When the group is faced with a situation involving common goals or deprivations, group activity will arise. This group activity may be in the form of suggestions from various members, leading to discussion, decisions, planning and execution. When group activity in relation to common goals is initiated, effective ways of dealing with the situation may involve group discussion, or analysis of the situation by a member who is conceded to know more about the topic than others, or (especially if the group is well-structured or the situation and available means sufficiently compelling) more direct action by higher status members or by the whole group may be taken. Those familiar with sociological findings on informally organized small groups, know well that such groups, facing plans to be executed or problems to be solved, do discuss, do plan, and do execute plans. In this interaction process involving an actual problem or goal situation perceived as common to the group, discussion of alternatives has its place, at times exhortations (lectures) and skills of particular members in verbal and non-verbal ways have their places. The various activities involved in the interaction process, viz., discussion, exhortation, planning, and execution, may be carried out in sequence, or in rapid succession, or the common decision may be implicit in the action itself, if the goal and means stand out clearly. The sequence followed and methods used will be determined in part by the nature of the problem, in part by the particular character of group structure (in which leadership, as part and parcel of the hierarchical structure of the group, plays no small part), in part by the particular set of values or norms prevailing in the group, and also by the character and norms of the general sociocultural setting of which the group in question is a part.
Emphasis on studying the interaction process in a natural setting, while approximating experimental control and techniques, does not eliminate the possibility of checking the validity of observed [p. 37] trends by precise laboratory techniques at "choice" points. If there is any validity in the recent generalizations concerning perceptual and judgmental variations ("distortions") as a function of attitude or motive, relevant perceptual or judgmental tasks of the type used in the laboratory can very well be introduced at a few choice points. The stimulus materials used in these experimental units are of an indirect and unstructured type not involving direct questions about developing group attitudes. The procedures are perceived by the S' s as part of the camp activities, and not as experiments which clutter the flow of their interaction process.
In fact, on the methodological side, the plan of the study aims at two additional objectives: The first involves the introduction of laboratory-type experimental procedures as supplements for obtaining data concerning the effects of group interaction with the aim of establishing short-cut methods for tapping behavioral trends to supplant laborious, gross behavior observations (see experimental units at the end of Stages 1, 2, 3 later in this chapter).
The second is to secure personal data (e. g., intelligence, personal characteristics) through available testing procedures which can be related to various dimensions of behavior manifested in the interaction process in various stages. This aspect is not to be carried out in the present 1954 study owing to lack of facilities. As this line of research develops it can be brought to the foreground as one of the important problems.
Subjects
Subjects will be 24 twelve-year-old boys from established Protestant families of middle-class socioeconomic standing, who are normal (no "problem" cases), who have not experienced any unusual degrees of frustration in their homes or other situations, who are not school or social failures (no isolates), and who have a similar educational level. (See section on subject selection, Chapter 3.)
[p. 38] A nominal fee of $25 or less will be charged. This nominal fee will give us the privilege of asking parents not to visit their boys during the experiment. Staff members will have no visitors.
Three Successive Stages and the Hypotheses
The hypotheses will be listed under their appropriate stages, since the account of these stages specifies in outline the conditions under which the particular hypothesis holds true.
Our general hypothesis in regard to intergroup relations (which is the main concern of the present study) is that intergroup attitudes and behavior are determined primarily by the nature of functional relations between groups in question (and not primarily by the pattern of relations and attitudes prevailing within groups themselves, nor primarily by the deviate or neurotic behavior of particular individual members who have suffered more than the usual degree of frustration in their personal life histories).
Both the 1949 and 1953 experiments started with a stage of spontaneous friendship choices (Note 3). This stage, to which the first days of the experiments were devoted, was introduced to rule out the possibility of attributing the experimental in-group formation to personal affinities that subjects develop for one another. This alternative explanation was ruled out on the basis of reversals of friendship choices away from interpersonal preferences and in the direction of the experimentally produced in-groups in our 1949 and 1953 experiments. The stage of interpersonal friendship choices, therefore, is eliminated from this 1954 undertaking, and the study is designed in 3 stages instead of the more complex 4 stage design of the 1953 attempt.
