Classic Study: Sherif et al (1954/61)

Question 1

What was the aim of Sherif et al (1954/61)?

Answer 1

To find out what factors make two groups develop hostile relationships and then to see how this hostility can be reduced.

Question 2

What was the procedure of Sherif et al (1945/61)? (sample, the two groups, 3 stages)

Answer 2

• 24 11 year old boys (2 boys left, so 22)
• Selected by opportunity sampling.
• They were split into two evenly-matched groups of boys . The boys called themselves the “Rattlers” and the “Eagles”.
• The boys didn’t give informed consent, but the parents did, the camp price was also reduced to $25.

Stage 1: non competitive activities, (within groups) so boys bonded.

Stage 2: create friction, groups learned of each others existence, researcher created tournaments (e.g. tug of war, basketball) with prizes.

Stage 3: Reduce friction: Initial tasks involved social activities (eating, movies), superordinate goals introduced later in tasks requiring group cooperation.

Question 3

What were the findings of Sherif et al (1945/61)? (what happened in each stage)

Answer 3

• Stage 1:
  Groups named themselves and established leaders and social norms.
  Rattlers were though and swore, eagles cried and were anti swearing.
• Stage 2:
  Hostility developed rapidly, name calling, fights, raids on each others camp.
  Outgroup members were seen as sneaky, smart alecs, and stinky. Only 6.4% of ratters friends were eagles, and only 7.5% of eagles friends were rattlers.
• Stage 3:
  Social contact and superordinate tasks initially did not reduce friction.
  Hostility greatly reduced after fixing water supply and making dinner.
  On the last night they became friends and went home on the same bus.
  Now 36.4% of ratters friends were eagles, and 23.2% of eagles friends were rattlers.

Question 4

What were the conclusions of Sherif et al (1945/61)? (what competition did, and the reduction of prejudice)

Answer 4

Intergroup competition leads to increased in-group favouritism and out-group hostility.

Increased social contact is not enough to reduce prejudice. It requires superordinate goals.

Question 5

What is a strength of Sherif et al (1945/61)? (hint: good selection process)

Answer 5

The study was careful when matching the two groups of boys.

The researchers spent over 300 hours selecting potential participants who were carefully allocated by personalities, skill, and interests.

This ensured that the results were only down to them being in a different group, not because of pre-existing differences.

Question 6

What is a weakness of Sherif et al (1945/61)? (hint: failed to replicate, however…)

Answer 6

Subsequent research failed to replicate the findings.

Tyerman & Spencer (1983) studied a sea scout group of 30 (each in 1/4 groups).
The groups interacted well as a troop, rather than becoming hostile during competition.

However, this simply suggests that prejudice only occurs when the individuals do not know each other well beforehand. Not that Sherif’s results were wrong.