Classic Study: Sherif Et Al. robber’s Cave Flashcards
What is this experiment investigating?
Inter group conflict and cooperation
AIM
To look at inter group relations over a period of time in order to investigate group formation, the effect of competition and the conditions under which conflict could be resolved.
SETTING
Robber’s cave camp in Oklahoma
DURATION
Two week camp (parents were paid $25 to incentivise them not to visit the boys during this period)
RECRUITMENT/SAMPLING METHOD
Opportunity sample of 200 boys from schools in Oklahoma City
PARTICIPANTS
• 22 ,middle class, white, Protestant, 11 year olds from Oklahoma
• All socially and emotionally well adjusted
• None of the boys knew each other prior to camp
PROCEDURE
There were three stages to this field experiment. A field experiment is where the behaviour would usually occur
What can we conclude from the results of this study?
• Intergeoup competition leads to increased in group favouritism and solidarity but also to out group hostility
• Increased social contact is not enough to reduce prejudice but a series of superordinate goals can reduce prejudice effectively
STAGE 1
•created in-groups
• Divided into 2 groups
- The Rattlers or the Eagles
- equivalent abilities e.g IQ, sporting ability
• Non-competitive activities
- bond with their group
- canoeing, tent pitching, building campfires
• 2 eagles went home by the end of the week due to home sickness
STAGE 1 results
The boys identified as rattlers or the Eagles, leaders were established in differing norms became apparent - the rattlers were tough and swore a lot whereas the eagle cried more and went injured with anti-swearing
STAGE 2
Increasing friction - 2 groups brought together in situations where they would compete against one another
Each group learned of the others groups existence
The research has then created a tournament with prizes and medals and a trophy for the winners
-Tug of War, baseball and tent pitching
-Extra points were awarded for cabin inspections, comedy sketches and a treasure hunt
STAGE 2 results
Both groups wanted to challenge the other to a baseball contest and hostility developed rapidly
There was name-calling, fights and they raided and trashed each other’s cabins and one group burnt the groups flag
Ranked scale showed more in group members were seen as brave and friendly whereas our group members were more likely to be seen a sneaky
Less than 10% considered the out group as their friend
STAGE 3
Superordinate goals were introduced to encourage cooperation and reduce hostility, reducing friction
Initial tasks involved increased social contact E.G eating or watching a movie together
Later, superordinate goals were introduced - tasks that required inter group cooperation E.G mending a broken water supply and starting a broken down truck
STAGE 3 results
Social contact and subordinate goals initially did little to reduce hostility and reduce friction. After fixing the water supply, they were insulting each other again. But after getting the truck going, the boys made dinner together and hostility was greatly reduced. The boys entertained each other around the campfire on the last night and left the campus friends on the same bus.
Outgroup friendships increased – 36.4% of rattlers friends were Eagles and 32.2% of eagle friends with rattlers.
GENERALISIBILITY
Homogeneous sample (boys,white,Protestant,from Oklahoma,11) unrepresentative of target population.
CA
Heterogeneous sample would have formed subgroups,damaging the validity of the study. Therefore, homogeneity was justified.
RELIABILITY
High levels of controlled and careful planning at each stage E.G water tank, when they were introduced to each other.
This means that the study could be easily replicated in other summer camp settings
CA
That said, the measures used to observe hostility may well be inconsistent between observers which could compromise the internal reliability of the study .
A weakness is that subsequent research failed to replicate the findings
E.GC scout troop of 30 boys, all knew each other
APPLICATION
Understanding hostility in schools that arises as a result of competition and how to reduce prejudice using superordinate goals
VALIDITY
Sherif carefully matched the two groups to improve internal validity.
This insured that the results could not be explained as due to pre-existing differences between the groups and really were depended on the situation created
Boys may have been aware they were part of a study – may have found it strange that adults weren’t intervening
Interview interviews years later, some boys said they were aware of audio equipment in the dining hall and staff taking notes about their behaviour
ETHICS
Parental consent was gained
However, induces hostility in young 11-year-old boys may well be socially sensitive
* can result in harm
- younger boys are already judged to be more violent
- Experiment shows more violence = more judgement
