Classic study - Sherif Flashcards
What were the 2 aims ?
- Produce group norms & measure effects on perceptions & judgements
- See how in group behaviour developed to include related out group hostility & how friction could be reduced
What was the IV ?
Stage of experiment
What was the DV ?
Observing boys behaviour & friendship patterns by tape recording their conversations
What did the questionnaire the boys’ completed measure ?
Attitudes on their own group & other group
What experimental design was used ?
Repeated measures design
What was the experiment ?
Field experiment
How many participants were there ?
Orignally 24, 2 boys dropped out in Eagles due to homesickness at end of Phase 1
How old were the participants ?
12 years old
What sampling technique was used ?
Opportunity sampling
What backgrounds did the boys have ?
Middle class, Protestant, two parent background
Were the boys known to each other or informed of aims before the study ?
No
How were the boys matched ?
IQ & sporting ability, rated by teachers
What were the boys screened on ?
Problems at home & difficulties in attitudes/behaviour
How were boys assigned to each group ?
Random selection
Where did the study happen ?
200 acre Boy Scouts of American camp in Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma
What were the 3 phases ?
- In group formation
- Friction phase
- Integration Phase
What happened in Phase 1 ?
- Kept separate for 1 week to bond as individual groups
- Bonded through pursuit of common goals
- Quickly established norms by hiking, swimming
- Chose name for groups & stencilled onto shirts & flags
- Gave recognised leader
What were the 2 groups called ?
The Rattlers & The Eagles
What happened when the groups were made aware of each others presence ?
- Rattlers = ‘they had better not be in our swimming hole’
- Eagles didn’t discuss Rattlers as much but wanted to engage in competition
- Eagles invited Rattlers to play games against them
- Group stereotypes emerged
What happened in Phase 2 ?
- 4-6 days
- Series of competitive activities with trophy on basis of accumulated team score
- Individual prizes for winning group
What were individual prizes ?
Medal & multi bladed pocket knife
Why did some events have to be modified ?
Not appealing to subjects & some decided were hazardous
What were some examples of competitive games ?
Tug of war, baseball, tent pitching
What did the ‘collecting of beans’ experiment show ?
To see if boys estimated abilities of in group member & minimised abilities on out-group member (beans were the same)
What acts of violence were shown ?
- Verbally expressed at first (taunting, name calling)
- Eagles burned Rattler’s flag
- Rattler’s ransacked Eagle’s cabin
- Researchers had to physically separate them
What were the out-group friendship choices at the end of stage 2 ?
Rattlers = 6.4%
Eagles = 7.5%
What happened during their two day cooling off period ?
- Listed features of 2 groups
- In-group in favoured terms
- Out-group unfavourable terms (‘braggers’, holding noses in their vicinity)
What did groups eventually object to ?
Eating in the same mess hall at the same time
What did Sherif do to increase cooperation ?
Superordinate goals
What happened during phase 3 ?
- Superordinate goals
- Water shortage problem & ‘broken down’ camp truck
What did the boys insist after superordinate goals ?
All ride back home on the same bus
What were the out-group friendship choices after end of phase 3 ?
Rattlers = 36.4%
Eagles = 23.2%
What did the findings conclude ?
- Supports Realistic Conflict Theory
- Increased contact not enough to reduce conflict
- Superordinate goals reduce conflict
- People overestimate abilities of their group & minimise abilities of out-group
How is the study low in generalisability ?
- Only 12 year old boys
- Homogenous group
- Cant generalise to other ages, genders, backgrounds, times or countries
How is the study low is reliability ?
- Field experiment
- Many uncontrolled extraneous variables in natural environment
- Cant replicate conditions exactly
How is the study high in reliability ?
- Standardised procedures during phase 1
- Named Eagles & Rattlers, stencilled shirts & flags
- Easily replicated to test for the consistency of the results
What are applications of the study ?
- Offers explanation for origin of prejudice
- Offers ways to reduce it
- Aronson’s jigsaw classroom technique = split into groups, individual members break off to work with ‘experts’ with other groups & be role of instructor to return to starting group
How is the study high in internal validity in terms of prejudice ?
- No pre-existing prejudice beforehand
- Prejudice generated during the scenario
- Can infer cause & relationship between prejudice & competition
How is the study high in ecological validity ?
- Field experiment
- Can observe natural behaviour
- Removes demand characteristics
How does the study lack internal validity ?
- No control group
- Reduce ability to infer cause & effect
How does the study lack internal validity in terms of observing ?
- Only observed 12 hours a day
- Tape recordings
- Cant observe all behaviours
How is the study high in internal validity in terms of matched pairs ?
- Careful matching
- Individual differences not affect results
- Enables cause & effect
How does the study lack mundane realism ?
- Summer camp not like real life prejudice
- Prejudice only developed over 2 week period
How is the study reductionist ?
- Aim to study boys’ whole behaviour in situation they created in their field experiment
- Less scientific & holism valued more
How is the study unethical in terms of consent ?
- Boys unaware they were taking part & deceived
- Believed it was a real summer camp
How is the study ethically sound ?
- Informed consent collected from parents prior to study
How is the study unethical in terms of harm ?
- Physical & psychological harm
- Fights broke out
- Purposeful creation of hostility & tension
