1.3.1 classic study Flashcards
What is the classic study called
robbers cave experiment by sherif et al 1954/1961
what was the hypothesis
when two in groups are brought into functional relationship under conditions of competition and group frustration, attitudes and appropriate hostile actions in relation to the out group and its members will arise; these will be standardised and shared in varying degrees by group members
for an eight marker describe the robbers cave experiment A01 (short)
The robbers cave experiment was a study that looked at how conflicts develop between groups. The research is divided boys at a summer camp into two groups, and they studied how conflict developed between them. The study was a field experiment and that therefore meant it had high ecological validity
what was the aim
To find out what factors make two groups develop hostile relationships and then to see how this hostility can be reduced. Specifically, to see if two groups of boys can be manipulated into conflict through competition and then conflict resolution by working together.
what was the sample size
24 participants (11-year-old white middle class boys) who were selected by opportunity sampling. They were split into two evenly-matched groups of boys . The boys called themselves the “Rattlers” and the “Eagles”.
Two boys later left (from the Eagles) due to homesickness, reducing the sample to 22 by the end of Phase 1.
what was the procedure
The boys arrived on separate buses and settled into their cabins on two sites. They were unaware of the other group, thinking they were alone at the park. Each group had junior camp counselors who lived with the boys and supervised their activities and senior camp counselors who were participant observers who stayed with the boys for 12 hours a day. Sherif was very clear that he did not want his observers to influence the boys in any way:
Ingroup Formation lasted a week: Each group had tasks to accomplish (eg a treasure hunt with a $10 prize). During this time the boys gave their groups names and discovered the existence of the other group; they immediately requested a baseball game against the other group.
The friction phase involved a tournament between the two groups: This involved sports like baseball, tug-of-war and scavenger hunt but also experimental tests, like a bean-counting competition. A trophy was promised for the winners along with prizes like knives and medals.
In the integration phase, Sherif tried to bring the two groups together. He tried “mere contact” by allowing the groups to have dinners and watch films together in the recreation hall. When this failed, he took a different approach, blocking the water pipe to the camp which forced the boys to work together to find the broken portion of pipe. Other tasks involved choosing films to watch together, cooperating to pull a (supposedly) broken-down truck and pitching tents with missing parts.
what were the results
Sherif found that the boys required little encouragement to be competitive. As soon as they found out about another group in the park, they resorted to “us-and-them” language and wanted a baseball match – so the boys themselves initiated the start of the friction phase.
In the friction phase, the two groups met for baseball and name-calling started immediately.
The Eagles burned the Rattlers’ flag and the Rattlers retaliated by doing the same.
After their second flag was destroyed, the Rattlers did a night raid on the Eagle’s cabins, stealing comics and overturning beds
The Eagles launched their own raid, but brought bats with them for maximum destruction
When the Eagles won the tournament, the Rattlers stole their prizes (medals and knives)
In the integration phase, the shared films and meals deteriorated into name-called and food-fights. The shared task fixing the water pipe produced cooperation, but another food fight followed. However, each shared task led to reduced hostility. By the end, the Rattlers shared $5 they had won to buy soft drinks for everyone.
what did sherif conclude
Sherif regards the study as proving his hypotheses about intergroup behaviour – especially Realistic Conflict Theory.
The groups formed quickly, with hierarchies, without any encouragement from the adults.
When the groups meet in competitive situations, ingroup solidarity increases as does outgroup hostility.
Friction is reduced when the two groups are forced to cooperate, negotiate and share. Sherif calls this working towards “superordinate goals”
An important conclusion from the study is that, although intergroup conflict is inevitable when competition is present, it can be reduced.
evaluate the robbers cave experiment conducted by sherif et al (8 marks)
The study was a field experiment and that therefore means it had high ecological validity. However in the original paper it says the boys needed serious provocation in order to trigger any explicit display of prejudice/discrimination. The experimenter then had to secretly raid one groups cabin to make it appear that the other group had attacked them. Thus stating inter group competition did not lead to hostility and experimenters could have skewed the results by submerging themselves into the experiment.
also another weakness of the study is the ethical issues that surround it. for example there is no mention of a debrief in the study so it may not of happened, also participants were relatively deceived as they didn’t know the true aim of the study, and one might say the participants were not protected from physical and psychological harm.
moreover another weakness is the fact it can’t be generalised as they only use 11-year-old white middle-class boys which limits the generalisability as you can’t relate it to girls or adults. Also 22 boys is not a large sample so anomalies like bullies could skew the results. However sherif went to lengths to screen the boys beforehand, removing any from troubled background/antisocial behaviour which is a positive for the study
furthermore another weakness of the study is that it has limited reliability. Observers were only with the boys for 12 hours a day so could not see or overhear everything that went on. Despite this sherif made the study more reliable by using a numbered scoring system quantitive data and they did have increased inter rated reliability. In fact the range of data collection methods allowed results to be compared which insures validity and is a strength of the study and also the study was carefully planned and controlled.
Moreover another strength is that it supports realistic conflict theory as the findings demonstrate that competition does lead to intergroup hostility and prejudice as the theory suggests