In the two previous studies, the assignment of the subjects to two experimental groups was done towards the end of the first stage, that of spontaneous friendship choices. The basis for this division was not only the splitting of spontaneous friendship choices but also matching the groups as much as possible in terms of observed skills, athletic ability, etc., as well as in terms of data collected during the period of subject selection. Since dropping the period of spontaneous friendship choices [p. 39] eliminates the possibility of actual observation at the camp prior to assignment of subjects to two groups, we have to rely exclusively on the data from the observations at schools, teacher evaluations, school ratings, and data from interviews in actual home situations during the subject selection period. Utmost care will be exhibited by staff members to obtain two groups matched in as many dimensions as possible relevant to the activities that will be introduced, especially those to be utilized in the intergroup stages.
Stage 1: (5-6 days) Experimental in-group formation
The chief aim of Stage 1 is the production of in-groups through manipulation of conditions in which interaction takes place. This step is necessary in order that intergroup relations may be studied between in-groups, whose formation and functioning can be specified.
With the aim of specifying the formation and structure of the experimental in-groups, the two groups will be kept apart and their activities separated as much as possible, especially during the first days of this stage. Otherwise any functional contacts between the two groups would certainly have some consequence both for in-group formation and for the later stages of intergroup relations.
Conditions conducive to bringing about in-group formation (with hierarchical statuses and roles which will be clear-cut at the upper and bottom ends of the hierarchy) will consist of a series of common and interdependent activities prompted by goals integral to the actual situations in which the subjects find themselves (e. g., getting a meal when they are hungry or water when thirsty). The attainment of the goal will necessarily require cooperation and reciprocal relations.
As a result, the initial discussion and the activities that follow will be real to the subjects, unlike discussion topics introduced or hinted by experimenters (or leaders) which are not immediately inherent in the situation. (Topics used in many discussion group studies are often conducive to individual 'shining' in verbal skills or debating.)
The effects of the series of activities conducive to group formation will be studied in terms of:
[p. 40] (a) behavioral observations - - - verbal and non-verbal, (b) ratings of emerging relationships by the participant observers (looking from outside), (c) sociometric ratings in several relevant dimensions (looking from inside), (d) experimental indices in terms of judgmental and perceptual variations reflecting the reciprocal role and status attitudes that emerge among group members toward each other.
Before these indices are obtained, we can make predictions of the direction and degree of such variations.
As emphasized in the introductory theoretical and methodological considerations, the focal point is to maintain the natural flow of the interaction process within groups and, later, between groups under conditions which appear life-like to the subjects. Any observational procedure, or laboratory-type experiment or repetition of sociometric tapping which clutters the flow of interaction is antithetical to the main conception of this study. Therefore, only one judgmental experiment will be used during the stage of in-group formation. It is perfectly feasible to design an experiment primarily to study in-group formation and related problems and to devote the entire time to it. In that case, of course, it would be possible to introduce various experiments studying the progressive development of in-group structure and its effects on in-group members.
Hypothesis 1 (Stage 1)
A definite group structure consisting of differentiated status positions and reciprocal roles will be produced when a number of individuals (without previously established interpersonal relations) interact with one another under conditions (a) which situationally embody goals that have common appeal value to the individuals, and (b) which require interdependent activities for their attainment.
The hypothesis above is formulated on the basis of empirical findings by sociologists like F.
Thrasher, Clifford Shaw, and William Whyte. These and other authors stated generalizations [p.
41] in line with it. Our findings in this respect will serve as experimental verification. This hypothesis was supported by the results of both our 1949 and 1953 experiments cited previously.
The hypothesis will be considered to be verified if the individuals can be placed on a pyramidal hierarchy (the leader being at the apex) on the basis of (a) observational data, (b) status ratings of subjects in the respective groups by participant observers, and (c) sociometric indices.
(a, b) Observational data: The ratings of emerging status relations will be a part of the daily observational reports of the participant observers. Thus, the ratings will serve as a day-to-day index of the trend from mere togetherness situations (in which unstable, transitory differential effects are manifested) to various degrees of stabilization of established reciprocities which constitute the group structure at a given time. When three consecutive ratings (especially of positions at the top and bottom of the status hierarchy) by participant observers of their respective groups show a high degree of correspondence, we can say a definite in-group structure has formed. At this point the similar ratings independently made by junior counselors and other staff members who have had sufficient contact with the groups may be used as further checks. At that time, sociometric ratings and the judgmental experiment with the target board will be introduced (see c and d below).
