Classic study: Sherif et al (1954/1961) Flashcards
what was the aim of the Robbers Cave experiment?
explore how competition can lead to unfavourable stereotyping and prejudiced attitudes towards outgroup, and encourage ingroup solidarity and cooperation
what what the Robbers Cave experiment and what did it consist of?
Field experiment
Independent variable= competition or cooperation
Dependent variable= number of people identified in outgroup
-22 middle class, 11 year old boys from USA
-No one knew each other from prior to camp
Parent sand doctors gave consent for full participation
-2 groups arrived on separate days and delivered to different locations
what type of data was collected and how?
Qualitative and quantitative data collected over 3 week period
Covert observations, recordings, ranked scales to measure beliefs about each other and questionnaires
what were the 3 stages in the camp?
Stage 1: Group Formation
Stage 2: Friction
Stage 3: Reducing friction
what happened in the 1st stage?
Took part in non-competitive activities so they would bond within their groups
EG. canoeing, building campfires
what were the 2 group names? and which group had less members?
The Rattlers
The Eagles
> 2 Eagles went home due to homesickness
what happened in 2nd stage?
Learned of other groups existence
Researcher created tournament with prizes and trophy for winner
EG. tug of war, baseball
Extra points for cabin inspections and treasure hunts
what happened in the 3rd stage?
Tasks included increased social contact
EG. eating, watching movie together
Later, superordinate goals introduced which required intergroup cooperation
EG. repairing water supply and truck
what were the findings for the first stage?
Gave group names and leaders were established
Social norms became apparent
Rattlers= tough, swore
Eagles= cried more when injured and anti-swearing
what were the findings for the second stage?
- Wanted to challenge each other to basketball game and hostility rapidly increased
- Name calling, fights, raided each others cabins and one group burnt the others flag
- Ranked scale showed ig members more likely to be seen as sneaky
- only 6.5% Rattlers friends were Eagles and only 7.5% of Eagles friends were Rattlers
what were the findings for the third stage?
Superordinate goals initially did little to reduce friction
>After fixing water supply, groups were giving insults again BUT, after making dinner together hostility reduced
-Boys entertained each other around campfire on last night and left as friends on same bus
-Outgroup friendships increased
36.5% Rattlers friends were Eagles and 23% of Eagles friends were Rattlers
what were the conclusions of this experiment?
Intergroup competition leads to increased ingroup favouritism and outgroup hostility
Increased social contact not enough to reduce prejudice, but series of superordinate goals can help
evaluate the study
MATCHING OF 2 GROUPS IMPROVED INTERNAL VALIDITY
Researchers spent over 300 hours interviewing and observing potential ptscps until they found final 22, who were carefully allocated across 2 groups
Ensured results were not due to pre existing differences between 2 groups and were dependant on situations that were created
competing argument?
2 boys went home due to homesickness were both Eagles
SO, careful matching process disintegrated
Eagles - 9
Rattlers- 11
Rattlers given unfair advantage and Eagles may have become friendlier to each other having been exposed to 2 upset children
SO THIS,
reduces internal validity
weakness?
TYERMAN FAILED TO REPLICATE FINDINGS
Study of 30 sea scout troop boys
Belonged to 1 of 4 groups and knew each other well
At 2 week annual camp Tyerman observed ingroup solidarity within each group didn’t increase
IN FACT, it decreased and different groups interacted well as a troop in competition rather than turning hostile
SUGGGETS,
competition creates prejudice from people who don’t know each other
