The Lost Boys

by Gina Perry

  But nowhere did I find a description of what life was like, the lived experience of a boy like Muzafer Sherif, growing up in Ödemiş. I got close: in the memoirs of his headmaster and the letters of some of his teachers, I got a glimpse of the young men like him. But I could not find specific mention of the dark-eyed and intense Muzafer Sherif.

  In Vienna I met with expert on Sherif’s work, Sertan Batur, who hid his surprise at my ignorance and was patient and kind. I interviewed former students of Sherif’s and the men he worked with, consulted the archives at a range of universities and foundations. And of course I went over and over Sherif’s own records, the thousands of items related to the camp experiments. But I got despondent. I reminded myself that research was a haphazard and circuitous process and you never knew where you’d end up. But I also knew that truckloads of facts don’t tell a story.

  The challenge in writing this book has been how to fill the gaps in the narrative while staying true to the facts. This was a particular challenge in writing about the camp experiments. I have used Sherif’s audio recordings and photographs as a framework and anchor points for the events described in these pages, as well as the notes of the participant observers, whose job it was to record their observations of the boys in each group. The observers’ notes have largely been redacted, although the observers paid more attention to what they called ‘high status’ boys in each group, and to noting the interactions between leaders and ‘lieutenants’, so I have been able at times to infer which boys the observers are referring to. In other places it is impossible to tell which specific boys are being described.

  In forming a narrative thread to connect events in some places, I have recreated events through a combination of the official record and interview material. In places I have added dialogue or gestures, or speculated on the thoughts and feelings of the people involved, or provided elements of a boy’s backstory to enable the reader to follow the story of individual boys in the experiment. When I have added dialogue or the thoughts and feelings of boys, I have tried as much as possible to base this closely on interviews and archival material, as well as conversations with the now-adult boys. At other times I have inferred the boys’ emotions from observations or written comments from the adults.

  Then there is the question of memory. I was able to track down and talk to some of the boys, but often their recall of events was minimal, hazy, or incomplete. In 1954, these men were bright, often boisterous, and sharp-eyed children. But sixty years on, recalling their childhood selves and pinpointing their specific thoughts and feelings at the time often proved impossible. Complicating this was the fact that they were often grappling with new information about the experiment that challenged their previously held points of view. Having said that, I found the adult boys’ recall of events proved surprisingly consistent with those provided through the official record.

  As for the impact of the experiment and its effect on the now-adult boys, I have no way of knowing whether they had rewritten the narrative over the years to reconcile themselves to the experience, or if their lack of recall was a defence against remembering unhappy events. After all, these now-grown boys were sixty years ago faced with dilemmas in an experiment that was not of their choosing.

  I make no claim to a representative sample. I spoke to those boys who I could find and who were willing to speak to me. Some asked me to use a different name and I have done this. All of those who participated did so because, like me, they were fascinated by the thought of this kind of experiment and of their role in history.

  In trying to answer the questions I had, my research took me to Ödemiş and Istanbul; to Vienna; to upstate New York and rural Oklahoma — from contemporary Turkey to the Ottoman Empire, the Turkish Republic and Mustafa Kemal and back again. I am not a historian, and I have begun with a superficial knowledge of Turkish history. While I have consulted experts in this field where possible, any errors of interpretation or fact are mine alone.

  In writing about Sherif, I have abandoned the idea of him as the faceless scientist backstage and inserted him as central to the story of the experiment.

  The backstage view of social psychological research, I believe, helps us to understand not just how we come to accept such research as fact or the role of the experimenter’s own life in shaping it. It also goes some way towards answering the question of what is the cost to the subjects in psychological research? Can people experimented on as children ever emerge unscathed?

