Title: "The Lost Boys: Inside Muzafer Sherif's Robbers Cave Experiment"
Author: Gina Perry, PhD
Publisher: Scribe
Copyright year: 2019
ISBN: B07BL7DZ3M
Number of pages: 384 pages
Price: $12.19 (paperback)
"Behind the Shock Machine: The Untold Story of the Notorious Milgram Psychology Experiments" (Perry, 2013) and "The Lost Boys: Inside Muzafer Sherif's Robbers Cave Experiment" (Perry, 2019) were both written by the Australian psychologist and writer Gina Perry, PhD. Both books are detailed, well-researched accounts of two famous studies covered in most introductory psychology courses: the Milgram obedience experiment and the Robber’s Cave study. Both books include information that has recently been discovered, and detail how the personal lives and values of Stanley Milgram and Muzafer Sherif affected what they did and the conclusions they made.
Carly Erani is a senior at Glen Rock High School in New Jersey. She studied AP psychology as a sophomore and the course sparked her interest in the field. After learning about social psychology experiments such as the Milgram obedience experiment and the Robber’s Cave study, she saw a particular view of human nature that led her to Perry’s in-depth analysis and reasoned skepticism of these two studies in the two books mentioned above. After reading her books she was left with more questions, which led her to interview Perry. Below is Ms. Erani’s interview with Perry on "The Lost Boys: Inside Muzafer Sherif's Robbers Cave Experiment". A second interview on "Behind the Shock Machine: The Untold Story of the Notorious Milgram Psychology Experiments" can be found online.
Interview with Gina Perry
To what extent do you feel Sherif orchestrated the results of the Robbers Cave experiment?
From my book you can see I believe that from the Middle Grove episode right through the end of the Robber’s Cave study Sherif was aiming to prove his theory. During the experiment it is clear that the kinds of activities the staff were involved in were to prove their hypothesis.
How did Sherif’s active involvement in the study skew the results?
From my point of view, based on the perspective put forward by the scholar Michael Billig, the results were skewed. An objective analysis shows that there were three groups in the camp experiment. I think the men refused to acknowledge they were a third powerful group and their behavior greatly influenced the children, particularly in the 1953 study. The boys observed the men closely and tried to guess what it was that the men wanted them to do. So, there is a dynamic here between children wanting to please the adults at Middle Grove and at Robbers Cave. The children looked to the men as the unofficial leaders of the group which certainly skews the results of the study.
What is the most surprising new information that you found out about the study?
The most surprising new information was that Sherif’s graduate students ran the Robber’s Cave experiment and that all three were Native Americans. I found that fascinating especially given the history of Native Americans at that time and in that place in North America.
Do you think Sherif ever felt any kind of guilt or remorse for any of the study?
No, I don’t; he was thrilled at his achievements at Robber’s Cave. The fact that he went back there to celebrate his 80th birthday speaks for itself.
If the Lost Boys study was done with older children, 15 and 16-year olds, how do you think it might change the study and results?
I think Sherif chose younger children because he believed that 10 and 11-year-old kids were more likely to be influenced. Perhaps 15- and 16-year old’s as young adults would have been more rebellious. They would have been more aware of the context and therefore more likely to question the adults. Being physically larger they may have felt more confident to challenge the men in what was going on.
In both the Milgram and Sherif experiments the researchers already had visions they wanted to prove before they finished conducting their experiment. How do you think this affects the validity of the results?
I think there’s a difference between a vision and a hypothesis. One of Sherif’s research staff described Sherif’s approach as being inside a maze pushing the rat and how that was scientifically wrong. Sherif was not allowing the experimenters to see authentic behavior unfold and Milgram was the same in that he strongly encouraged his experimenter Williams to badger subjects to obey. We’ve been led to believe that the behavior that unfolded in Milgram’s lab was really a genuine natural event and that the experimenter followed procedure very strictly. However, for both Sherif and Milgram when you look at the archival material both studies strayed wildly from the original protocol so my answer here is that their visions and sought after outcomes definitely affected the validity of the experiments results.
How do you think the Robber’s Cave experiment would have been different if Carolyn Wood Sherif was the experimenter?
Great question as I thought about this a lot. How would it be different if Carolyn Wood was there as an experimenter? Well my question was why wasn’t she there? Yes, she definitely had child-minding responsibilities but she was Sherif’s biggest asset. I think her reservations and her cool-headedness and concern for the welfare of the children would have put brakes on the men’s behavior at Robber’s Cave. I actually think that that’s probably one of the reasons she wasn’t there although Muzafer Sherif considered her an intellectual equal and gave her credit in the writing of the book.
How do you think Sherif’s childhood affected his views on the nature of conflicts?
I think his childhood affected his views on the nature of conflict. I think he saw irreconcilable conflict as a child in Turkey and therefore as an adult and social psychologist he wanted to experimentally research how conflicts could be reconciled by social environments.
Are the results of the Robber’s Cave study significantly valuable to justify the stress put on its subjects?
Well this is an interesting question isn’t it because the boys didn’t know until I contacted them that they were part of an experiment so their stress and the understanding of that is an ongoing issue for them so as far as I’m concerned, it's still not in the past. These men are still working through what it meant to be part of that experiment and how it might have affected them so I think only they can answer this question.
Do you think that Sherif’s personality had any influence on the way he conducted his research?
Yes, at the time of the experiment Sherif had a volatile personality, was a perfectionist and was unpredictable. His team were all walking on eggshells when they were around him and I think that created a tension for his research staff and it certainly shaped the 1953 study. In fact, if Sherif hadn’t reacted at the end of that experiment and called it off the way he did, he had staff around him that would’ve kept that experiment going. So, I think the fact that Robber’s Cave was so successful was in large part due to the fact that Sherif was not directly in charge.
References
Perry, G. (2013). Behind the Shock Machine: The Untold Story of the Notorious Milgram Psychology Experiments. The New Press.
Perry, G. (2019). The Lost Boys: Inside Muzafer Sherif's Robbers Cave Experiment. Scribe.
