All I do is Win, Win, Win No Matter What: Competition in Intergroup Relations

Why do people feel the need to compete? We compete everywhere in all kinds of settings with all kinds of activities. From the Olympics to family games nights, why do we compete? Is if for bragging rights? Maybe we just want to bring down the other team. Or perhaps, it’s an opportunity to push ourselves. Is competition more a form of self improvement than it is an opportunity to crush the opponent?

In this article, I explore the psychology of competition and use the Sherif et al. Robbers Cave experiment as my inspiration. I’ll provide a brief background about this experiment and share examples from my own life where I have seen some of these scenarios actually play out.

Further, I explore in-group favourtism and outgroup antipathy as I dig deeper into peoples’ drive and need for competition. Again, is competition a form of self / group preservation, or is it an opportunity to just take someone else down? Perhaps it’s both.

In my quest to further understand in-group favourtism and outgroup antipathy, I spent time over the last couple of weeks reading and watching interviews with professional athletes. I wanted to understand what drives them and how they view competition. Why do they do it?

Well, let’s find out.

First a bit about the Robbers Cave Experiment

In the 1950’s an experiment was conducted that included 22 12 year-old boys at a summer camp. The boys were divided into two groups, the Eagles and the Rattlers (the groups took it upon themselves to name their own groups).
At first, each group was not aware of the other group’s existence. This was intentional and set up by the experimenters. Groups were then introduced to each other, eventually participated in a number of competitive activities that created intergroup conflict, and then participated in a number of cooperative activities designed to eliminate or minimize conflict and bias.

How I saw this unfold at a women in STEM event for high school students

Sometimes, you learn a new concept and the Universe is like “Oh, hey. This is what this looks like just in case you’re wondering.” Let me explain.

At my day job, I work in marketing and communications for a STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) program at a Canadian university.

Recently, we hosted a design-a-thon for female-identifying high school students. The goal of this event is to introduce young girls to the world of STEM, resulting in more confidence in STEM topics, creating access to resources, and breaking barriers and stereotypes.

This is a two-day event where teams create a solution to a real-world healthcare problem, and then pitch their designs to a panel of upper-year students and faculty members. Typically, this kind of event is a competition where prizes are awarded; however, we only had three teams and decided to remove the competitive element. Instead, the pitch portion would be a feedback session where upper-year students and faculty would provide insights on how teams’ pitches, products etc. could be improved.

From the beginning, it was advertised to participants that the pitch portion would just be an interactive feedback session; however, something interesting started to happen once we assigned everyone to a group. Here’s what happened.

In the afternoon of Day 1, students were put into groups. There were three groups in total. At one point, I overheard a conversation between one of the groups and my colleague who was co-hosting this event with me. I’ll refer to my colleague as Russell.

The conversation went something like this:

Group A: So, is there a competition at some point?
Russell: Nope. Tomorrow’s pitch portion will just be an informal feedback session.
Group A: Oh…well, how come there isn’t a competition?
Russell: Um….
Group A: Like, can we make this a competition?

This was one week after I had studied the Robbers Cave experiment. The timing was amazing, and I had to repeatedly remind myself that this was a STEM event for high school students, and I must resist the temptation to turn this into a social psychology experiment. This wasn’t easy.

I approached Russell and told him I overheard, and we discussed what we wanted to do. We decided to hold an anonymous survey on mentimeter and everyone could vote.

There were 11 girls in total participating in this event. We received 7 votes, and all submitted votes were in favour of a competition.

Once we shared with the girls that we would turn this into a competition, the air in the room shifted. With my knowledge of intergroup conflict, biases, and in-group favourtism, I started to observe how the groups behaviours changed.

Here are a couple of things I noticed:

1. Protection of their designs: As I walked by groups, they would cover their work with their arms or entire bodies draping themselves over their workspaces to conceal their projects
2. Physical distance: Groups became so protective of their designs that they started to physically distance themselves from other groups. Everyone suddenly became spread out. Some went out into the hallway. Others moved themselves to the very back of the room.

While there were no food fights or burning of flags, there was a definite shift in demeanour within the groups.

I asked myself some questions throughout this process. Is it the learning of the existence of other groups, or the fact that a group now has its own identity that prompts competition?

Based on my observations, the order of events went something like this:

1. Students were put into groups
2. A common goal was identified (create ABC solution to XYZ problem)
3. Group dynamics, norms, roles, and identities began to form
4. Groups began requesting a competition

Like what I learned through the Robbers Cave experiment, once the groups had time to form an identity, and become aware that there are now other groups present, things changed.

Studying Professional Athletes to Explore Ingroup Favourtism

We learned throughout this course that ingroup favourtism is stronger than outgroup antipathy. I looked up various sources in the world of athletics for evidence of this. I chose professional athletes because I wanted to use a group that is known for its high levels of competition, and when it comes to sport, I couldn’t think of a more competitive space in which we see clear ingroups and outgroups.

To avoid any confirmation bias, I sought out materials from various sources and viewpoints. This included social media and both liberal and conservative news outlets.

I have selected a few quotes from athletes, and will use them to illustrate how ingroup favourtism outweighs outgroup antipathy.

“Great players are willing to give up their own personal achievement for the achievement of the group. It enhances everybody.”-Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

This quote makes me notice that there is emphasis on the ingroup. “…achievement of the group.” This isn’t about taking the other team down, or even wanting to see them lose. It’s about personal sacrifice and loyalty to your own group to see it succeed. I also like that this quote emphasises that this approach “enhances everybody.” Again, this is focusing on building up the ingroup.

“All winning teams are goal-oriented. Teams like these win consistently because everyone connected with them concentrates on specific objectives.” -Lou Holtz.

Similar to the previous quote, this quote by Lou Holtz also emphasizes the importance of a shared team goal. It’s not displaying any outgroup antipathy.

And finally, “When I need to push myself, I think of all those nicely polished trophies waiting to be lifted up by the winner — and how that winner might be me.” -Maria Sharapova.

I like this quote because it’s not about the outgroup. If we look at the choice of words, there’s a lot we can consider. “When I need to push myself.” She’s not saying “When I need to beat my opponent.” It’s a personal goal, and it’s about pushing yourself.

How can my group be better? How can I be better? How can I push myself?

Final Thoughts

Competition lights a fire under us. It can give us meaning, a sense of purpose and motivation. It creates common goals. In the Robbers Cave experiment, I don’t think the Eagles and the Rattlers were fighting because they wanted to destroy the other team. They were fighting because they wanted their own team to be the dominant team. Similarly, to my women in STEM event. While this was a way milder situation compare to the Robbers Cave experiment, teams weren’t covering up their work as a sign of hostility toward the other team. They simply wanted their team to do the best it could. Each team had a clear goal and identity, and efforts were made by each team to make sure their team performed at its best. In-group favourtism, rather than outgroup antipathy, was at play here.

I feel that this can also explain how we interact with others on a personal level. The way someone treats you has very little, if anything, to do with you. It’s more about their own lived experiences, goals, and groups to which they belong.

The Robbers Cave experiment, and my experience with the women in STEM event, gave me a lot of insights into competition and intergroup relations. Understanding what’s happening on a social psychological level has given me the tools needed to interact with both in-groups and outgroups. I work with a lot of groups at work both at the administrative level, and with our students. I’m excited to apply the knowledge learned through this reflection to both my professional and personal life.