Classic Study: Sherif Et Al (1954-61) Flashcards
Classic Study: Sherif Et Al (1954-61)
1st study in a summer camp
Connecticut (1949)
Sherif trys to restore the harmony between boys (after intergroup conflict ) by giving them a “ common enemy” a outside softball team to beat, this didn’t fully eliminate hostility as there was still some betwen the 2 teams “ red devils” and the “ bull dogs”
Classic Study: Sherif Et Al (1954-61)
2nd Summer camp study: New York 1953
It was called off due to “ various difficultys and unfavorable conditions” including “errors of judgment in the direction of the experiment” - Sherif
Frances Cherry 1995 discovered this was due to the boys mutinied against the adults after finding a notebook left behind by an observer with deatils on their behaviour, therefore finding out they were being manipulated.
Classic Study: Sherif Et Al (1954-61)
Ingroup and outgroup deffonitions
we divide all the people we meet into either
Ingroup
- Members of whom we share goals + values
Outgroup
- Members of whom we see ourselfs in competition with
Classic Study: Sherif Et Al (1954-61)
Super-ordinate goals
Super-ordinate goals:
- Friction reduced when 2 groups forced to cooperate, negociate and share
Classic Study: Sherif Et Al (1954-61)
Aim
- To find out what factors made 2 groups of boys develop hostile relations between one another
- to see how hostillity between 2 groups can be reduced
Classic Study: Sherif Et Al (1954-61)
Low Generalisability
Age, ethnocentric and Gender
The opportunity sample consisited of 24 (later 2 dropped out due to homesickness) 11 year old boys, pre screened for IQ and sporting ability split into matched groups called the “Rattlers” and “Eagles”
Participents were all from Oklahoma USA (where the study took place)
Therefore the study is Adronic and Ethnocentric as the results that competition/ conflict of interests can cause conflict (out group friend choices In Eagles group after stage 2 : 7.5%) and that conflict is reduced by super ordinate goals not by increased contact ( Outgroup friendship choices of Eagles goup after stage 3: 23.2%) cannot be applied to other Cultures such as Collectivist countrys e.g japan
and Women. nor can the results be applied to other age groups such as adults due to all ppts being 11 years old.
Therefore the study cannot be applied to many group in the population and thus has low generalisability
Classic Study: Sherif Et Al (1954-61)
High test retest reliability
The study has a high test retest reliability due to having a standardised procedure:
it was a Unaturalistic, covert, non participant observation with event sampling and repeated measures
It took places at a simmer camp at Robber’s cave state park, Oklahoma, USA
3 stages:
- [Ingroup formation] in 1 week :Complete tasks within their groups (Eagles or Rattlers) such as name the group, tresure hunt for $10 prizes and form bonds with members. Then they learn of the other groups excistance and request a Baseball match
-•
- [Friction Phase] Torniments between the 2 groups involving sports (e.g. baseball, tug of war etc.) and Experemental tests ( e.g. bean-counting competition etc.) To win Prizes such as trophys medals and knifes.
-•
- [Integration Stage] bring the groups together with tasks: “mere contact” (dinner together, watch films together in rec hall etc.) this failed. so he tried: Blocking the Water pipe to the camp forcing them to fix it, push a “broken down” lorry and pitching tents with missing parts to bring them closer together.
During this observers noted their behaviours and friendship patterns without interactong witht he boys. Phrases and covos recorded and got camp runners to give them questionaires on ingroup and outgroup relations.
This procedure had previously been done simular in his 1949 connecticut and 1953 new york studys
therefore due to having a standardised procedure and being done multiple times before
the studys procedure is easily replicatable and therefore has High test retest reliability
Classic Study: Sherif Et Al (1954-61)
Stage 1 beahviours
Stage 1 ingroup formation (1 week)
• used “us and them” language when other group was discovered
• ingroup bonding (friendship)
• Created flags and slogons together for their teams
• made group t-shirts with logos on them
Classic Study: Sherif Et Al (1954-61)
Stage 2 Behaviours
Stage 2 ( Friction)
• Name calling in Baseball
• Eagels burned Rattles flag
• Rattlers burn Eagles flag
• Eagles distroy Rattlers flag (again)
• Rattlers do a night raid on Eagles cabins stealing comics and turning over beds
• Eagles launch their own raid but with bats for Max Damage
• When the Eagels won the torniment the Rattlers stole their Medals and Knifes
• the groups met for a fight but the camp councilers stopped it
Classic Study: Sherif Et Al (1954-61)
Behaviours Stage 3
Stage 3 (intergration)
• shared films
• name calling
• food fights
• water pipe task (go fix it) (cooperation)
• food fight (again)
• Each task they did (e.g. push “broken” lorry and pitch tents with missing parts) reduced hostility
• Rattlers shared $5 they won to buy soft drinks for everyone and they shared a coach home
Classic Study: Sherif Et Al (1954-61)
Questionaire results
friendship choices after stage 3:
• Rattlers: Ingroup: 63.6% Outgroup: 36.4%
• Eagels: Ingroup: 76.8%
Outgroup: 23.2%
Outgroup Friendship choices after stage 2:
• Rattlers : 6.4%
• Eagles: 7.5%
Classic Study: Sherif Et Al (1954-61)
High Ecological Validity
was a Field study in Robbers Cave state park
meaning it took place in a real life natural setting
not in a artificial enviroment such as a lab
as the setting is more realistic
it is more likley that the results (that competition/ conflict of interests between groups causes prejudice and super-ordinate goals reduce conflict [Eagles stage 2 outgroup friendship choices 7.4% increases to 23.2% after stage 3 showing conflict can be reduced]) are likely to reflect real life and therefore likley to occur in real life
giving the study high ecological validity
Classic Study: Sherif Et Al (1954-61)
Post study interview
+/-internal validity
Years after the study the boys said they knew they were being watched meaning they could have shown demand characteristics
resulting in unattural behaviour being shown and decreasing the validity of the results (that competition/conflict of interests between groups causes prejudice/ conflict and super-ordinate goals reduce conflict [Eagles stage 2 outgroup friendship choices: 7.4% increases to 23.2% after stage 3 showing conflict can be reduced]) meaning the study may have low internal validity
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
boys were matched on Iq and sporting ability so tasks and sports and experimental tasks they did both groups were evenly matched as to make sure competition would occur
reducing the extraneous variable of it not occuring due to not being closley matched in these areas
making the results internaly valid as reduced Extraneous variables
and cause in cause and effect can be established
Classic Study: Sherif Et Al (1954-61)
Low Ethics
Due to the study being a covery observation
the ppts were unnaware they were appart of the study
and therefore couldnt have given concent.
Further, Ppts were recorded without concent breaching privacy
and many fights and raids and burnings occured with only one being interveend by staff meaning there was very little protection from harm
meaning overal the study was highly unethical
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
On the other hand the 2 ppts that went home due to feeling homesick after the 1st stage prooves ppts had the right to withdraw
and they were stopped from physicaly fighting atleast once by camp councilers so some protection from harm
Classic Study: Sherif Et Al (1954-61)
conclusion + Aplication
in conclusion it was found competition/ conflict of interests between groups causes prejudice and super-ordinate goals reduce conflict (Eagles stage 2 outgroup friendship choices 7.4% increases to 23.2% after stage 3 showing conflict can be reduced)
this study therefore can explain a real life event:
after the USA got its independence from Britain in 1776, relations were tense due to conflict of interests and competition in trade. However when both tasked with WW1 against Germany and Austria Hungary (a Super-ordinate goal) their relationship improoved into the good relations that are in place today
showing how the studys results can be apllied to explain a real life event
