Classic Study: Sherif et al

Question 1

Aim of Sherif et al

Answer 1

• To investigate the effects of competition on prejudice and intergroup relations

Question 2

Procedure of Sherif et al

Answer 2

• It was a field experiment
• The participants used were 24 middle class boys of the ages of 12 from a Protestant background
• Stage 1 (Team building): The boys were randomly split into 2 groups of 12 and took part in non-competitive activities so they can bond with the other boys in their group and started to develop a group identity. The activities included to teach each other how to swim, camp and coming up with traditions and making a group flag. The boys began to form informal social hierarchy within their group to help form a group identity. The two-group named themselves ‘’Rattlers’’ and ‘’Eagles’’
• Stage 2 (Intergroup competition): The two groups were informed that there was another group and the boys expressed their desire to compete with the other group in competitive events. These games included baseball, treasure hunts and tug of war. At the end of each event the winners were given prizes such as pocketknives and the loosing group didn’t receive anything.
  The groups were then interviewed to see which of the boys did they consider to be there friends and it was seen that the boys preferred their own group much more, displaying prejudice. The different groups called each other ‘’stinkers’’ and ‘’sneaky’’. The rattler had a chant going by ‘’You aren’t Eagles, you are pigeons’
• Stage 3: This stage was to ease the friction between the two groups. The experimenter had the boys to do activities such as eat together, watch movies together and shoot off fireworks together, however these activities did not improve group relations much. However, the activities where the boys had to do work together such as fixing a water tank and making campsites and doing tug of war against a truck eased tensions. As the boys had to do work together and relationships started to get better. At the end of this stage the boys were asked who they considered their friends in the camp and the boys considered more of the other group as friends, showing a decrease in prejudice

Question 3

Conclusion

Answer 3

• Intergroup competition leads to increased ingroup favouritism and solidarity but also to outgroup hostility
• Increase in social contact is not enough to reduce prejudice however a series of superordinate goals can reduce prejudice

Question 4

Strength of Sherif et al

Answer 4

• A strength of the study is that the task had high mundane realism
• The activities the boys were involved in such as tug of war, baseball and working together to make campsites is reflective of competition and cooperative activities in real life
• Therefore the finding that competition lead to prejudice and how cooperation can reduce means that prejudice can be applied to intergroup relationships in the real world

Question 5

Weakness of Sherif et al

Answer 5

• A weakness of the study is that the study had low population validity
• The sample used in the study was 24 lower middle class white boys of the ages of 12 from Protestant background was used in the experiment. Which is a sample that doesn’t reflective the wider population.
• The study contains a specific type of group in the population therefore the results of the study may not be generalisable to the wider population and could only be applicable to lower middle class boys of the ages of 12 from a Protestant background which is a unique social group.