Evaluate Sherif (1954)

Question 1

How does the study have low generalisability? - small sample

Answer 1

• Low generalisability
• 24participants (11-year-old boys) who were selected byopportunity sample.
• In a sample this small, anyanomalies(boys with unusual characteristics, like violent bullies) skew the results.

Question 2

How does the study have low generalisability? - sample type

Answer 2

• Low generalisability → Sample was not representative
• Only 24 (11 year old ) boys were used → The boys were supposed to be “all American” types: white, bright and sporty.
• the results may notgeneralisethe girls or mixed sex groups. Crucially, they were all children, so the results may not generalise to adults. → Also this wasn’t entirely representative of young Americans back in the ‘50s and it certainly isn’t representative of America today, where whites make up 50% of school intake, with the other 50% being Hispanic, African American and Asian American.

Question 3

How does the study have low reliability?

Answer 3

→ Problems with reliability
→ Observation → The observers were only with the boys for 12 hours a day and could not see or overhear everything that went on.

Question 4

How does the study have high reliability?

Answer 4

→ Sherif tried to make the study more reliable
→ He used anumbered scoring systemfor the boys’ friendship patterns, which collectedquantitative 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.

Question 5

How does the study have Application - left wing politics?

Answer 5

→ The study shows how competition and frustration creates hostility towards outgroups.
→ In society, this suggests that discrimination and violence could be reduced if jobs, housing, education and other opportunities were sharedmore fairlybetween different groups, such as ethnic groups or social classes.
→ This is the basis for a lot of Left Wing political thinking.

Question 6

How does the study have Application - right wing politics?

Answer 6

• The study also shows that hostility can be reduced if groups are made to interact and work together towardscommon goals.
• It is not enough for them to be “mere presences” living alongside each other. This suggests ghettos should be discouraged and immigrants should be made to take up the host culture’s language, education and pastimes.
• This is the basis for a lot of Right Wing political thinking.

Question 7

How does the study have high ecological validity?

Answer 7

• The study hasecological validity
• these were real boys at a real summer camp, doing real activities. Even the specially created tasks (fixing the broken water pipe, pulling the truck)seemedreal to the boys. There were someunrealistic features, such as the camp counselors not intervening until the boys were actually ready to fight each other.

Question 8

How does the study have low validity?

Answer 8

→ A field experiment back lacked a control group
- Sherif does not have a “normal” summer camp to compare his camp to. It may be perfectly normal for food fights and raids to happen in summer camps where the counselors aren’t imposing much discipline. It may be normal for such boys to end up as friends after 3 weeks, regardless of whether they are given special tasks to carry out.
- Sherif may have exaggerated how much of the boys’ behaviour was due to intergroup factors.