classic study: sherif 1954

Question 1

What was the aim of Sherif et al.

Answer 1

Aimed to explore how competition and frustration of a group’s goals can lead to unfavourable stereotyping and prejudiced attitudes towards an outgroup, and encourage in group solidarity and cooperation

Question 2

What kind of experiment and observation does Sherif use

Answer 2

Field experiment, non-participant covert observation, matched-pairs (boys matched so both groups had equivalent abilities)

Question 3

independent variable - Sherif

Answer 3

Whether atmosphere at the camp was competition or cooperation

Question 4

Dependent variable - Sherif

Answer 4

There were many different ones, e.g. number of friends identified in the outgroup

Question 5

Sample

Answer 5

22 participants. Protestant middle-class 11-year-old boys from Oklahoma, America
All socially and emotionally well-adjusted, none knew each other prior to camp

Question 6

Type of data collected

Answer 6

Qualitative: covert observation and recordings
Quantitative - ranked scales to measure boy’s beliefs about each other, questionnaires (e.g. how long a tug of war lasted)

Question 7

Three stages of the study

Answer 7

Stage 1: group formation
Stage 2: friction
Stage 3: reducing friction

Question 8

Procedure of Stage 1: group formation

Answer 8

Boys took part in team-building activities within their groups (‘The Rattlers’ or ‘The Eagles’).
This included canoeing, tent pitching, building campfires, etc.
*2 eagles went home due to home sickness

Question 9

Procedure of Stage 2: Friction

Answer 9

The groups learnt each other’s existence.
Researchers created a tournament with prizes of medals and trophy for the winners
Contests included tug of war, baseball and tent pitching
Extra points awarded for cabin inspections, comedy sketches and a treasure hunt

Question 10

Procedure of stage 3: reducing friction

Answer 10

initial tasks involved increased social contact (e.g. eating or watching a movie together)
Later superordinate goals were introduced - tasks that required in inter group cooperation (e.g. mending a broken water supply and starting a broken-down truck)

Question 11

Findings of stage 1: group formation

Answer 11

Groups called themselves ‘the rattlers’ and ‘the eagles’
Leaders were established and differing social norms were apparent - rattlers were tough and swore a lot while Eagles cried more when injured and were anti-swearing

Question 12

Findings of stage 2: friction

Answer 12

After finding out the existence of each other, both groups wanted to challenge each other to a baseball contest and hostility developed rapidly.
There was name calling, fights and scuffles, they raided and trashed each other’s cabins
Ranked scales showed more in group members were seen as brave and friendly while outgroup members were seen as sneaky or stinkers.
Only 6.4% of Rattler’s friends were Eagles and 7.5% of Eagles friends were Rattlers

Question 13

Findings of stage 3: reducing friction

Answer 13

Social contact and superordinate tasks initially did little to reduce friction
After fixing water supply, groups were hurling insults again.
After fixing the truck, boys made dinner together and hostility was greatly reduced
Boys entertained each other around the campfire and left the camp as friends
Outgroup friendships increased - 36.4% of Rattler’s friends were now Eagles and 23.2% of Eagles’ friends were Rattlers

Question 14

conclusion

Answer 14

Inter group competition leads to increased in group favouritism and solidarity but also to outgroup hostility
Increased social contact not enough to reduce prejudice, but a series of superordinate goals can reduce prejudice effectively