Classic study: sherif et al

Question 1

Aim

Answer 1

How competition and frustration of a groups goal can lead to prejudice towards outgroups

Question 2

Procedure

IV

Answer 2

The stage of the experiment :

1. Ingroup formation
2. Friction phase
3. Integration phase

Question 3

Procedure:

DV

Answer 3

There were many DV’s, example of 1:

how many friends identified in the outgroup

Question 4

Procedure

sample size

Answer 4

22, 11 year old boys Oaklahoma.

• 2 groups
• Socially and emotionally well adjusted
• Paired based on sports ability and IQ

Question 5

Procedure

What were the 3 stages of the camp

Answer 5

STage 1: Group formation

Stage 2: Friction

Stage 3: Reducing friction

Question 6

Procedure

What happened in stage 1: group formation

Answer 6

Both groups took part in non competitive activitites to build bonds, like tent pitching.

Question 7

Procedure

What happened in stage 2: friction

Answer 7

Groups learn of eachothers existance. Tournament with prices like medals. Activities consisted of tug wars and baseball

Question 8

Procedure

What happened in stage 3: reducing friction

Answer 8

Tasks involving increasing social contact, like watching movies. Then intergroup cooperation tasks took place like bending a broken pipe together

Question 9

Findings

Stage 1: Group formation findings

Answer 9

Groups called themselves ‘The Rattlers’ and ‘The Eagles’, leaders quickly established. Rattlers were tough while Eagles cried more when injured

Question 10

Findings

Stage 2: friction findings

Answer 10

Upon discovery both groups wanted to challenge eachother at baseball. Hostillity developed rapidly, name calling, fights and stealing.

Ranked scales showed ingroup members were seen as more brave, tough and friendly than outgroup members.

Question 11

Findings

Stage 3: Reducing friction

Answer 11

Social contact and subordinate tasks did little in reducing friction. After fixing the truck hostility was greaty reduced and the boys had dinner together

• Outgroup friendship had increased

Question 12

Conclusion

Answer 12

Intergroup competition leads to increased ingroup favouritism and outgroup hostility

Question 13

Strength of Internal validity

Answer 13

Researchers careful matching of the 2 groups improved the internal validity

Question 14

Strength of Internal validity

Evidence of careful matching of 2 groups

Answer 14

Researchers spent over 300 hours interviewing and observing participants to ensure they matched personalities, skills and interests

Question 15

Strength of Internal validity

What did the careful matching of participants mean for the results

Answer 15

Ensured results co uldn’t be explained by differences of the groups but instead on the situations created

Question 16

Weakness of reliability

Answer 16

Study attempting to replicate the findings in 1983 with sea scout troops didn’t recieve the same findings

Question 17

Weakness of reliability

Evidence that they didn’t recieve the same findings

Answer 17

Researchers observed in their anual 2 week camp that ingroup solidarity within each group actually decreased and during competition the patrols interacted well instead of becoming hostile

Question 18

Weakness of reliability

What do the findings of the replication study suggest

Answer 18

Competition may only elicit prejudice if the people don’t already know eachother

Question 19

Strength of application

Answer 19

Study can be applied to reducing prejudice in society using subordinate goals.

Question 20

Strength of application

Evidence of reducing prejudice in society

Answer 20

Jigsaw classroom technique was developed to tackle racial prejudice in americacn schools. Students worked together in a group project.

• the result was reduced prejudice and increased empathy

Question 21

Strength of application

Why is this a strength to sherif’s study

Answer 21

Study led to interventions which have helped studnets reach academic potential at school.