Classic study - Sherif et al.

Question 1

What was the aim of Sherif’s Robber’s Cave Study? (2 points)

Answer 1

To study inter-group relations to examine the development of in-group hostility directed at the out-group

To study if the introduction of superordinate goals can overcome prejudice between in-groups and out-groups

Question 2

What was the methodology (type, pps, location, design) of Sherif’s Robber’s Cave Study? (4 points)

Answer 2

Type: 3-week field experiment

Participants: 22M aged 11 years old

Location: Boy Scouts Camp at Robber’s Cave State Park, Oklahoma, America

Design: Matched pairs based on IQ, sporting ability, home life, and religion

Question 3

What were the 3 stages of Sherif’s Robber’s Cave Study? (3 points)

Answer 3

Stage 1: In-group formation

Stage 2: Inter-group friction

Stage 3: Inter-group integration

Question 4

What did Stage 1 (In-group formation) of Sherif’s study involve? (2 points)

Answer 4

Boys were randomly divided into 2 equal groups

Named their groups (Rattlers and Eagles) and assigned group leaders

Question 5

What did Stage 2 (Inter-group friction) of Sherif’s study involve? (2 points)

Answer 5

Out-group hostility created through competition in tournaments

Activities:
Collecting beans experiment
Tug of war
Raiding each other’s cabins

Question 6

What did Stage 3 (Inter-group integration) of Sherif’s Robber’s Cave Study involve? (2 points)

Answer 6

Superordinate goals were introduced that the teams had to work together to achieve

Activities:
Restoring water and food supply
Restarting broken camp bus

Question 7

How was data collected during Sherif’s Robber’s Cave Study? (3 points)

Answer 7

Boys were observed for 12 hours a day

Friendship patterns studied through sociometric analysis

Tape recordings used to study language used when referring to in-group and out-group

Question 8

What were the results of Sherif’s Robber’s Cave Study? (3 points)

Answer 8

Quantitative:
93% of friends in own group at Stage 1
30% of friendships in out-group by end of Stage 3

Qualitative:
‘Sneaks’, ‘smart alecs’, ‘stinkers’ to ‘brave’, ‘tough’, ‘friendly’

Question 9

What was the conclusion of Sherif’s Robber’s Cave Study? (3 points)

Answer 9

Contact not sufficient for groups to reduce hostility

Competition for limited resources is required for prejudice and discrimination to occur

Cooperation in the form of working together towards superordinate goals is required to overcome out-group hostility

Question 10

How generalisable is Sherif’s Robber’s Cave Study? (3 points)

Answer 10

Sample population: 22 11-year-old boys from a middle-class, Caucasian, catholic upbringing

Androcentric - findings can’t be generalised to female populations

Ethnocentric - results reflect an individualistic society that values autonomy and freedom of speech; not representative of collectivist cultures which value interdependence

Question 11

How reliable is Sherif’s Robber’s Cave Study? (3 points)

Answer 11

Although a range of data collection methods were used to compare results, the procedure is not fully standardised

The researchers conducted observational research for only 12 out of 24 hours a day - the boys were left unsupervised during the evenings

Extraneous variables could have affected the results, making it difficult to repeat the study, decreasing the reliability

Question 12

Is Sherif’s Robber’s Cave Study applicable to real life? (3 points)

Answer 12

Its results have strong application to real life by helping reduce prejudice between groups in society - demonstrates how it can be done by bringing groups together

This has been applied to anti-bullying campaigns in schools or to violence observed between opposing football fans during competitive matches

Supported by Allport’s (1954) Contact Hypothesis:
More inter-group contact = less stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination

Question 13

How is Sherif’s Robber’s Cave Study internally valid? (2 points)

Answer 13

Matched pairs design allowed for individual differences between the participants to be accounted for

Controlled variables kept constant - cause and effect could be established

Question 14

How is Sherif’s Robber’s Cave Study not internally valid? (2 points)

Answer 14

Some of the qualitative data collection methods are subject to researcher bias - difficult to establish cause and effect between the formation of in-groups/out-groups and prejudice

Due to the naturalistic environment, there are extraneous variables which have not been carefully controlled - decreased internal validity

Question 15

How ecologically valid is Sherif’s Robber’s Cave Study? (3 points)

Answer 15

High ecological validity - it was a field experiment taking place at a real-life summer camp

Realistic activities commonly carried out on a camping trip in Stage 2 - increased mundane realism

The boys weren’t aware that they were taking part in a study - less likely to display demand characteristics and were more likely to behave naturally

Question 16

How ethical is Sherif’s Robber’s Cave Study? (4 points)

Answer 16

Participants were deceived about the nature of the experiment - told it was a ‘summer camp’ - but it was required to avoid demand characteristics

Presumptive consent from parents rather than fully informed consent from actual participants (too young)

Prejudice caused by Sherif intentionally introducing inter-group conflict could lead to long-term psychological and physical harm - could have caused distress to participants

The boys could have learned aggressive behaviours from the camp and taken these home into their daily life