  Getting to know individuals who were subjects in Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiments taught me that subjects in psychological research are not passive beings who unquestioningly accept a scientist’s instructions — those subjects are a social psychologist’s fantasy. My hunch was that the boys, now men, from Sherif’s studies could offer insights into the experimenters and the research that the adults would have missed. But giving equal weight to the stories of the scientists and the subjects is more than an attempt to redress the power imbalance in accounts of Sherif’s research. Social psychologists are storytellers who help explain human nature to us; but whether the tales they tell are sensational, alarming, or comforting confirmation of our deeply held beliefs, we should question their conclusions. Behind the mask of science is the art of the narrative, and accounts of social psychological research are driven as much by imaginative impulse and rhetoric as they are by logic and rationality. Using the lens of history to explore the narratives of the researchers and the researched can illuminate the gap between the ideal of science and the reality of its execution.

  Chapter Notes

  Prologue

  Description of Eagles’ return to cabin, confrontation at Rattlers’ cabin over missing knives, breaking up of fight and dialogue based on Sherif’s notes from Muzafer and Carolyn Wood Sherif Papers, Archives of the History of American Psychology, The Drs Nicholas and Dorothy Cummings Center for the History of Psychology, The University of Akron (MCWS Papers), and from Sherif et al.’s book about Robbers Cave, 1988; men’s reaction and pulling boys apart, Will’s thoughts, family background from interview with OJ Harvey, May 2010; Sherif’s description of ‘wicked, vicious’ youngsters taken from Sherif, M & Sherif, CW, 1969, p. 254.

  1: Tangled Beginnings

  Description of trip from Oklahoma, arrangements with buses, and set-up of experiment from Sherif et al., 1988 and interview with OJ Harvey, May 2010; manipulation and trickery in Milgram’s experiment from Nicholson, 2011; Sherif converting Soloman Asch to social psychology from Granberg and Sarup, 1992; Sherif’s Washington Post article, 1969; filmmaker approaching Sherif, MCWS papers; Lepore’s comment about social psychological research from Lepore, 2011; description of Happy Valley camp and boys from Rohrer and Sherif, 1951, and quote ‘lined up on opposite sides of the mess hall’, p. 418.

  2: In the Wild

  William Golding’s experiment from Carey, 2009; Mary Northway quote from Wall, 2008, p. 79; history of summer camps from Van Slyck, 2006; involvement of psychologists in summer camps and ‘quickly set to work’ from Doty, 1960, p.145; account of therapeutic camps from Gass, et al., 2012; Nazi summer camps from Weeks, 2015 and Hiltzik, 2014; Yale’s Attitude Change Program from Simpson, 1994; ‘libido’ quote from letter S Flowerman to M Sherif, 9 Dec 1948; ‘one whit to their elimination’ quote from letter M Sherif to S Flowerman, 15 Dec 1948; Lippit’s invitation to Sherif, MCWS Papers; ‘happiness of their campers’ quote from Herald Tribune Fresh Air Fund camp counsellors training manual, 1948, from MCWS Papers; letters to ministers, letters to parents for 1949 and 1953 studies, from MCWS Papers; description of 1953 camp for parents from ‘Camp Information Bulletin’, Rockefeller Foundation Papers, 1.2, Series 200S, Box 590, Folder 5051.

  3: Lost and Found

  Descriptions of Little Albert experiment, John Watson, and Rosalie Rayner from Chamberlin, 2012, Harris, 1979, and Powell et al., 2014; finding Douglas Merritte from Beck, Levinson, and Irons, 2009; conclusion that Watson
knew the baby was neurologically impaired and hid the knowledge from Fridlund, Beck, Goldie, and Irons, 2012; new ‘myth’ in psychology texts from Powell et al., 2014; ‘… since Little Albert was not a healthy child’ quote from Levy, 2013; conclusion that Albert was a baby called Albert Barger from Powell et al.; Sherif’s footnotes about the abandoned 1953 study from Cherry, 1995; history of Schenectady and The Plot from Blackwelder, 2014; Doug Griset background and quotes from interviews and correspondence with Griset, 2011–2017.

