By M. S. Thambirajah –

Dr. M. S. Thambirajah

Mired in corruption, communal disharmony, crooked political leadership and religious nationalism, Sri Lankans would benefit from stepping back from all that has happened over the last fifty or more years and taking a meta view of interethnic conflict and other ailments that have overshadowed the more pressing problems of economic development, peace and prosperity. A social psychological approach may provide such valuable insights. Here we discuss two ground- breaking studies in social psychology that may provide an understanding into the group dynamics that underpin our interethnic problems.

The first was an experiment called the Minimum Group Study (or Paradigm) devised and carried out by Henry Tajfel in UK in the 1970s and the other is by Muzafer Sheriff called the Robbers Cave experiment carried out in the 1950s in the US. These studies have been repeated by other social psychologists and the results have been the same.

In the Minimum Group Study¹, the participants were school children aged 14 and 15 who did not know one another previously. They were categorised into two discrete groups on trivial criteria such as preference for the paintings of two painters (in later experiments they were categorised based on toss of a coin). Next, the participants were asked to distribute rewards or points to each of the two groups using a specially designed matrix. The recipients are anonymous, except for a number and which group they were in. The matrices were set up such that they could  choose to allocate points either for maximum joint profit where boys could give the largest reward to members of either group without discrimination (fairness condition) or for maximum own group profit where the boys could choose the largest reward for the member of their own group (ingroup favouritism condition).

The results were revealing. Each group was found to consistently allocate more points to those belonging members of their own group. Their understanding, it was found later, was that the points would be converted into rewards of some sort. The findings of these experiments clearly demonstrate the phenomena of ingroup favouritism and outgroup discrimination even when the groups were formed using complete arbitrary criteria, such as flipping a coin. Thus, group membership itself is a sufficient condition for ingroup favouritism (and hence, outgroup discrimination) to occur.

Numerous studies conducted over the last twenty years have found this to be a robust effect. In social psychology this is known as the minimal group paradigm. The authors concluded that the mere existence of an out-group was sufficient for social comparison and in-group favouritism to occur. Findings from numerous similar studies show that the in-group will act favourably towards members of their own in-group. In Tajfel’s words, ‘groupness trumps fairness’.

The second study known as The Robber’s cave experiment was carried  he 1940s and 1950s each year for several years (and is given here later in the article or sake of clarity)². The experiment was designed to address issues of group formation and intergroup behaviour. This experiment, known as The Robbers Cave experiment (called so after the name of the park where the camp was held) is considered a landmark experiment is social psychology. The subjects were 22 boys, 11-12-year-old. They had no idea that they were being studies They were invited to attend a summer camp and the experimenters passed themselves as the camp director, counsellors, and even an odd-job man. The boys were chosen from different schools and neighbourhoods so that none of them knew one another. The study took place in three separate stages that were approximately one week apart.

In the first phase of the experiment, the boys were randomly allocated into two groups and transported to the Robbers Cave State Park. But the groups were unaware of each other’s existence. Each group took part in common events such as dinners, watching movies and other socialising events. but separately. Each group spent their time organising the camp, doing activities together such as coking, playing games, hiking, swimming  and socialising. Very soon they bonded together, elected a leader and divided the work for upkeep of the camp amongst themselves. Each group developed their own conventions: they gave themselves a name, one called itself ‘Rattlers’ and the other ‘Eagles’, they stamped these names on their T-shirts; each group devised a flag for themselves. In short, they started identifying themselves with their group and working together.

In the second stage of the study, the two groups were brought together and the staff arranged for  intergroup contests such as base-ball, tug-of-war, treasure hunt and other events. A trophy was awarded for the winning group. Individuals who excelled were given medals and prizes. The two groups now became preoccupied with the contests spending much of their time planning strategies to beat the other side. In order to mimic real life situations, the experimenters also created situations where gain for one group was loss for the other group. For example, on one occasion the one group was late in joining a picnic and the other group had eaten their food. At this point there were remarkable changes in the behaviour of both groups. It began with  booing and name-calling at the other group during the games. Soon the hostilities escalated and went beyond the playing field.  For example, after being defeated in a game, one group raided the premises of the other group, burnt their flag and indulged in fist-fights.

