Prejudice 1.1.4/3.1 Classic- Sherif et al (1954/61)Robbers Cave Experiment

Question 1

Aims?

Answer 1

• • To investigate how in-group behaviour developed to include related out-group hostility using competition
• To investigate how this friction can be reduced

Question 2

Sample?

Answer 2

22 boys
11 years old
from Oklahoma, America

Question 3

Ppt design?

Answer 3

Matched pairs on IQ and sporting ability.

Question 4

3 Research methods?

Answer 4

• Field experiment with repeated measures
• Questionnaires
• Observations

Question 5

What were the 3 stages of the experiment?

Answer 5

1) In-group formation
2) Friction phase
3) Integration phase

Question 6

Briefly describe the procedure of the study.

Answer 6

• None were aware of each other’s existence, and were randomly assigned to 2 groups of 11
• Data was collected through observation, sociometric analysis, and tape recording
• The experiment was broken into 3 phases:
  1) In-group formation = establishing culture and group norms and names (The Eagles and The Rattlers)
  2) Friction phase = the first contact between the groups in sports competitions (such as baseball and tug of war)
  3) Integration phase = reducing friction by increasing contact (such as eating together) and by solving problems that require teamwork (such as the water shortage problem)to reach superordinate goals
• All parents were asked to stay away as not to make the boys homesick

Question 7

IV + DV?

Answer 7

IV = Stage of the experiment
DV = Intergroup behaviour and level of competition measured by observation

Question 8

What were the results of phase 1 of Sherif’s study?

Answer 8

1) In-group formation

• group stereotypes emerged with verbal hostility to out-groups (e.g. sissies)

Question 9

What were the results of phase 2 of Sherif’s study?

Answer 9

2) Friction phase
- Boys characterised in-groups with favourable terms and vice versa
- Prejudice went from verbal to physical (fighting)
- (R) 6.4% (E) 7.5% = out-group friendships

Question 10

Conclusions?

Answer 10

• Conflict of interest and competition for lack of resources cause prejudice
• Increased contact doesn’t help
• Working towards a superordinate goals helps
• People overestimate the abilities of their group
• People underestimate the abilities of out-groups

Question 11

GRAVE-Generalisability

Answer 11

P - Low
E - 12 year old, white, middle class boys from USA
E - Can’t generalise to other ages, genders,

Question 12

GRAVE- Reliability

Answer 12

P - High
E - Follows a standardised procedure with three phases and specific activities eg establishment of group names, playing games like tug of war,
E - Easy to replicate as the study has procedures so can control for EVs therfore easier to determine which situational factors led to more/less prejudice eg the names Eagle and participating in activities as the ‘Eagles’ etc may’ve led to the in group attitude of their group being better than others, causing prejudice
P - Low
E - Field study where cannot control EVs like the weather
E - Can’t accurately replicate the conditions, low test-retest reliability for studying prejudice

Question 13

GRAVE-Application

Answer 13

P - Yes
E - Offers an explanation for origin of prejudice (competition)
E - Offers ways to reduce it (superordinate goals)

Question 13

GRAVE- Validity

Answer 13

P - High
E - Unaware of being in a study
E - No chance of demand characteristics
P -robbe
P - Low
E - No control group
E - Reduces ability to establish cause and effect
P - Low
E - Study only lasted 2 weeks
E - Doesn’t represent real life prejduice

Question 14

Ethics

Answer 14

P- Low
E- Parents were told not to contact their children to prevent homesickness
E- Mayve led to less protection from harm ie stress, as the ppts were isolated from their families despite being children who need parental guidance