publications

References 10 publications

The effects of information and social conformity on opinion change

The effects of information and social conformity on opinion change

What We Know About Team Dynamics for Long-Distance Space Missions: A Systematic Review of Analog Research

Competition and intergroup bias: Toward a new construal process framework distinguishing competitive perceptions from competitive motivations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About