Classical: Sherif Flashcards
Aim
To test in-group behaviour’s development to include related out-group hostility and how this can be reduced
Method
22 boys aged 11
From Protestant Oklahoma families.
Matched on IQ, sporting ability.
A nominal fee was charged for them to go to the camp Parents were not aware they were taking part in an experiment.
Placed in a summer camp in Robbers Cave, Oklahoma.
3 stages
Divided into two groups - the groups did not know about one another.
Had to work together within each group to achieve common goals – this stage was in-group formation.
Then the friction phrase began where they discovered each other and competitions were set up between them.
The third stage introduced superordinate goals, where both groups had to work together to achieve.
Results
In stage one, each group had given themselves a name: ‘rattlers’ and ‘eagles’, and a clear group leader soon developed.
In stage two, hostility arised, for example they each claimed that the other was invading their property – showing in-group favouritism.
In the third stage, 30% developed friends with members of the out-group.
When an in-group and out-group work together to achieve, prejudice and discrimination can be resolved.
+Standardised
There were high controls such as the careful sample as well as having the same observers so the procedure was standardised and is replicable – high reliability.
+data collection
There were several data collections and of each one the findings agreed, for example observations and recordings found derogatory behaviour towards each group – high validity.
He used anumbered scoring systemfor the boys’ friendship patterns, which collectedqual data.
He also used multiple observers on occasions, creatinginter-rater reliability.
Where possible, he tape recorded the boys’ conversations, so they could be played back and analysed later.
+usefulness
The group conflict and hostility can be seen as prejudice, and the superordinate goals helped to reduce the hostility – it has practical application and can prevent such behaviours.
-Bad sample
There is sample bias as the sample was so careful – they are all 11, male, from Protestant Oklahoma families (ethnocentic), and had similar IQ and sporting ability – therefore there is low generalisability.
-ethics
Informed consent was not given
There was no right to withdraw for the boys
The parents were not allowed to visit
There is no mention of debriefing
The conflict may have caused some boys harm