  4: The Watchers

  Description of campsite from photos in MCWS Papers; Sussman getting desperate from letter M Sussman to M Sherif, 22 May 1953; feeling the full weight of responsibility from letter M Sussman to M Sherif, 9 July 1953; biographical detail about Sussman at Yale and as ‘hardworking’ from Sussman, 2001; Sussman’s interest in working with Sherif from letter M Sussman to M Sherif, 21 January 1953; Sherif fired pretty nurse who would be a distraction from letter C Sherif to M Sherif, n.d. from Box 3543.1 Series 2, Folder 1; ‘You must be able to imagine …’ quote from letter C Sherif to M Sherif, 7 May 1953; ‘Herculean’ quote from letter M Sherif to M Sussman, 9 July 1953; details on how subjects were selected from ‘Sample Selection’ report by M Sussman, 24 May 1954; summary of jobs done by workmen from letter M Sussman to M Sherif, 26 May 1953; Kelman described as research consultant from ‘Staff Policy July 1953’; ‘burden of responsibility’ quote from letter M Sherif to C Hovland, 23 March 1953; Rockefeller Foundation grant details from ‘The Rockefeller Foundation Annual Report 1952’; forest fire to bring groups together from MCWS Papers; description of archery and dialogue reported in observer notes in MCWS Papers; Carper’s experience with ‘rat psychology’ from interviews with OJ Harvey and Professor Howie Becker, 2015; lunch menu from camp menu notes, MCWS Papers; Harold’s contentment at being alone, close observation of adults, persistence in asking questions, and suspicions about microphone in the rafters from observer notes; description of first day of camp, developing friendships, archery contests, activities in mess hall, boys playing tunes, and dialogue from observer notes, interviews, and personal correspondence with Tony Gianelli, 2014, Doug Griset, 2011–2017, Walt Burkhard, 2011–2017, and OJ Harvey, May 2010; instructions for observers prepared by Herbert Kelman from ‘General Orientation and Coordination of Research Plans for Participating Staff Members’, 23 July 1953, MCWS Papers; announcement of separation of groups from ‘Plan for Saturday July 25, Stage 2 Day 1 (whole day 3)’, MCWS Papers; change of plan on day two to compare boys in games from observer notes; separation of boys into two groups and boys’ reactions to separation from photos from MCWS Papers, interview with OJ Harvey, May 2010, and observer notes.

  5: Initiation

  Harold McDonough’s observations of men and not surprised at separation from observer notes, MCWS Papers; ‘pain of separation’ quote from Sherif’s observation notes; Mickey’s running away, the search for him, and ‘Please let me go home’ dialogue from observer notes; description of dayhikes from observer notes, physical description of setting and body language added; Sherif’s ‘feeling of belongingness’ and ‘personal identity’ quotes from ‘A Preliminary Experimental Study of Intergroup Behavior’, MCWS Papers; boys’ curiosity about other group and separation, pestering cook, and being told the other boys ‘were not to be interrupted’, from observer notes; dialogue between boys about spending prize money on rubbers, women, generated from reported conversation in observer notes; boys’ dialogue regarding having offended Ness added and based on Carper’s observation that boys were looking for ways they might have angered him; discussion of flag emblem, decision regarding lamp from observer notes, detail about setting added; boys’ curiosity about separation, conversations with cook from observer notes; boys’ attempt to see their friends from observer notes and interview with OJ Harvey, May 2010, reactions of three boys to being turned away added; Sussman fixing clocks at Union College from Sussman, 2001; Sussman and church service from observer notes; conversation between Jack White and boy concerned about swearing, and OJ’s initiation, from observer notes, interviews with Brian Kendall, May–Sept 2014; descriptions of three-night hike and conversations with boys from observer notes; description of White and Sherif and boys’ activities back at base camp from observer notes; arrival of flags, boys’ excitement, flag design and staff involvement, and provision of t-shirts and caps descriptions from observer notes and interview with OJ Harvey, May 2010; depantsing definition, Sacandaga Reservoir, strip poker, and playing on bomber plane from observer notes; argument over cooking, dialogue added based on observer notes; boy hiding and crying in bushes from observer notes; White’s mental comparison of potential leaders added, his identification of Doug as potential leader based on observer notes; Lake George camping trip, Carper taking charge, group meeting, and dialogue from observer notes, interview with Walt Burkhard, 6 June 2011; hotdog dinner and phone call to Sherif from observer notes, interview with OJ Harvey, May 2010; ESP conversation and talk of mothers from observer notes; Sherif’s visit to camp from observer notes, interview with OJ Harvey, May 2010; Doug waking counsellors from observer notes; conversation between Harold and Carper from observer notes; anxious conversation between research team from Sherif’s notebook, interview with OJ Harvey, May 2010.