At the third stage of the experiment, the researchers improvised ‘superordinate goals’ that could only be achieved if the two groups worked cooperatively. For example, the water supply to both camps were cut off. The sole water supply for the camps was from a reservoir on the mountain nearby. The two groups worked together to find out where the pipeline was had ‘broken down’ and discovered that the outlet pipe was blocked. Both groups discussed methods of overcoming the problem and laboured together for hours unblocking it. Both groups cheered when the water supply was restored.  On another occasion the two groups were told that they could watch a movie, but they could watch either “Treasure island” or “Kidnapped”. After some discussion amongst them they decided to take a vote. The majority of the boys in both groups voted in favour of “Treasure island”. At this point the staff declared that the film would cost $ 15 and there was not enough money to get the film. The two groups deliberated over the matter and decided contribute money towards renting it. None of these activities alone was sufficient to eliminate intergroup hostilities, but the overall effect of these joint activities produced significant change in attitudes towards the other group.  Eventually when the experiment ended the two groups opted to travel together and some even exchanged telephone numbers and parted as friends.

As can be seen, the study was designed in a way that included three social phenomena: group formation (first stage), intergroup competition (second stage) and, conflict reduction (third stage). The main findings of the Robbers cave experiment may be summarised as follows: The first finding was that groups form very quickly. i.e., human beings have an inherent tendency to form groups, quickly and spontaneously. In the experiment boys who were strangers to one another had identified themselves with their respective groups within a week and established themselves as groups. Solidarity and cohesion were evident within a short time.

Secondly, when the two groups were brought together under conditions of win or lose competitions, the experiment transformed the 22 previously well-adjusted boys into gangs that were bent on extracting revenge showing that competition for resources results in hostility and enmity. Sheriff described the situation at this state thus: “If an outsider had entered the situation at this point with no information about the preceding events, he would only have concluded……… that these boys were wicked, disturbed and vicious bunch of youngsters”.   

Thirdly, when the two groups had to work cooperatively to attain common goals that could not be achieved by the efforts of a single group alone antagonism between diminished and the relationship became more amicable and harmonious. Thus, striving towards  mutually desirable goals that cannot be obtained without the participation of both  groups reduced hostility and improved intergroup harmony.

The implications of these findings led Sheriff to develop the realistic conflict theory (RCT).

The main premise of RCT is that intergroup conflict arises  because of competition between two groups for some limited resources. In other words, hostility between groups is a function of the material relationship between the groups. On the other hand, where two groups have the same goal but the goal can only be achieved by cooperative interaction (a superordinate goal), the groups cooperate and thus help each other, producing more favourable intergroup attitudes. Realistic conflict theory has received strong empirical support from a number of field experiments.   

Also note that the real conflicts of group interest not only create antagonistic intergroup relations but they also heighten identification with, and positive attachment to the ingroup. The more intense is the intergroup conflict, the more likely it is that the individuals who are members of each group will behave as a function of their respective group membership, rather than in terms of their individual  characteristics or their individual relationships.

Thus, the opposing claims for scarce resources, such as employment, access to education or wealth generate ethnocentrism (the belief that the people, customs and traditions of one’s groups are better than those of the outgroup) and antagonism between groups. This tends to intensify out-group hostility towards groups that are politically or socially subordinate such as minorities.

The social significance of the study is all the more noteworthy if one considers that the fact that two groups boys recruited for study do not really meet the criteria that define social groups. Social groups such as ethnic groups are defined by their interaction over time, their social identity and the emotional ties within the group. It would be interesting to speculate what it would have looked like if the two groups were of different ethnicity.

It should be noted that in this experiment the realistic conflict was between two groups who were equal power. When asked about the issue of power, Sheriff is reported to have said, “If one of the groups had been given decision making power, a war would have broken out and the situation would have got out of control”.   

