prejudice: Sherif - Classic Study

Question 1

state the aims

Answer 1

• produce group norms
• investigate the development of ingroup behaviour including out group hostility
• investigate how friction can be reduced

Question 2

describe the sample

Answer 2

• 22 12 year old boys
• white, middle class
• protestant
• 2 parent background
• matched on IQ and sporting ability
• screened for problems at home and difficult behaviour
• parents could not visit

Question 3

describe the procedure

Answer 3

• robbers cave state park in oklahoma
• first week = two groups kept separate and developed group norms through activities such as hiking and swimming
• competition stage = stereotypes emerged after the groups were introduced. games such as baseball, tug of war increased friction as they competed for prizes
• superordinate goals = fixing a broken truck, work together to earn resources

Question 4

how was data collected?

Answer 4

• observation
• sociometric analysis (eg friendship patterns)
• tape recordings of phrases used to refer to groups or games

Question 5

what was the conclusion?

Answer 5

• competition between 2 groups for resources can cause prejudice
• working towards a superordinate goal can reduce the friction

Question 6

weakness
- generalisability

Answer 6

a weakness of the study is that it lacks generalisability. for example, the sample was limited as it was androcentric and only consisted of one age group with similar characteristics. therefore, the findings cannot represent a population outside of this sample which reduces their usefulness.

Question 7

strength and CA
- reliability

Answer 7

a strength of the study is that it has high reliability. for example, triangulation was used to collect data; observations, tape recordings and sociometric analysis. this offers a variety of datasets to explain differing aspects of the phenomenon of interest. however, Tyerman and Spencer replicated the study and did not find the same results. therefore, this suggests that the procedure and findings are not reliable.

Question 8

weakness and CA
- validity

Answer 8

a weakness of the study is that it lacks validity. for example, ppts were only observed 12 hours a day so relevant data may not have been recorded, such as conversations about the other group. additionally, there was no control group. this means that a cause and effect cannot be established and comparisons cannot be made.

Question 9

strength
- validity

Answer 9

a strength of the study is that it has good task validity. this is because the camp was a natural setting with real activities such as hiking and swimming. therefore, this reduces demand characteristics and demonstrates how the ppts would behave without the study taking place.

Question 10

strength
- application

Answer 10

a strength of the study is that it has applications.for example, the jigsaw teaching technique. this is where students are divided into groups of 4-6 and individuals of each group work together, and then return as an instructor. this allows groups to co operate and reduce friction.

Question 11

weakness and CA
- ethical issue

Answer 11

a weakness of the study is the ethical issues. for example, the ppts were deceived as even though parents had been told, the boys thought it was a real summer camp. additionally, arguments broke out and they called each other names which could have caused psychological harm. however, there was a right to withdraw which is justified by 2 of the participants leaving.