classic study: sherif et al 1954

Question 1

the robbers cave experiment of intergroup conflict and cooperation

Question 2

aims

Answer 2

• to look at intergroup relations over a period of time in order to investigate group formation, the effect of competition and the conditions under which conflict would be resolved.

Question 3

setting, duration, sampling method

Answer 3

• robbers cave camp, oklahoma
• 2 week camp, parents were paid 25 to not visit boys
• opportunity sample of 200 boys from schools in Oklahoma City

Question 4

participants

Answer 4

• 22 boys ( 21 11 year olds and 1 12 year old)
• all socially and emotionally well adjusted
• none knew each other

Question 5

procedure

Answer 5

• divided into 2 groups
  one was called rattlers and the others eagles
• boys unaware being observed
• 2 groups arrived on separate days
  there were 3 stages
  1) group formation
  Ingroup Formation lasted a week. Each group had tasks to accomplish (eg a treasure hunt with a $10 prize). During this time the boys gave their groups names and discovered the existence of the other group; they immediately requested a baseball game against the other group

2)The friction phase involved a tournament between the two groups. This involved sports like baseball, tug-of-war and scavenger hunt but also experimental tests, like a bean-counting competition. A trophy was promised for the winners along with prizes like knives and medals
results: hostility developed rapidly, name calling, fights, rated and trashed cabins
only 6.4% of the rattlers friends were eagles and 7.5% of eagles were rattlers.

3)In the integration phase, Sherif tried to bring the two groups together. He tried “mere contact” by allowing the groups to have dinners and watch films together in the recreation hall. When this failed, he took a different approach, blocking the water pipe to the camp which forced the boys to work together to find the broken portion of pipe. Other tasks involved choosing films to watch together, cooperating to pull a (supposedly) broken-down truck and pitching tents with missing parts
results: after getting truck going hostility reduced.

Question 6

what can we conclude from the results of the study?

Answer 6

• intergroup competition leads to increased in-group favouritism and solidarity but also to outgrip hostility.
• increased social contact is not enough to reduce prejudice but a series of superordinate goals can reduce prejudice effectively.

An important conclusion from the study is that, although intergroup conflict is inevitable when competition is present, it can be reduced

Question 7

generalisability

Answer 7

• only boys so gender biased
  this means that the boys may be more completive than girls and therefore may be easier to influence in terms of prejudice. boys were picked who had good athletic ability and who were keen on sport, maybe this explains high level of hostility because they are naturally competitive.
• therefore it is not a representative sample to generalise the findings beyond the study.

Question 8

reliability

Answer 8

Since it involves observation, there are problems with reliability in this study. The observers were only with the boys for 12 hours a day and could not see or overhear everything that went on.

Despite this, Sherif took pains to make the study more reliable. He used a numbered scoring system for the boys’ friendship patterns, which collected quantitative data. He also used multiple observers on occasions, creating inter-rater reliability. Where possible, he tape recorded the boys’ conversations, so they could be played back and analysed later.

Certain aspects of this study could be replicated, such as the bean-counting test along with the tournament and the prizes. However, other procedures were developed by Sherif “on the fly” as events developed (for example, the boys themselves requested the baseball match and Sherif had to intervene to prevent a fight). These things might happen differently if the study was replicated again

Question 9

application

Answer 9

• understanding hostility in schools that arises as result of competition and how to reduce prejudice using superordinate goals.

Question 10

validity

Answer 10

Sherif claimed that, by using several different research methods (observing, tape recording, tests, quantitative as well as qualitative data), he was making his study more valid.

The study has ecological validity, because these were real boys at a real summer camp, doing real activities. Even the specially created tasks (fixing the broken water pipe, pulling the truck) seemed real to the boys. There were some unrealistic features, such as the camp counselors not intervening until the boys were actually ready to fight each other.

Although this is a field experiment, it lacked a Control Group. Sherif does not have a “normal” summer camp to compare his camp to. It may be perfectly normal for food fights and raids to happen in summer camps where the counselors aren’t imposing much discipline. It may be normal for such boys to end up as friends after 3 weeks, regardless of whether they are given special tasks to carry out. In other words, Sherif may have exaggerated how much of the boys’ behaviour was due to intergroup factors

Question 11

ethics

Answer 11

+ the parents gave consent, all were socially well adjusted
- the boys did not know they were being covertly observed - breaching their privacy
+ right to withdraw
- put in situations that caused hostility and aggression which could be argued to breach protection of harm.