Observational data consisting of the frequencies of suggestions for activities made by various members and the proportion of acceptance and observance of these suggestions will be obtained. The latter measure might be termed the initiative ratio.
Other observational data along various dimensions will be desirable. Observers will make their ratings of group structure along these dimensions.
Frequency of suggestions (for engaging in this or that activity, etc.) addressed to various group members is one such dimension. It is a plausible hunch that the number of suggestions for group activities which are received by various members will be proportional to the status each achieves in the group. When members are placed according to the frequencies of suggestions addressed to them, we may be getting a placement of members [p. 42] pyramidal in shape very much like the one mentioned above. It is plausible to state this tendency in the form of an auxiliary hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1 a (Stage 1)
If a definite group structure develops, it will be reflected in a consistent pattern in directions of communication. The specific pattern in direction of communication will be as follows: The higher the status of a group member the greater the frequency of suggestions (for group activities) addressed to him.
It seems feasible to represent the pattern in directions of communication visually in the form of a chart. We should think that through the course of a study such as this, variations in such charts would be obtained. The chart of directions of communication at a given time will correspond closely to the chart of initiative ratios and the pattern of judgmental variations in the way of overestimations and underestimations of performance. A suggestion for activities coming from any member may be kicked around among the group. Even if it is not initially addressed to the top position (leader), but to middle position members or lieutenants, it will be kicked around until a nod expressing approval or, at least, no disapproval from the top position member (leader) is perceived.
(c) Sociometric data (Note 4): Sociometric data obtained from the subjects themselves along various dimensions (popularity, initiative, degree of service for the wel being of the group, etc.) will be significant indices in terms of relations perceived by the group members themselves.
The sociometric indices (looking from within) should give very much the same trend as those represented in the ratings, frequencies, and charts obtained through observational data mentioned above. We shall consider this hypothesis verified only in cases in which there is a high degree of correspondence between (a) observational, (b) sociometric, and (c) experimental indices.
(d) Experimental indices to be obtained through laboratory-type judgmental experiments introduced at this point: Recent findings which indicate the feasibility of measuring attitudes and other motivational components through perceptual and judgmental [p. 43] indices suggest that the reciprocities developing among members of a group as status and role relations will be reflected in the differential ways group members perceive and judge one another. One index of these differential judgments as a function of relative statuses or roles will be based on the tendency to expect higher or lower performance in activities engaged in by members occupying various status positions. (Differential expectations proportional to status positions occupied.) Relative over- and underestimates of performance in experimentally introduced tasks may be utilized to measure indirectly the status hierarchy of group members. If this proves to be the case, such experimental indices can be developed to check the validity of gross observational findings, and eventually to supplant them. Such an attempt will be made in this study with the following hypotheses:
If Hypothesis 1 holds, it can be predicted that:
Hypothesis 1 b (Stage 1)
(a) The higher the status of a member in the group, the greater his tendency to overestimate his performance in an activity the group engages in.
(b) The higher the status of a member in the group, the greater the tendency of other group members to overestimate his performance.
(c) The lower the status of a member in the group, the less his tendency to overestimate his performance in an activity the group engages in.
(d) The lower the status of a member in the group, the less the tendency of other members to overestimate his performance, even to the point of underestimating it.
This psychological tendency was demonstrated in established informal cliques in an experiment at the University of Oklahoma carried out as one unit of a research project supported by the Office of Naval Research (Note 5). However, in that study indices used were estimates of future performance, whereas in the 1953 study mentioned above direct judgments of performance were used (Note 6). The experiment to be introduced here follows the [p. 44] procedures used in 1953 utilizing direct judgmental indices.
Hypothesis 2 (Stage 1)
When individuals interact under conditions stated in hypothesis 1, concomitant with the formation of group structure, norms will be standardized regulating their behavior in relations with one another and in practices and activities commonly engaged in.
This hypothesis is also based on empirical findings by sociologists and on studies of adolescent cliques, and will be experimentally verified in this study.
