Some of the early work on conflict resolution demonstrated that there were some key concepts necessary first to induce conflict between group and then to resolve this conflict to a point where the groups would collaborate toward a shared, common goal. The early Robber’s Cave Experiment was an early example of conflict resolution research, and its findings are still relevant today as there is an increase in the demand for resources across the globe. Since the time of the experiment, others have investigated have determined other factors that are important in in-group versus out-group conflict and resolution. Some of those studies have applied these concepts to real-world events. The purpose of this paper is to review what is known about conflict resolution while tying the Robber’s Cave Experiment into more recent research findings. As will be demonstrated, the outcomes of Robber’s Cave experiment may have differed substantially had there been other factors, such as differing ideologies, genders, ages, or races, at play.

Fine (2004) reported on the classic Robbers Cave Experiment (Sherif, 1954; Sheriff, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sherif, 1988), which is an important sociological and psychological experiment that examined human in-group and out-group behaviors. The concepts of this experiment can also be considered and interpreted within new intergroup conflict concepts as reviewed by Cohen and Insko (2008). In the original experiment, the researchers (Sheriff et al., 1988) conducted a study in Robbers Cave State Park, located in Oklahoma, in an attempt to understand group behavior and group conflict. The participants were 24 boys around the age of 12 who had never before met.

These children came from similar backgrounds, with most being lower-middle class Protestant children. Overall, there were three main stages used in this experiment. First, the boys were divided into equal groups based on how similar they were to one another, and the groups were kept separated so they did not know of the presence of the other group on the lands. Next, the groups had to compete against one another in games at the park and prizes were given to those who won; this led the groups to begin to have friction and they began to develop negative attitudes towards each other. Third, the researchers attempted to reduce the tension by engaging the children in tasks that required teamwork and cooperation between the groups. This study led to a number of important concepts that are still observed in psychology and sociology, and are present at an ecological level within society as well. First, from this study, Sheriff and colleagues (1988) concluded that conflict can arise even when groups are nearly equal in composition. Second, when there are resources at stake, aggression towards outgroup members is likely to occur. Third, these researchers asserted that contact alone is not enough to create conflict; there must be some competition or limited resources at stake. Fourth, in order to reduce conflict between groups, there have to be goals that are larger than the strict competition for resources that can promote cooperation.

Cohen and Insko (2008)’s article discusses a new concept that adds to the Robber’s Cave Experiment findings. Namely, this article focuses on the possibility of enacting cooperation by having individuals thinking about the long-term consequences of their behaviors. In other words, this article discussed how it may be a conflict resolution strategy to let the out-group know that cooperative actions will be reciprocated as will competitive actions. In the real-world setting, this was applied in Israel, and this tit-for-tat strategy was not enough to make peace. The authors note that this strategy will not work unless both sides are willing to consider the long-term consequences of behaviors. In instances in which cooperation is not achieved, this strategy can unfortunately lead to the exact opposite behaviors with an increase in hostility.

These authors note that another important factor in intergroup cooperation is not only the ability to think abstractly enough to consider and weigh long-term consequences and rewards, but also the ability to trust the other party. These researchers also noted that group-related ideology may play a role in maintaining conflict, and it may take time before some group members (typically the more radical ones), see the futility in their use of conflict. When considering this interesting concept within the larger Robber’s Cave Experiment, it is possible that the inter-group cooperation that was observed was largely a result of the two groups being generally similar in terms of their backgrounds (e.g. Protestants, lower-middle class, same-age, boys). It is unclear how this experiment would have played out had there been true “in-group” versus “out-group” cultural or value-based differences.

Another concept broached by Cohen and Insko (2008) was that of independent leadership. They reported that in instances where there were high-guilt leaders who were given unaccountability in their decision making, these leaders were better able to make peace than those who were less independent. Interestingly, for those leaders who have strong moral convictions, they can make peace with other groups if they can make their way past the group’s pressures and act within their own sense of morality. Finally, Cohen and Insko (2008) reviewed another conflict-resolution possibility in their research involving the induction of empathy for members of the out-group. They found that inducing empathy for the out-group may help to resolve ideological differences that can be present between groups. Taking this finding to the boys’ camp and the Robbers Cave experiment, had the groups of boys been different in some fundamental way, say Protestant boys versus Catholic boys, establishing exercises to promote empathy for the other group may have led to cooperation that was not present if the groups were different.

Overall, the Robber’s Cave Experiment and the more recent research on group conflict and conflict resolution, combined with the large-scale consequences of conflict, highlight the need for future research. While these studies are interesting, it would be beneficial to see more ecological examples of how these scenarios play-out. It was intriguing to learn that the subjects in the Robber’s Cave Experiment were homogenous, while many of the traditional in-group versus out-group conflicts occur between groups with ideological and cultural differences. In conclusion, while the Robber’s Cave Experiment was conducted many years ago, the concepts that underlie the behaviors of individuals in group situations are still very important to the world we are living in today.