Classic study - Sherif et al Flashcards
What is the background of the study?
Conducted by Muzafer Sherif.
Intergroup study.
Explores RCT.
Divide people into in-groups and outgroups.
Conducted in 3 phrases with a Repeated Measures design.
Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma.
Parents couldn’t visit children due to extraneous variables.
Participants chosen were all white, Protestant families, high IQ, similar sporting abilities, to get rid of individual differences.
What was the aim of the study?
To see of two groups of boys can be manipulated into conflict through competition and then conflict resolution by working together.
What is the IV?
The stage of the experiment:
1) Ingroup formation
2) Friction phase
3) Integration phase
What is the DV?
Intergroup behaviour was measured by observing behaviour and friendship patterns, tape recording their conversations and recording the phrases they used.
The boys also filled out questionnaires on their attitudes to their own group and the other group.
What was the sample?
24 11-year-old boys were selected using opportunity sampling.
They were split into two groups: Rattlers and Eagles.
Two boys later left due to homesickness, leaving the sample to 22.
What was the procedure?
The boys arrived on separate buses and settled into their cabins on two sites. They were unaware of the other group. There were participant observers who stayed with the boys 12 hours a day but didn’t influence them.
1) Intergroup formation lasted a week. Each group had tasks to accomplish (eg a treasure hunt with a $10 prize). The boys discovered the other group and immediately requested a baseball match.
2) The friction phase involved a tournament between the groups (baseball, tug of war, scavenger hunt, bean-counting) and a trophy was promised for the winners.
3) In the integration phase, Sherif tried to bring the two groups together. Tried “mere contact” by allowing the boys to eat dinner together and watch films together. When this failed, he blocked the water wipe and forced the boys to work together to fix it. Other tasks involved picking which films to watch together and cooperating to pull a broken truck together.
What were the results?
The boys required little encouragement to be competitive.
The reported to “us-and-them” language and wanted a baseball match, they initiated the friction phase themselves.
Started name-calling immediately at the baseball match.
They burned each others flags.
After their second flag was destroyed, the Rattlers did a night raid on the Eagles cabins, stealing comics and overturning beds.
The Eagles did the same but brought bats.
When the Eagles won the tournament, the Rattlers stole their prizes.
The two groups met for a fight but the counsellors stopped them.
The water pipe task caused some cooperation, each shared task led to reduced hostility.
By the end, the Rattlers shared $5 they had won to buy soft drinks for everyone.
What were the conclusions?
Proves RCT.
The groups formed quickly, with hierarchies, without encouragement from adults.
Competitive situations cause ingroup solidarity and outgroup hostility to increase.
“Mere presence” by itself doesn’t reduce outgroup hostility.
Superordinate goals cause friction to be reduced.
How is the study generalisable?
Sherif’s study lacks generalisability as all the samples were boys. Boys and girls can tend to have different characteristics and mindsets that can affect their actions. The study also only included children. This shows that the results may not generalise girls or mixed sex groups, or adults.
How is the study reliable?
Sherif’s study is reliable because he used different methods, like observing and tape-recording the boys. He collected quantitative and qualitative data about their behaviour. This shows that all these methods allowed Sherif to create inter-rater reliability.
How is the study applicable?
The study can be applied to reduce discrimination and violence in society. If jobs, housing, education and other opportunities were shared more fairly between different groups, then there would be less discrimination. This shows how working together can decrease hostility towards outgroups.
How is the study valid?
Sherif’s study has ecological validity. They were real boys at a real summer camp doing real activities. Even the specially created tasks seemed real to the boys. This shows that the study can be generalised to real-life settings.
How is the study ethical?
The study wasn’t really ethical. The boys didn’t realise they were being experimented, and they were also exposed to harm as they observers didn’t intervene when the boys began to burn each other’s flags. This shows that the participants didn’t have informed consent and weren’t protected from harm.
