Classic study: Sherif

Question 1

Aim

Answer 1

• if creating in-groups and opposing out-groups would cause prejudice in a group of boys
• If introducing competition would increase prejudice
• If a super-ordinate goal would decrease prejudice

Question 2

Sample

Answer 2

• 22 boys aged 11
• From Protestant Oklahoma families
• Matched on IQ + sporting ability
• Unaware of study taking place

Question 3

Where did the study take place?

Answer 3

A summer camp in Robbers Cave, Oklahoma

Question 4

Methods of measurement

Answer 4

• Observation
• Sociometric data
• Experiments
• Audio recording

Question 5

Observation

Answer 5

A participant observer was allocated to each group for 12 hours a day

Question 6

Sociometric analysis

Answer 6

issues such as friendship patterns were noted and studied

Question 7

Experiment

Answer 7

e.g. boys had to collect beans and estimate how many each boy had collected

Question 8

Tape recordings

Answer 8

adjectives and phrases used to refer to boys ingroup and to outgroup members were recorded

Question 9

Procedure

Answer 9

Stage One: In-groups were created by making tasks that required in-group cooperation
Stage Two: The two groups were brought together for competition
Stage three: Superordinate goals were introduced

Question 10

Stage 1

Answer 10

During the first 5-6 days of the two-week camp, the two groups of boys were kept separate from each-other and each group were involved in activities designed to encourage in-group formation

Question 11

Stage 2

Answer 11

Two groups were brought together during competition over the next 4-6 days. Groups were subject to orchestrated situations that they would find frustrated and believe were caused by the other group. Stereotypes, behaviours and attitudes between each group were recorded

Question 12

Stage 3

Answer 12

The final 6-7 days- conflict resolution. Three problem situations were set up that could only be resolved if both groups worked together:

1. fixing the water tank that provided water to both groups
2. A joint camp- over where group members had to work together for food and sleeping gear
3. Starting the broken- down camp bus

Question 13

What prejudice behaviours did the boy show?

Answer 13

Fighting
Name calling (stinkers, sissies)
Eagles burnt the Rattlers’ camp flag
Camp raids
Choosing in group members as best friends

Question 14

Numerical results

Answer 14

When asked who their friends were out of all the boys 93% selected exclusively from their in-group

Question 15

What was the effect of going to the cinema together?

Answer 15

There was a noticeable reduction in hostility during supper and the boys took turns at breakfast the next day

Question 16

What were the super-ordinate goals?

Answer 16

1. Fixing the water tank that provided water to both groups
2. A joint camp-over where group members had to work together for food and sleeping gear
3. Starting the broken-down camp bus

Question 17

Results

Answer 17

Significant increase in the number of boys whose friendships were now with the out-group compared to the choses made in stage two

Question 18

2-3 weaknesses about the sample?

Answer 18

Gender biased (only boys)
All from the same area
All Christian

Question 19

One strength of the sample

Answer 19

Real people, no social desirability

Question 20

Reliability

Answer 20

Was in a naturalistic setting so there was less control

Some boys were aware of audio equipment- reduces reliability

Question 21

What real world events can this be applied to??

Answer 21

We see these groups in society today, and often see examples of groups having to work together and changing attitudes as a result of this

Question 22

How is this high in validity?

Answer 22

Used participant observers to ensure no experimenter bias = increased validity

Participants did not know they were part of an experiment, so their behaviour was natural = higher validity

Several data collection methods were used = higher validity