(RCT) Sherif's Robbers Cave 1991 Flashcards
Describe the background of the Robbers Cave Experiment- where did it all start in Sherifs FIRST INTERGROUP CONFLICT STUDY in 1949?
- Boys arrived at the summer camp and spent first ew days together as one group before they were divided into 2 groups.
- 2 groups were either Red Devils or Bull Dogs. New friendships were formed, and a social hierarchy began to develop, they had nicknames and made up group symbols.
- Their friendships had shifted from the whole group to the super are groups and conflict between them was observed.
- Boys rated individual members of the rival group negatively, despite being best friends at the beginning.
- The 2nd Intergroup Conflict experiment had to be abandoned as boys suspected the researches tried to create friction between the groups (they called themselves the Panthers and Pythons).
Who decided the Robbers Cave Experiment?
Sherif in 1961
What was the Aim of Robbers?
To investigate relations and group formation; to see if prejudice can be created between two similar groups with no previous contact, by putting them in competition with each other; can intergroup tension be reduced using Superordinate Goals?
What was the method of Robbers?
- Field experiment
- 22 11 year old white, middle class, Protestant boys from an opportunistically selected sample of 200.
- Summer camp in Robbers Cave National park, Oklahoma.
- All very similar and psychologically well-adjusted and didn’t know each other before the study.
- Not introduced to each other at the start but divided into equally matched groups using information on stained from parents and teachers about their educational and athletic ability.
- An observer was allocated to each group for 12 hours a day- sociometric analysis.
- Everything was recorded and studied.
There were 3 stages of Robbers, what was stage 1?
They were put into 2 separate groups and for the first 5/6 days each group was given tasks to perform to help them bond as a group and given names- Rattlers and Eagles- facilitating tasks that required in-group co-operation.
There were 3 stages of Robbers, what was stage 2?
The 2 groups were brought together and over the next 4/6 days, tension was generated between the 2 groups by staging a series of competitions between them. It was necessary for each individual group member to contribute in the competitions in order to win points for the tournament total. Both groups were subjected to orchestrated situations that they would find frustrating and believe were caused by the other group.
There were 3 stages of Robbers, what was stage 3?
Once hostility had been created the researchers tried to reduce it by bringing both groups together for joint activities and problem solving tasks- superordinate goals.
This was fixing the water tank, starting the broken down camp bus, group members had to work together for food and sleeping gear.
The boys thought the researchers were camp staff- they observed and recorded verbal and non verbal communication.
Describe the generalisability (weakness) of Robbers.
The sample was not representative (all white Protestant middle class young boys) so it lacked population validity. They were also athletic and keen on sport when not all boys have these traits and this could explain the degree of conflict between groups- as they were naturally competitive.
Describe the reliability (weakness) of Robbers.
-The boys were all tested to ensure they were psychologically well-adjusted and they were all similar in background BUT…..
- in a field experiment like this, it is hard to control confounding variables.
-Researchers follows planned procedures designed to not influence the behaviour of the boys; only allowed to intervene when there was conflict.
- Howverr in interviews with the boys years later, it revealed that the boys were aware of the audio equipment in the dining hall and staff making notes, researchers also seemingly encouraged conflict and didn’t intervene in conflicts.
- Thus the researchers did not merely observe but actively fuelled conflict.
Describe the applicability (strength) of Robbers.
There are many examples of tension and conflict over resources leading to prejudice (Northern Ireland). Also, how to reduce prejudice, through two opposing groups worked together to solve a common problem- superordinate goals.
Describe the validity (strength) of Robbers.
Ecological validity was high because the experiment was conducted in a natural environment, therefore, eliciting natural, uncontrolled behaviour.
Also high experimental validity as the boys did not realise their behaviour was being observed and that they were in an experiment so there were no demand characteristics.
Well controller I’m individual variables and groups were matched carefully to ensure competition caused prejudice.
I hah we’re the results?
A strong in-group preference and our-group hostility was shown by each group; this was eventually reduced by the joint problem-solving tasks.
What are the results through all 3 stages?
Stage 1- each group formed their own set of group norms and rules that enhanced group identity. Towards the end of this stage they were allowed to become aware of the other groups existence and an us and them language quickly developed.
Stage 2- there were signs of hostility between groups, they were territorial and they began to fight (burning flags). There was strong preference for in group- rattlers were brave, tough and friendly and eagles were sneaky, stinkers and smart. 93% of friends were from their own in-group.
Stage 3- Researchers found a significant increase in number of boys whose friendships were now with the out group (after goals).
Describe how the validity of Robbers can show its a strength for SIT but a weakness for RCT.
Even before competition started, as soon as the gorup knew of the existence of each other there was our-group hospitality- simply being in a group was enough to create this. Therefore supporting SIT.
What can we conclude from the Robbers Cave Experiment?
- Competition increased prejudice and discrimination, leading to clear inter-group conflict however there was some hostility between the groups as soon they were aware of each other.
- Groups had social hierarchies and group norms. Members tended to overestimate the abilities of their own group and minimise abilities of the out group.
- Working together on co-operative takes successfully but not entirely- reduced discrimination between groups. Supporting RCT showing that prejudice can be brought about through competition for resources.
Describe the ethics (strengths) of Robbers.
The boys were not harmed or distressed, physical hostility was prevented and researchers endeavoured to reduce discrimination and prejudice.
2 boys were allowed to withdraw due to homesickness.
Parents had consented..
Describe the ethics (weaknesses) of Robbers.
Debriefing may not have taken place as it is not mentioned.
Parents consented but the boys were unaware they were in an investigation believing it was about leadership. This means it was not possible tor boys to give fully informed consent.
Boys could have come into minor harm. This is because of Sherifs lack of funding- some believe this led sherif to deliberately induce high levels of conflict and hostility between the groups to ensure the results were successful.