  6: Showdown

  Description of breakfast scene on morning of announcement added; Ness’ announcement and dialogue from audiotape A94, tape 13, MCWS Papers; ‘only the winning prize’ quote from Doug Griset interviews, July 2012; Sherif’s choice of knives as reward and boys’ dreams of them from letter M Sherif to C Hovland, n.d., MCWS Papers; sagging spirits of Carper’s group, observation of baseball game from observer notes, dialogue between boys during game added based on interviews with Tony Gianelli, February–July 2014, and interview with OJ Harvey, May 2010; threats and ‘don’t pay attention’ dialogue from observer notes; boys’ reactions when Doug hit and boys’ dialogue from observer notes; description of day two of tournament, including boys’ excitement over ‘mystery parcel’, discussion of Cobras or Pythons as group name, Carper’s ‘tussle’ with boys from observer notes; Sherif feeling stressed, sleeplessness, and drinking from interview with OJ Harvey, May 2010; Sussman as conscientious objector from Sussman, 2001; ‘thick skin’ from interview with OJ Harvey, May 2010; ‘for goodness sake’ from letter C Sherif to M Sherif, 29 July 1953; Sherif’s drafted reply ‘whole universe … whale of a project’ from letter M Sherif to C Sherif, n.d., MCWS Papers; Sherif prowling camp from interview with OJ Harvey, May 2010; burning fly from observer notes; frustration exercise and staff cutting flagpole rope from interview with OJ Harvey, May 2010; conversation between boys, Ness, and Sherif reported in observer notes; ‘This type of loyalty’ quote from Baker, 2007, p. 111; ‘cultural pattern of sportsmanship’ from Kelman and Carper, 1953; flagpole rope dialogue and swearing on Bible and flag based on audiotape, with addition of boys’ gestures and reactions inferred from audiotape A93, tape 14, MCWS Papers, observer notes, interview with OJ Harvey, May 2010; Sherif adding events to tournament and boys’ suspicions from observer notes; conversation between Sherif, Kelman, and Doug on leaving camp from observer notes and Sherif’s notebook, MCWS Papers; tournament ‘rigged’ and boys’ attitude to Ness from observer notes; smearing table and laundry mix-up from observer notes; evidence of bullying in both groups from observer notes; difference in staff reactions to archery from observer notes; Sussman’s description of fraternisation, friendliness between boys in football game from observer notes; Carper spreading the ‘rumor’, confrontation between Sussman and Carper from Sussman’s observer notes; Carper’s later depiction of the experiment as a ‘joke’ from interview with Prof. Howard Becker, April 2015; Carper family background from interviews and emails with Hilda Carper, April 2015, Prof. Dirk Eitzen, April 2015, Prof. William Firestone, May 2015, Joe Springer (curator, Mennonite Historical Library), April 2015; ‘fellow at Yale’ quote from interview with Prof. Michael Lauderdale, September 2017; descriptio
n of art and craft contest and trading of remarks from observer notes; reaction of boys to announcement of winners from observer notes; description of tent vandalisation, reaction of boys and staff from observer notes, interview with OJ Harvey, May 2010, Kelman, H, ‘Supplementary Observations’, Thursday 6 August 1953, and interview with Prof. Herbert Kelman, July 2012, dialogue up to ‘come see’ added; dialogue ‘Do you see why’, ‘Laurence is no liar’, ‘Where were you?’ between boys reported in ‘Supplementary Observations’; dialogue between OJ and Kelman reported in ‘Supplementary Observations’; confrontation between Sherif and Sussman and Harvey’s intervention with block of wood from interview with OJ Harvey, May 2010; ‘greedy vulture’ dialogue added based on Sussman’s account of why Sherif was angry with him from letter M Sussman to M Sherif, 30 September 1954, MCWS Papers and interview with OJ Harvey, May 2010; ‘Sussman was to go to Panthers’ tent and wreck it’ from observer notes; Sherif’s reaction and announcement that study was over from observer notes, interview with OJ Harvey, May 2010; how men used remaining days and conversation between White, Harvey and Sherif about next study from interview with OJ Harvey, May 2010.