The group norms which are standardized will be expressed as attitudes and conforming behavior of individual members. The production of a set of standards or norms can be verified by observing the reaction of group members to deviations from it. When there is a norm regulating the interpersonal relations of in-group members in terms of their established statuses and roles or regulating behavior in some practice or activity, it can be predicted that behavior by a group member deviating from the norm will arouse corrective reactions from other group members. (This applies also to norms regulating behavior toward out-groups which will become prominent in Stage 2.) The corrective measures or sanctions may range from actual punishment meted out to the deviate through "silent treatment", scorn, ridicule, criticism, expressions of disapproval, to amusement, varying according to the importance of the norm violated, the degree of deviation, and the status of the individual. Facts relating to reactions to deviation are reported by sociologists and also in the experiment by Schachter and others.
Stages of Intergroup Relations (2 and 3)
As stated earlier in our definition, intergroup relations refer to interaction between two or more groups collectively or between their respective members. In our study, intergroup relations refer to interaction between the two experimentally produced groups (as formed in Stage 1) and their respective members.
Stages 2 and 3 constitute the main stages of this experiment. All of the previous work in Stage 1 (in-group formation) leads up [p. 45] to them. Stage 2 is the tension or friction phase of intergroup relations. Stage 3 is the integration phase of intergroup relations.
Stage 2: (4-6 days) Intergroup Relations: Friction Phase
Relations between the experimentally produced groups start with a friction phase because the major problem of intergroup relations today is the reduction of existing frictions between various groups. For this reason, the phase of friction is preceding the attempt to reduce tension and to integrate groups into cooperative activities with common goals.
Friction between the two groups will be brought about through the introduction of two sets of conditions:
(a) During this stage the two groups will be brought into contact in a series of competitive activities in the form of a tournament of events which will yield cumulative scores with a reward for each member of the winning team. However, these individual rewards can be obtained only by being a member of the winning group and cannot be won individually. In other words, in order to win the award individually the members of each group are to contribute their individual bits to the winning of the team.
(b) Introduction of situations which will be perceived by one group as frustrating and which will be perceived as caused by the other group, and not by the camp administration. This was tried with positive results in 1949. The situations will embody goals which can be attained by one group and not by the other, in such a way that both groups will perceive the other as an obstacle in its way to attaining the goal.
In line with the methodological point that the subjects should not perceive this as an experiment on intergroup relations, conditions set up in Stage 2 and 3 conducive to group frustration and friction, or to integration as the case may be, must be designed in such a way that the subjects cannot assign the source of these conditions to the staff. They must be planned in a way such that it is not possible for group members to ascertain by checking verbally with the members of the other group that someone (the staff) has been manipulating conditions.
[p. 46] Our general hypothesis is that subjects who did not have appreciable contact with members of the opposite group during Stage 1 will develop negative attitudes verging on enmity towards the out-group which is perceived to be in their way for the attainment of goals shared in common within their group. Negative intergroup attitudes, such as prejudice, develop whenever any out-group is perceived as frustrating or as an obstacle. (In short, norms regulating behavior toward out-groups, like social distance norms, are standardized group products.) Negative attitudes toward out-groups will be generated situationally under these conditions and will tend to persist even though the individual members in question have not undergone any special degree of frustration in their life histories. Applying this general statement to the particular case of intergroup relations in this study, our specific hypotheses will be:
Hypothesis 1 (Stage 2)
In the course of competition and frustrating relations between two groups, unfavorable stereotypes will come into use in relation to the out-group and its members and will be standardized in time, placing the out-group at a certain social distance (proportional to the degree of negative relations between groups).
Evidence for the rise of stereotypes wil be obtained by recording derogatory adjectives and phrases that are used to refer to the out-group. The specific competitive and frustrating situations and the activities and verbal utterances relating to out-groups will be noted. If possible, the frequency of references made to out-groups (positive or negative) and of activities undertaken relating to out-groups, both in intra- and intergroup situations, should be recorded.
Such conditions, verbal utterances and activities in relation to the out-group constitute the steps on the basis of which stereotypes are built. In time al members of the out-group will be perceived in terms of the generalizations encompassed in the standardized stereotypes. This aspect of our study constitutes a contribution to the formation of norms of social distance (prejudice) which prevail in social groups. The tendency toward stereotype formation was noted in our 1949 study and verified in a more systematic way in R. Avigdor's doctoral thesis (Note 7).
