robbers cave Flashcards
author date
sherif 1954
aim
analysis of what factors lead to competition and hostility between 2 groups and how this conflict can be resolved, through cooperation
sample
22 11 y/o protestant white boys, who did not know each other, from a middle class background, with two parents
procedure pt.1
In- group formation phase (5-6 days)
The boys get randomly divided into two groups. The two groups do not know about each other. They develop social norms, establish leads and group structures. Bond through common goals and cooperation. They named their teams, The Eagles and The Rattlers and they made flags and t-shirts.
procedure pt.2
Group conflict (4-5 days)
The two groups come in contact with each other. Conflict arises, due to competition in different games and challenges, such as baseball. The winners are awarded trophies, medals and multi bladed pocket knives
(! on the basis of accumulated team score, not individual effort !) while the losers did not get anything, making it an all or nothing scenario
The researchers devised situations where one group would gain at the expense of the other, such as delaying one group’s arrival to a picnic and manipulating the other to eat all of their food. As the competitions proceeded, the prejudices transformed from being expressed verbally to straight up aggression (The Eagles burn the Rattler’s flag, The Rattlers ransack their cabin, steal their private property and overturn their beds). Afterwards, a two day cooling period took place, during which the boys listed features of both groups, and they characterized their in group favorably and the out group negatively)
procedure pt.3
Conflict resolution (6-7 days)
Reducing animosity and low level violence between the 2 groups.
The Eagles and Rattlers were forced to cooperate on superordinate goals (goals that require more than 1 group) and that significantly reduced conflict (more effectively than communication or contact)
The drinking water problem- the water supply for both groups stops flowing and the staff tells the boys it was the vandals. The boys investigated that the faucet was stuffed with a sack, and then all cooperated in order to get it out. After this (45min) adventure the Rattles let the Eagled drink first.
Securing a movie- The staff suggested watching a movie however they said that this will cost $15 and the camp cannot afford that so the boys agreed that each group will pay $3.50 and the camp will pay the rest. The contribution was uneven because some dumb ass homesick Eagles went home but they all agreed. Later, nobody objected to having dinner together. Other problem-solving superordinate goals in this phase included the joint use of a tug-of-war-rope, and both groups of boys “accidentally” came across a stuck-in-a-rut truck carrying food for both groups. In the event, the joint pursuit of such superordinate goals saw a lessening of intergroup conflict. At breakfast and lunch on the last day of camp, the seating arrangements were considerably mixed up insofar as group membership was concerned.
results
As the competitions proceeded, the prejudices transformed from being expressed verbally to straight up aggression (The Eagles burn the Rattler’s flag, The Rattlers ransack their cabin, steal their private property and overturn their beds). Afterwards, a two day cooling period took place, during which the boys listed features of both groups, and they characterized their in group favorably and the out group negatively)
The Rattled allowed the Eagles to drink first, as the Eagles were thirstier because they didn’t have canteens. They agreed to paying $3.50 for the movie, even though the groups were uneven. Later, nobody objected to having dinner together and at breakfast and lunch on the next dat the seating arrangements were considerably mixed up.
conclusion
The study confirms the Realistic conflict theory and the Intergroup contact theory.
strengths
- High validity (it was set up ad a normal summer camp and the participants were unaware of the true means of the study)
- Lower risks of demand characteristics (if the participant is aware of the purpose of the research, they might, consciously or unconsciously, try to prove or disprove it), which causes the study to lack internal validity
-Reliability (despite the fact that the observers could not observe the boys at all times, Sherif tried to make it more reliable by using a numbered scoring system for the boys’ friendship patterns, which collected quantitative data, used multiple observers for interrater reliability, he recorded the boys’ conversations in order to analyse them later)
weaknesses
- Reliability (the study involves observation and the observers were with the boys for mere 12 hours, and they could not see or overhear everything that took place)
- Lacks generalisability (due to a limited sample size)
- ETHICAL ISSUES (the participants were deceived, they were not protect from physical and psychological harm, they did not give valid consent to participate in the study, they weren’t debriefed afterwards, )
- Limited sample (they only tested 12 year old white middle class boys, excluding girls, adults, people from different backgrounds)
No control group
realistic conflict theory
by Muzafer Sherif, it states that th intergoup hostility and conflict arise when groups compete for limited resources, it emphasizes that competition over scarce resources (material goods, power, social status) leads to formations of ingroup and outgroup dynamics, which result in animosity, prejudice and discrimination between groups.
intergroup contact theory
Gordon W. Allport; meaningful, institutionally collaborative interactions between members between different social identity groups can decrease prejudice
