1.3.2 - Sherif et al: The Robbers Cave experiment Flashcards
what was the aim of the study?
to show how easily groups can turn on each other to fight for limited resources, but also how easily they can put aside their differences to work towards a common goal
what type of experiment was the study?
field experiment (took place at a summer camp - Robbers Cave state park)
what was the sample in the study?
24 middle class, Protestant, 11 year old boys from Oklahoma, selected by opportunity sampling
they were divided into two groups with equivalent IQs and sporting abilities
two boys from the Eagles went home during stage 1 due to homesickness, reducing sample to 22
what was the procedure for stage 1 (group formation)?
the boys took part in non-competitive activities so they could bond with their groups eg. canoeing, tent pitching, building campfires
what was the procedure for stage 2 (friction phase)?
each group learned of the others’ existence and they took part in a tournament against each other with prizes of medals and a trophy
the contests included tug of war, baseball and tent pitching, with extra points for things like a treasure hunt
what was the procedure for stage 3 (integration/reducing friction phase)?
initial tasks involved increased social contact between the groups, like eating or watching a movie together
Sherif then introduced superordinate goals (those which require intergroup cooperation) eg. mending a broken water supply, starting a broken-down truck
what were the results for stage 1?
the groups named themselves (Eagles and Rattlers), established leaders, and it became clear that there were different social norms in each group eg. Rattlers swore a lot, Eagles were anti-swearing
what were the results for stage 2?
when the groups learned of each other’s existence they wanted a baseball contest
hostility developed immediately - there was name calling and fights
the Eagles burned the Rattlers’ flag, and the Rattlers raided the Eagles’ cabins, taking their possessions
what were the results for stage 3?
the social contact and superordinate tasks didn’t really reduce friction at first (after fixing the water supply, they started insulting each other again)
however after mending the truck, they made dinner together and were less hostile, and by the end they left as friends on the same bus
what are examples of qualitative and quantitive data collected during the study?
stage 2 - ranked scales showed in-group members were seen as brave, while outgroup members were likely to be seen as sneaky
stage 2 - 6.4% of Rattlers’ friends were Eagles and 7.5% of Eagles’ friends were Rattlers
stage 3 - 36.4% of Rattlers’ friend were Eagles and 23.2% of Eagles’ friends were Rattlers
what were the conclusions for the study?
intergroup competition leads to in-group solidarity and outgrip hostility
increased social contact alone isn’t enough to reduce prejudice
prejudice can be reduced when groups must work together towards superordinate goals
evaluation - generalisability?
strengths:
took place in summer camp and activities were typical of this setting so high ecological validity
weaknesses:
sample not generalisable because it was fairly small and participants had many similar characteristics (can’t understand prejudice in other cultures, genders etc)
evaluation - reliability?
strengths:
many research methods were used and the results between them were consistent (triangulation)
control variables eg. groups of equivalent abilities minimise participant variables (you can be sure prejudice is due to competition)
weaknesses:
difficult for others to replicate so reliability can’t be shown
evaluation - validity?
strengths:
participants didn’t know each other (if they did it would be an extraneous variable)
some data was quantitative so less open to researcher bias
used many research methods which overcomes any issues with each method
high internal validity because control variables meant Sherif could be sure prejudice was due to competition
weaknesses:
field experiment means Sherif had less control (may have led to extraneous variables)
evaluation - ethics?
strengths:
obtained consent from parents as participants were children (although this wasn’t fully informed)
2 participants left showing right to withdraw/responsibility
weaknesses:
boys didn’t know they were being observed - breaches informed consent/deception/integrity -> justified because if they’d known about study it would lead to demand characteristics
participants exposed to aggression in stage 2 - breaches protection from harm/responsibility -> justified because boys had to be allowed to show natural behaviours so Sherif could observe effects of the competition