[p. 47] In addition to observational data, the rise of stereotypes will be tapped through two experimental units introduced at this stage:
1. Experimental indices reflecting the reciprocal intergroup evaluations in terms of stereotype ratings (testing Hypothesis 1, Stage 2). This is essentially the technique used by Avigdor.
2. Experimental indices revealing overestimation of performance of in-group members and underestimation of performance of out-group members. In this unit a bean-toss contest between the 2 groups will be introduced. The contest consists of rapid gathering of as many beans as possible by all members of each group within a brief time period. After the contest, beans presumably picked up by each member will be projected on a screen, identifying with each projection the individual who presumably col ected them. Actually the same number of items will be projected each time in the same confined area, the items being spread in somewhat different arrangements. Estimates of the number of beans will reflect overestimation of the performance of in-group members and underestimation of the performance of out-group members. This tendency can be stated in the form of specific hypotheses: Hypothesis la (Stage 2)
In-group members will tend to overestimate the number of items purportedly obtained by in-group members and underestimate the number of items attributed to out-group members.
Hypothesis 1b (Stage 2)
The degree of this tendency manifested will vary according to the status (low or high) of in-group and out-group members in question.
The feasibility of the two experimental units, viz., assessment of differential judgments of performance of members of in-groups and out-groups and differential rating of qualities in so many relevant dimensions, has already been clearly established in an experimental study carried out in our project (Note 8).
[p. 48] These data from assessment techniques as well as sociometric choices will be obtained again at the end of Stage 3, and will serve as an index of decrease of unfavorable attitudes toward out-groups in that stage.
Hypothesis 2 (Stage 2)
The course of relations between two groups which are in a state of competition and frustration will tend to produce an increase in in-group solidarity.
Increased group solidarity will be revealed in the expressions of glorification of the in-group and of "feats" of members, especially those of high standing. Increased encouragement of efforts of in-group members in a way not manifested during the period when the in-group was not in contact with the out-group will be another indication. Additional behavioral data in support of this hypothesis will be derived from the experimental units described above.
Hypothesis 3 (Stage 2)
Functional relations between groups which are of consequence to the groups in question will tend to bring about changes in the pattern of relations within the in-groups involved.
This hypothesis should hold true for both positive and negative intergroup relations of consequence. (See also last paragraph of this chapter.) The changes in in-group relations can be measured in terms of popularity and status of in-group members in various respects. The degree of consequence of intergroup relations for the group in question can be measured (a) by the frequency of references to the out-group, and (b) by the amount of planning and activity engaged in within the in-groups in relation to the out-groups.
One way of testing this hypothesis is through special attention to ratings of status relations within the groups by participant observers. These ratings should be continued throughout the intergroup phases with the expectation that some important changes in the functional relations between groups will produce consequential changes in the in-group structure as stabilized at the end of [p. 49] Stage 1. The participant observers' ratings will be checked with independent ratings by other observers in contact with the groups, thus contributing to the reliability of the data.
The hypothesis is predicted for both parties (winning and losing groups in our study). In the case of the group suffering defeat the impact of intergroup relations may be to the extent of disorganization of the in-group pattern, which will be marked by shifts in status positions occupied by various members.
Related to the above hypothesis is a subsidiary one concerning the functioning of low status members of the two contending groups. This has theoretical implications in view of present-day controversies. It can be stated as follows:
Hypothesis 4 (Stage 2)
Low status members will tend to exert greater efforts which will be revealed in more intense forms of overt aggression and verbal expressions against the out-group as a means of improving their status within the in-group (Note 9).
An empirical test of this subsidiary hypothesis wil be found in observation and comparison of the hostile and aggressive reactions of low status members toward the out-group (a) when reacting in the presence of in-group members high in status and (b) when reacting when high status members of their in-group are not in the immediate vicinity.
Stage 3 (6-7 days) Intergroup Relations: Integration Phase
This stage constitutes the crucial and novel aspect of this study. Deliberately the attempt to bring about cooperation between groups follows a stage of friction produced between them experimentally. This should be the attempt in studies aiming at reduction of group tensions.
Production of harmony between groups which are not in a state of tension does not present much of a problem in terms of intergroup events today. There are various possibilities or alternatives for the study of reducing intergroup tensions. One alternative could be called [p. 50]
the "common en