  7: The Robbers Cave

  Driving incident with Sherif at the wheel from interview with OJ Harvey, May 2010; background on Herbert Kelman from Nicholasen, 2017; Sussman wanting to publish study from letter M Sussman to M Sherif, 30 September 1954, MCWS Papers; letter of complaint about Sherif’s study from Rockefeller Foundation to M Sherif, Rockefeller Foundation Papers, 1.2, Series 200S, Box 590, Folder 5049; ‘something of a disaster’ quote from letter L DeVinney to M Sherif, 28 December 1953; Sherif needing more time from M Sherif to L DeVinney, 31 January 1954, and news of a number of papers to be published from letter M Sherif to L DeVinney, 4 May 1954; Sherif’s book as manual for researchers from letter M Sherif to L DeVinney, 23 May 1952, Rockefeller Foundation Papers, 1.2, Series 200S, Box 590, Folder 5049; ‘well-received book’ quote from L DeVinney interoffice memo, 30 September 1954, Rockefeller Foundation Papers, 1.2, Series 200S, Box 590, Folder 5049; Sherif’s dismissal of Freudian psychology as a ‘failure’ from M Sherif, ‘A Preliminary Experimental Study of Group Relations’, MCWS Papers; Harvey’s dissertation, see Harvey, 1953; observing boys in playground from interview with OJ Harvey, May 2010; boys’ behaviour on bus from interview with OJ Harvey, May 2010, observer notes, MCWS Papers; background to new territory from Grann, 2017; Robbers Cave built by local prisoners from Perry, Gene, 2012; caretaker finding gold loot in stream from Dyer, 1952; park brochure from Rockefeller Foundation Papers, 1.2, Series 200S, Box 590, Folder 5051; activities of boys on first day from interview with OJ Harvey, May 2010; boys’ exploration of cave and surrounds from interview with OJ Harvey, May 2010, dialogue between boys and Hood added; Red inside cave and setting pace for activities from interview with OJ Harvey, May 2010; nightly staff meetings from interview with OJ Harvey, May 2010; camping trip, shooting of snakes from interviews with Bill Snipes, January 2013, Smut Smith, August 2013, OJ Harvey, May 2010, with ‘look at that’ exchange added; differences between Hollis and Red from observer notes, interview with OJ Harvey, May 2010; Red ‘roughing up’ and handing out jobs to smaller boys from Sherif et al., 1988, observer notes, and interview with OJ Harvey, May 2010; description of Davey from interview with OJ Harvey, May 2010; Bert Fay’s interest in micropaleontology and geology from emails from Bruce Fay, December 2016, and Joyce Stiehler, Oklahoma Geological Survey, July 2013; construction of rope bridge from observer notes, interview with Dwayne Hall, August 2013, ‘too fat’ dialogue added; killing of copperhead from observer notes, interview with Dwayne Hall, August 2013; Bert Fay and talk of animals from interview with OJ Harvey, May 2010, tent dialogue added based on observer notes of homesickness, and interviews with OJ Harvey, May 2010, and Dwayne Hall, August 2013.