1.3 Social studies Flashcards
What is your social classic study? (just name it)
Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robber’s cave experiment (Sherif et al., 1954, 1961)
What is the aim of your social classic study?
- Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robber’s cave experiment (Sherif et al., 1954, 1961) -
To investigate intergroup relations over a period of time.
To investigate the effect of competition + conditions which conflict could be resolved.
What is the procedure of your social classic study?
- Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robber’s cave experiment (Sherif et al., 1954, 1961) -
Pps:
- Opportunity sample
- 22 boys (initially 200)
- 11 yrs old (one 12 yr old)
- Oklahoma
- Didn’t know each other before the experiment
- 2 groups, matched on educational + athletic ability
Parents were paid $25 to not visit the camp. (incentivise)
STAGE 1
- 5-6 days, boys kept separate in 2 groups
- Encouraged in-group formation
- Researchers observed. verbal + non-verbal communication
- Sociometric data was gathered hoy. boys rated. each other
STAGE 2
- 4-6 days, 2 groups made contact
- Competed against one another for camp tournament
- Recorded stereotypes + behaviours + attitudes
STAGE 3 - 6-7 days, conflict resolution - by superordinate goals (fixing water tank) (starting broken camp bus) (1 joint group worked for food, etc.)
What is the findings of your social classic study?
- Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robber’s cave experiment (Sherif et al., 1954, 1961) -
STAGE 1
- Boys made own ruled + group norms in their groups, which formed their group identity
- Named themselves ‘Rattlers’ + ‘Eagles’
- ‘Us’ and ‘them’ attitude by stage 2
STAGE 2
- Hostile to other group, territorial
- Eagles brined rattlers camp flag
- In-group favouritism, negative out-group bias
- Name calling, derogatory terms
- Camp raids
- 93% selected only in-group as friends
STAGE 3
- Found significant increase in friendships made with out-group
What is the conclusion of your social classic study?
- Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robber’s cave experiment (Sherif et al., 1954, 1961) -
- Strong in-group intensities initially formed
- Competition -> negative out-group bias
- Superordinate goals reduced this
SUPPORTS REALISTIC CONFLICT THEORY
Evaluate your social classic study.
- Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robber’s cave experiment (Sherif et al., 1954, 1961) -
GENERALISIBILITY
+ve:
- Decreased individual differences: 2 groups were matched based on (age, IQ, gender, social class, religion)
- ve:
- Only boys used, sample insufficient + gender biased, meaning results may not be generalisable.
- Sherif selected boys who had good athletic ability and were keen on sport, this could explain the degree of conflict between the boys, as they were naturally competitive.
RELIABILITY
- ve:
- Later revealed researchers might have been encouraging behaviour (intergroup hostility) and creating opportunities for conflict (by breaking tents of a rival group and blaming the other group)
APPLICATION
+ve:
- Intergroup hostility at end of stage 1 at mere knowledge of other group, even before competition. Competition not necessary to create prejudice, merely crystallised later on in stage 2.
VALIDITY
+ve:
- High ecological validity, took place in a natural environment for the boys, behaviour observed between boys was relatively naturally occurring.
- Researchers used a high level of control + careful planning at each stage. Staff were Pp observers in the study, so boys were unaware they were being observed. Staff were only permitted to intervene in decision making and conflict between the groups when there was a risk to safety. This ensures the researchers did not direct the behaviours of the boys.
- ve:
- ^ However, some boys interviewed years later indicated. they were aware of audio equipment in the dining hall + staff taking notes about behaviour.
ETHICS
- ve:
- No informed consent form boys, parents had consented but boys didn’t know they were in the study.
- Boys were decepted: they thought the. study was about leadership.
(on page 59 in thick blue text book for whole thing)
What is sociometric data?
Quantitative data gathered about personal/social relationships.
What is your social contemporary study? (just name it)
Burger (2009)
Replicating Milgram
What is the aim of your social contemporary study?
Burger (2009)
To investigate obedience by partially replication Milgram to examine whether situational factors affect obedience to an authoritative figure.
What is the procedure of your social contemporary study?
Burger (2009)
Pps:
- 29 males
- 41 females (70 in total)
- 20-81 yrs old
- Volunteer sampling
- Screened (hadn’t seen Milgram, no psychological problems) (see page 60 in the thick blue text book for screening process)
STUDY 1
- Pps signed consent form
- Followed Milgram’s procedure (some 4 prods)
- 15v sample shock
- 150v learner complained of heart problems
- If teacher continued after 150v the experiment stopped
- Debriefed.
STUDY 2
- Actor as teacher (confederate) stops at 70v
- Pp asked to continue
(see page 61 in the thick blue text book)
What is the findings of your social contemporary study?
Burger (2009)
STUDY 1
70% had to be stopped (fully obedient)
STUDY 2
63.3% continued to 150v (fully obedient)
What is the conclusion of your social contemporary study?
Burger (2009)
Both experiments were similar to Milgram’s.
Time + changes in society’s culture had no effect on obedience, nor did the refusal of the confederate.
Evaluate your social contemporary study.
Burger (2009)
GENERALISABILITY
+ve:
- More diverse sample, all ages and ethnicities, greater generalisability.
VALIDITY
- ve:
- Pps only went to 150v, Burger assumed that after this voltage there was a ‘point of no return’, however we cannot be certain that the Pps would have continued to obey.
- Lacks. ecological. validity, lab experiment, unlike real-life obedience, lacks mundane realism.
ETHICS
+ve:
- Screened Pps, ensured Pps deemed. unsuitable for study did not take part.
- Pps told 3 times before study that they could leave at any point without consequence, ensuring their right to withdraw
- Pps only given 15v sample shock, ensuring they weren’t harmed
- Clinical. psychologist informed to stop study if they detected excessive stress.
- Pps debriefed, alleviated any distress or anxiety caused.
- ve:
- Pps deliberately placed into situation that causes anxiety
- Used 4 prods which made Pps feel they did not have the right to withdraw
(see page 62 in the thick blue text book)
