Classic study - Sherif (1954-61)

Question 1

Outline the 1st summer camp study in Connecticut - 1949

Answer 1

• attempts to restore harmony by giving boys a “common enemy” to unit against = by beating a softball team outside the camp….

but hostilities still remained between red devils and bull dogs so it failed

Question 2

Outline the 1st summer camp study in New York - 1953

Answer 2

• was called off = owing to various difficulties and unfavourable conditions + error of judgement in direction of the experiment
• demand characteristics was high as the goal was found out

Question 3

Define in-groups and out-groups

Answer 3

1. the group your associated with

2. the groups that outside of your current one

Question 4

Define super ordinate goals

Answer 4

to encourage co-operation between the group in order to reduce group hostility/prejudice

Question 5

Describe the 2 aims

Answer 5

• investigate prejudice group norms and to measure their effects on the proceptions and judgement of those involved
• how in-group behaviour developed to include related out-group hostility and how friction could be reduce (to see if super ordinate goals work in reducing prejudice)

Question 6

Sample

Answer 6

• 200 kids of diff schools district and used stratified sampling + doesn’t know each other
• only 22/200 participated, everyone as 11 and 1 was 12
• similar family background = middle class protestant families from schools in Oklahoma city.
• similar sporting abilities + matched IQ (average = 112)
• was 24 but 2 dipped due to home sickness (at the end of phase 1)

Question 7

Give a definition for each phases

Answer 7

Phase 1: in-group formation (get to know each other in the group)

• group established names and acknowledged others group thus baseball game was requested
• had task to complete

Phase 2: the friction phase (fight each other through predetermined competition or own members actions)

• tournament between the 2 groups (sports = baseball, tug of war, scavenger hunt and some experimenter* tests)
• treasure hunt of $10 prize + trophies

Phase 3: an integration phase (conflict resolved = prejudice reduced)
- tries to bring group together (mere contact) by having dinner and watching movies together -> failed -> fixed water tanks, pushed stuck truck etc

Question 8

How was the data collected?

Answer 8

observation - participant type observer for each group

sociometrical analysis - issues of friendship patterns were noted and studied

Experimental* - boys had to collect beans and estimate how many each had collected

photos/tape recordings - adjectives and phrases used to refer to their own group members and to out-group members were examined

Question 9

Conclusions

Answer 9

• show that a conflict of interest/competition between group can cause prejudiced attitudes and discriminatory behaviour
• confirmed sherif’s R.C.T
• increased contact is not enough to reduce conflict but that working together towards a super ordinate goals can
• people tend to overestimate the abilities of their group and minimise the abilities of the out-group

Question 10

Strengths

• these will be asses/evaluation points

Answer 10

1. Sherif made sure that both groups went through all 3 stages at the same time, the standardisation allows the study to be replicated in other cultures to see if culture has an influence on prejudice. This study can therefore be replicated to test for reliability.
2. However reliability of the findings can be questioned as both teams asked for baseball tournaments which were not planned. These participant based events may not be consistent in other studies as the boys in this study chose to compete out of their own free will.
3. An example of supporting research is the Social Identity Theory - each phase of the procedure in Sherif’s study is able to prove a concept in the Social Identity Theory. During the friction phase, which intended to bring ‘The Rattlers’ and ‘The Eagles’ together and make them aware of each other’s existence, out-group negative bias started to develop through name-calling (e.g. “sneaks”, “smart alecks” and “stinkers”), fights and even raids on the other groups cabin to steal their possessions. This links to the third stage of the SIT, social comparison, where out-group negative bias is expected and the two groups identify each other as rivals.This supporting research increases the reliability of the qualitative data collected from Sherif.
4. In addition the ‘Blue eyes/Brown eyes’ study carried out by Jane Elliott also demonstrates how prejudicial behaviour develops e.g. will copy off others in order to fit in (fits in with the SIT and social identification phase) or will imitate the behaviour of an authority figure.
5. A strength to the study is that superordinate goals can be used to reduce prejudice between social groups from Sherif’s results. For example, jigsaw classrooms were developed to tackle racial prejudice in American schools by having students work together in a group project, which ultimately increased liking and empathy for outgroup members and improved academic performance for black minority students. This then means that Sherif’s study led to useful interventions which helped students from ethnic minorities not be held back by discrimination from their peers.
6. However, there is no guarantee that superordinate goals will work when the individuals leave that situation or environment. Their prejudice may only have reduced towards the people they are working with and not the group of people in general. In addition, they cannot always be set up between all groups, where failure in achieving them can cause worse prejudice. This then lack application to real life for the study.
7. A strength of the study is that it has high ecological validity. The participants were observed in their natural environment (summer camp), taking part in their everyday activities such as baseball and tug of war. Therefore, this increases the validity of the results, as they were more likely to display natural behaviour.
8. However, the study had done many everyday tasks, which reduces the control over confounding variables, making the study less scientific.
9. A strength of this study is that the researchers had control over extraneous variables such as contact outside the camp as parents weren’t allowed to call the 22 boys whilst they were away.
   This reduced demand characteristics as parents knew the real purpose of the boys camp and couldn’t tell them how to act meaning everything the boys did was natural increasing the studies validity and shows the data collected on prejudice is accurate.

Question 11

Weaknesses

• these will be asses/evaluation points

Answer 11

1. A weakness of this study is that it only had male participants no females. This is a weakness because it makes the results harder to generalise to a wider population because it can only apply to males. Also that all the males were young it wouldn’t apply to adult males either as they mature as they grow older and young males tend to behave different to older males.
2. However, the results of this study can apply the results to younger males to help resolve issues in schools for example.
3. A weakness of this study is that it has a small sample size as there were 22 participants in total and 11 per group. This is a weakness because it makes the results collected harder to generalise to many people in society. Quantitative data will be affected if any anomalies occur and this will reduce validity as they will be noticeable in the results.
4. However , this also has a practical strength by which if Sherif used a larger sample then the participants may be a lot harder to control and smaller in-groups may occur within the groups which will affect the study’s results. Therefore having a smaller sample is a strength.
5. the sample was screened for their sporting abilities and participants chosen were quite sporty. This makes the sample biased as it lacks generalisability of findings to non sporty people in the population.
6. In addition to this, using only sporty people sample lowers the control over confounding variables as sporty people tend to be more competitive than other areas of interest people so results might not be due to manipulation lowering the chance of cause and effect being established.
7. The study lacked a proper scientific standardised procedure. For example, there was an unplanned baseball tournament that the participants created, which may not be consistent in other groups. Therefore, it limits the replicability of the study and lowers the reliability- because we can’t confirm the results
8. However, Sheriff did try to make the study more reliable. He used a numbered scoring system for the boys’ friendship patterns, which collect quantitative data. He also used multiple observers on several occasions, creating inter-rater reliability and where possible, he tape recorded the boys’ conversations, so they could be played back and analysed later.
9. A weakness to the study is that Tajfel conducted a minimal group experiment that showed prejudice can arise from simple act of perceiving someone as different to you. This study showed that boys will treat others differently on the basis of information about group membership alone suggesting that the competition aspect of Sherifs experiment is of no significance and that prejudice is more based on who we are and our self worth.