Sherif 1966 - (Classic study) Realistic Conflict Theory (1)

Question 1

What is realistic conflict theory? Overview

Answer 1

Robbers cave
Competition over resources, land, food or politics
Also caused over perceived conflict e.g. “immigrants are trying to take people’s jobs`

Question 2

What was the procedure in Robbers cave?

Answer 2

22 middle class protestant 11-year-old boys from Oklahoma selected
Arrived on separate days in different places
Boys split into eagle and rattlers - each group had equal abilities (iQ, sporting skill)
Stage 1 - Boys allowed to bond (camping and group activities)
Stage 2 - boys learned of each other and competition begins in sports (baseball and tug of war and a treasure hunt)
Boys compete for points which lead to prizes
Eagles burned rattlers flag
Stage 3 - resolving conflict - the groups were then presented with superordinate goals such as to free a food truck from the mud and fix a water tank.
They ate together, watched a movie together and did tasks together

Question 3

Who was involved in Robbers cave?

Answer 3

22 middle class protestant 11-year-old boys from Oklahoma

Question 4

What were the findings and evaluation of Robbers cave?

Answer 4

2 eagles went home due to homesickness
Differing social norms had occurred quickly and leaders were selected
Upon discovery, groups began to clash (fights, trashing each other’s tents and stealing)
More ingroup members were seen to be strong, tuff and friendly
Social contact and superordinate tasks initially had little impact but after the food truck became friends and out-group friendships had increased

Question 5

What conclusions were made from Robbers cave?

Answer 5

Inter-group competition leads to increased in-group favouritism and solidarity and out-group hostility
Increased social contact is not enough to reduce prejudice
A series of superordinate goals can reduce prejudice significantly

Question 6

What were the main issues with the Robbers Cave study?

Answer 6

The use of male American children made it unreliable and not applicable
Biological differences could have caused boys to behave in a more competitive manner than girls
They were American (a culture that values competition) so may have been more aggressive manner
Adults may be less impressionable and so its not applicable
The findings are not generalisable
Boys did not give their own consent
Boys were exposed to situations which could harm them physically or mentally

Question 7

What was the aim of Sherif’s (1956/61) study?

Answer 7

To investigate relations between groups:

To see whether strangers who have common goals will form a close group.
To see whether 2 groups that compete with each other will become hostile towards each other.

Question 8

What was the Procedure of Stage 1 in Sherif’s (1954/61) study?

Answer 8

For 1 week, the two groups were kept apart and allowed to form group norms + identities

Boys developed an attachment to the group throughout the first week of the camp, by doing various activities together (hiking, swimming, etc)

The boys chose names for their groups- The Eagles + The Rattlers- and stencilled them onto shirts + flags

Question 9

What was the Procedure of Stage 2 in Sherif’s (1954/61) study?

Answer 9

The boys were told about another. They went through a tournament of a series of competitions; where the winner get trophies, medals, and camping knives

The researchers recorded phrases used by the boys, and analysed if they’re derogatory

A bean counting competition was included-boys had to then estimate how many each found; which was to see if they’d overestimate the in group/ underestimate the out group

Question 10

What was the Procedure of Stage 3 in Sherif’s (1954/61) study?

Answer 10

To achieve harmony within the group, the boys started doing tasks that brought them all together

Examples: Fixing a water tank, pulling a broken truck out of mud

Data was collected through the observation of the boys’ friendship, an analysis of friendship, through the experiments and tape recordings.

Question 11

What were the Results of Stage 1 in Sherif’s (1954/61) study?

Answer 11

The boys bonded with their groups and both groups had a recognised leader.

They discussed the existence of the other group in negative terms e.g. ‘they had better not be in our swimming hole’.

Question 12

What were the Results of Stage 2 in Sherif’s (1954/61) study?

Answer 12

Towards the end of stage one, the groups began to become competitive and prejudice became apparent between the two groups

At first this was only verbally expressed but as the competition wore on this expression took a more direct route

The Eagles refused to sit with the Rattlers, the Eagles burned and Rattlers flag. The next day the Rattlers ransacked the Eagles cabin overturned beds and stole private property

Question 13

What were the Results of Stage 3 in Sherif’s (1954/61) study?

Answer 13

The hostility between the groups initially remained, but the problem solving problems began to reduce the hostility towards each other.

When they fixed the water tank they celebrated together, and there was cooperation by all the boys contributing the same amount to hire a film

For tasks helped to reduce friction and by the end of the stage, although friendship choices still favoured the in-groups, there was increased friendships between the groups

The Rattlers even spent a $5 prize from one of the competitions on drinks for all of the boys

Question 14

What was the conclusion of Sherif’s (1954/61) study?