Parenthetically, it must be observed that power rested with Sheriff and his research team who manipulated the groups into competition and corporation. Logically speaking the fury and rage of the two groups should have been directed at them not at each other. Unfortunately, this is true in real world situations as well. It follows that when two or more groups are in conflict a logical question to ask oneself is ‘who (or what) is the third party that is setting us against each other’?   

In real life power is distributed asymmetrically. In a parliamentary system of government social power is rests with the majority. Thus, in intergroup context, social power can be defined as the degree of control that one group has over own fate and that of outgroup/s. In the case of the Sri Lanka, even the least chauvinistic of persons would concede that the basic issues that contributed to the interethnic conflict could be traced back to competition between the two major ethnic groups for government jobs (when the government was and is the main employer).

Taken together these two experiments demonstrate that: (1) Groups form quickly especially when they are involved in common activities (2) Intergroup activities are characterised by own group favouritism (‘we deserve more’ attitude), (3) Under conditions of competition intergroup hostility develops quickly and gets out of control rapidly and (3) Common goals shared by members of both groups, that can only be achieved by mutual cooperation reduce conflict and promote cooperation and understanding. I am sure readers of this journal are sufficiently knowledgeable to apply these findings to the intergroup conflict that has plagued Sri Lanka for more than half a century.     

Ingroup favouritism causes people to give preferences and privileges to members of their own group, while often excluding those from other groups. The tendency to favour their ingroup develops quickly in young children, increasing up to about six years of age, and almost immediately begins to influence their behaviour. Young children show greater liking for peers of their own sex and race and typically play with same-sex others after the age of three.

How can we account for the hostility, rejection, and antagonism between groups? One psychological approach is to regard that these qualities as ‘residing’ within the personality structure of individuals. Called the ‘Theory of authoritarian personality’, it was an influential though mid-twentieth-century theory that was used to explain the mass appeal of Nazi fascism. Persons with an authoritarian personality are thought to have a number of “traits” such as  extreme respect for authority, status and hierarchies, blind and rigid allegiance to conventional attitudes towards gender, sexuality, race etc. and have extreme respect for authority but is more likely to be obedient to those who hold power over them. They usually hold right-wing political views. They show a greater inclination for putting people into the categories of “us” or “them”. They  consider the “us” group superior. They project their hostility toward groups that are weak. One example of such a target is ethnic minorities. A measure called the F-scale (also known as the Fascist Scale) is used to measures such traits as authoritarianism, rigid ideology and cult of personality. Available at: https://www.idrlabs.com/f-scale/test.php).

But psychology is not destiny. While human beings may have an inborn tendency to favour one’s own group after millennia of evolution man is more civilised and wiser than his predecessors. Psychological insights from the above studies may – may just – make people rethink about race relationships in our country.

The final word goes to Neil DeVott, professor of politics and international affairs at Wake Forest University, the author of ‘Blowback: Linguistic Nationalism, Institutional Decay, and Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka’. He says: “Majoritarianism rarely, if ever, accompanies good governance, and Sri Lanka is a case in point. Unwilling to build on a history of pluralism, the island’s post-independence elites manipulated ethnoreligious fissures for political gain. Besides leading to a civil war that lasted nearly three decades, it has also unleashed violence on Muslims and Christians even as the island has consolidated its status as a Sinhalese Buddhist ethnocracy. The ensuing political Buddhism has compromised Buddhism and democracy and placed the country on a militarised and authoritarian trajectory”.

References

[1] Tajfel, H., Turner, J. C., Austin, W. G., & Worchel, S. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. Organizational identity: A reader, 56-65.

[2] Sheriff, M. (1954), Experimental study of positive and negative intergroup attitudes between experimentally produced groups: robbers cave study. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma.

[3] Neil DeVotta, Blowback: Linguistic nationalism, institutional decay, and ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004. Pp. 204.