1.3.1 The Robbers Cave Experiment

Question 1

Who conducted the robbers cave experiment

Answer 1

Sherif et al (1954)

Question 2

State the aims of the study

Answer 2

To investigate whether in-group and out-group conflict can be produced in groups with no prior relationships and how it can be reduced

Question 3

Explain one strength of the study by Sherif et al. (1954/1961) in terms of validity.

Answer 3

The study has high ecological validity as it is representative of a real-life situation. Sherif et al. used a Boy Scout camp in America which was realistic for the boys in the study.

Question 4

Explain one weakness of the study by Sherif et al. (1954/1961) in terms of ethical issues.

Answer 4

There was a risk of potential physical and/or psychological harm to participants as the boys raided the camps of the other group which could have resulted in injury.

Question 5

Why are the results not generalisable? (sample)

Answer 5

Because the research used only 12-year-old white middle-class boys and excluded, for example, girls and adults. The two groups of boys in the study were artificial, as was the competition, and did not necessarily reflect real life. For example, middle-class boys randomly assigned into two separate groups is not rival inner-city gangs or rival football supporters.

Question 6

Why is the study replicable?

Answer 6

Each phase was standardised (eg knives awarded at a specific stage) BUT setting, weather an participants are hard to control

Question 7

Why is the reliability low?

Answer 7

Tyeman & Spenser (1983) repeated with British boy scouts and got very different results

Question 8

Why is the objectivity low?

Answer 8

the researchers had preconceived ideas going into the study, also they did not categorise what would be considered aggressive beforehand eg ‘punching is aggressive behaviour, verbal abuse is not’

Question 9

Why is the validity low?

Answer 9

Years later, in an interview, some boys said that the researchers egged them on to be aggressive towards each other

Question 10

Where can we see the right to withdraw?

Answer 10

2 boys felt homesick and were allowed to leave

Question 11

Evaluation plan for Robbers Cave Experiment

Answer 11

AO1 POINTS
• Participants were 22 middle-class white boys with similar background;
• Field study of boys in a summer camp environment;
• Randomly assigned to groups but reasons for this not explained;
• No right to withdraw as the boys could not decide to leave the study.

AO3 POINTS
• Poor generalisability from sample of just boys/middle-class/white/not representative of population/girls/all social class groups.
• High ecological validity as a natural environment reduces mundane realism.
• The boys were not aware of the study so demand characteristics reduced.
• Deception involved as the boys did not know they were doing this to study effect of in-group and out-group.

CONCLUSION:
The study showed that in-group and out-group conflict can be produced in groups with no prior relationships for this specific group of children, it does not prove that the same conflict can be produced in real world situations because the research used only 12 year old white middle class boys and excluded, for example, girls and adults. The two groups of boys in the study were artificial, as was the competition, and did not necessarily reflect real life. For example, middle class boys randomly assigned into two separate groups is not rival inner city gangs, or rival football supporters.

Question 12

Phase 1

Answer 12

• In group formation 5-6 days
• 2 groups kept separate and enouraged to cooperate and bonf with eouchother through activities like hiking and swimming
• Boys quickly developed group attachment to their groups
• established culture and group norms, named themselevd the eagles and the rattlers

Question 13

Phase 2

Answer 13

• Friction phase 4-6 days
• competition introduced between the two groups (baseball, tug of war)
• prizes: trophies, pocket knives
• gains were always at the expense of the other group: picnic
• prejudice began as verbal and became physical
• eagles burned rattlers flag
• rattlers ransacked eagles cabun and stole precious items
• physical fights that reasearchers had to break up

Question 14

Phase 3

Answer 14

• Conflict resolution 6-7 days
• strategies to reduce tension (firecrackers 4th july) didnt work
• superordinate goals inroduced 1) boys had to work together to restore the water supply, after this the rattlers even allowed the eagles to drink first. 2) boys had to work together to secure a movie, both agreed on a mobie and split the bill - at dinner that night they ate together peacefully with fewer fightss

Question 15

What was the sample used in this study?

Answer 15

• 22 pps
• 11 year old white boys
• protestant
• high IQs
• boys grouped according to similar sporting ability
• naive pps
• oppertunity sample