11. Classic Study Sherif Robbers Cave (1954/61) Flashcards
What was the aim of Sherif’s Robbers cave study?
-To investigate relations between groups.
-Specifically to see whether strangers brought together into a group with common goals will form a close group, and to see whether two such groups brought into contract and competition will become hostile towards each other.
Describe Sherif’s sample.
-22, eleven year old boys from Oklahoma took part in the field study.
-All were white American middle-class protestants.
-They were all socially and emotionally adjusted (experienced a deprived socioeconomic background).
-All lived with both parents and had average grades.
How were the boys allocated to each group (rattlers and snakes)?
-Through matched pairs.
-Due to height, weight, sport ability, sports skill, popularity, cooking ability, previous camp experience.
-Groups matched closely as possible in terms of these characteristics.
-Flipped a coin to determine what group of subjects went to what participant observer.
-This was a precaution to rule out possible effects of any personal preferences participants observers might have to particular boys.
How was data collected?
-Participant observers assigned to each group.
-Vast amounts of qualitative and quantitative data collected over 3 week study using wide variety of methods including covert observation and recordings, ranked scales to measure boys beliefs about each other and questionnaires asking them, for example, to estimate how long a tug of war contest had lasted.
What happened during stage one?
The boys bonded within their groups:
-The groups called themselves ‘The Rattlers’ and ‘The Eagles’ (Identification).
-Leaders were established (and therefore followers).
-The Rattlers were tough and the Eagles cried more when injured.
What happened during stage two?
Competition lead to immediate hostility. The eagles refused to eat with the Rattlers. When together the groups shouted insults at each other and were reported by observers to get close to physical violence. Both groups raided the others’ huts and burned their flags. When prizes were awarded, they were stolen by the other group:
-6.4% of Rattlers were friends with Eagles and 7.5% of Eagles were friends with Rattlers.
-Ingroup members were seen as brave whereas outgroup members were seen as sneaky (social comparison).
What happened during stage three?
Early activities in stage 3, which involved getting the groups together without competition, did not reduce hostility, however the joint-problem solving task did. Following these, both groups opted to share a bus home and the Rattlers spent $5 prize won in one competition on drinks for both groups:
-36.4% of Rattlers were friends with Eagles and 23.2% of Eagles were friends with Rattlers.
What did Robber’s cave study conclude?
-Some hostility was observed between the groups as soon as they were aware of each other.
-Once competition was introduced this became far more intense (limited resource).
-This suggests that competition is a factor in leading to discrimination between groups (intergroup conflict), but that some discrimination takes place even without competition.
-However, when groups work together on cooperative tasks that benefit both of them, prejudice and discrimination can be reduced.
What is a strength of Sherif’s study in terms of validity?
-When dividing the 22 boys into groups of 2 equal sizes, before the experiment, they matched the boys assigned to the two groups so the boys would be as similar as possible. They matched them on height, weight, sports ability, popularity, cooking ability, swimming and previous camp experience.
-Sherif collected both qualitative and quantitative data. Sherif had the researcher collect qualitative data during the day of how they observed the boys behave. The quantitative data was collected at the end of stage 2 and 3 where boys were given psychometric tests to rate how they felt about the other team and ask them about who they were friends with.
What is a weakness of Sherif’s study in terms of validity?
-A lack of control over individual differences means that external factors affects results. This is a weakness as external factors lead to inaccurate results which weaken the study’s ability to draw cause and effect conclusions.
What is a strength of Sherif’s study in terms of generalisability?
Sherif only used ‘emotionally stable’ boys with at least an average IQ, his inclusion of a sample f boys with different sporting abilities, personalities and camp experience allows for Sherif’s results on prejudice to be generalised to a winder population.
What is a weakness of Sherif’s study in terms of generalisability?
A sample that is not representative of the population is a weakness because it means that the results on causing prejudice due to limited resources cannot be generalised to the wider population.
What is a strength of Sherif’s study in terms of reliability?
-The bean counting activity where the boys were set a task to collect beans and then asked to estimate how many were collected by their own group and the other group. Also, the baseball tournament and tug of war. Finally, they were asked to complete standardised questionnaires rating both the Rattlers and the Eagles.
-Easy replication of a study is a strength because it means that the results on causing prejudice due to competition for limited resources can be compared for consistency.
What is a weakness of Sherif’s study in terms of reliability?
-Tyerman and Spencer (1983) replicated the study with 30 sea troop boys. The 30 boys each belonged to 4 patrols within the troop.
-They knew each other very well. At their annual two week camp, Tyerman noticed that during the competition phase ingroup solidarity did not increase, in fact it decreased slightly.
-Prejudice did not increase against the other group in the competition phase.
What is a strength of the study’s application?
-Aronson and Bridgemen (1979) used the idea of superordinate goals to reduce prejudice in an American classroom.
-Class worked together in a jigsaw activity.
-Their shared goals was to each take responsibility for a group project.
-End result was increased liking and empathy for the outgroup, showing a reduction in prejudice.
-Application of Sherif’s findings is a strength as they are useful for society because the results on the causes of prejudice and how to reduce it can be used to help decrease problems caused bu prejudice in society.