Answer 14

Groups bonded and developed hierarchies within them, as expected

When the groups met in competition, in-group solidarity and cooperation increased, and hostility towards the other group was strong

Contact between the two groups was not enough to reduce hostility, and friction was reduced by the groups having to solve problems together and cooperate

Question 15

What were the Strengths of Sherif’s (1954/61) study?

Answer 15

Reliability: all boys experienced the same team-building and competitive activities in three stages – standardised

Ecological Validity: The boys behaviour was tested on summer camp at the Robbers Cave National Park, Oklahoma - natural environment

Internal Validity: The ppts were all very similar, meaning participant characteristics couldn’t affect results
The covert observations mean that the researchers (initially) weren’t going to affect their behaviour

Practical Application

Question 16

What were the Weaknesses of Sherif’s (1954/61) study?

Answer 16

Generalisability: The participants were twenty two 11 and 12 year old boys who are all athletic/sporty, and are white American Protestants

Ecological Validity: The procedure involved strangers meeting and competing, which is artificial as usually people in competition have a history of social interaction

Internal Validity: The naturalistic environment meant that the researchers couldn’t really control extraneous and confounding variables

Internal Validity/Mundane Realism: Unpublished researcher notes and interviews many years later revealed that the boys were aware that behaviour was being recorded, and the researcher may have encouraged hostility between the boys by breaking down tents and blaming rival teams – demand characteristics

Question 17

What are the Ethical Issues surrounding Sherif’s (1954/61) study?

Answer 17

Protection From Harm: They were given pen knives as prizes, allowed to set fire to flags
Sherif encouraged high levels of conflict in order to gain successful study outcomes

Deception: The boys believed it was a study of leadership, rather than hostility

Question 18

Where did Sherif et al’s (1954/61) study take place?

Answer 18

Robber’s Cave State Park, Oklahoma

it occurred during the boys’ summer camp

Question 19

Who created Realistic Conflict Theory, and when?

Answer 19

Sherif, 1966

Question 20

How does Realistic Conflict Theory claim how prejudice arises?

Answer 20

Sherif claimed that prejudice arises when there is conflict between groups.

The conflict can be a conflict of interest (e.g. both groups believe their ideas are right and the others wrong) or ‘inter-group conflict’

Question 21

What is ‘inter-group conflict’?

Answer 21

When conflict or competition is present, the groups form stronger identities and these result in extreme in-group favouritism and out group hostility.

In-group favouritism may be shown through overly generous distribution of resources in favour of the in-group. Out-group hostility may be shown through withholding resources from the out group (discrimination) and even violence against members of the out group.

Question 22

How does Realistic Conflict Theory argue that hostility/prejudice can be reduced?

Answer 22

However, Sherif believed that hostility is reduced when the groups have a common goal and work together to achieve that goal.

He called this a ‘superordinate goal’ and claimed it would only reduce prejudice if all members of each group co-operated in order to achieve the intended outcome.

Question 23

What did Sherif do to support Realistic Conflict Theory?

Answer 23

Sherif carried out a number of summer camp studies to show how quickly prejudice and discrimination occurs when groups of boys are in competition with one another. His studies also showed how common goals (superordinate goals) could help to reduce prejudice and discrimination.

Question 24

List the Advantages and Disadvantages of Realistic Conflict Theory.

Answer 24

Carol + Ember
Sherif + Ecological Validity
Aronson et al

Practical Application
Complexity
Real life example

Question 25

How does Carol + Ember’s study support Realistic Conflict Theory?

Answer 25

Carol + Ember: observed that in tribal societies, intergroup hostility increases when social or natural conditions mean that competition for these resources are necessary. during periods of famine/natural disasters, warfare was more likely to the available, scarce resources.

Similar studies have suggested that when population is low and land abundant, hostilities between small societies are less likely; but when populations expand and land becomes in short supply, conflict + violence increase.

Question 26

How does Sherif’s findings support or challenge Realistic Conflict Theory?

Answer 26

Sherif: The greatest amount of evidence comes from Sherif’s field experiments (inc. Robber’s Cave); which found that competition increased hostility between the groups.

Ecological Validity: These are seen as important ‘real-life’ evidence for prejudice/

Question 27

How does Aronson et al’s findings support or challenge Realistic Conflict Theory?

Answer 27

Using the ‘jigsaw technique’, where students were divided into small groups that had to succeed in one group task to ensure the success overall class project; they found that levels of competition decreased.

Question 28

Does Realistic Conflict Theory have Practical Application?

Answer 28

Realistic Conflict Theory can be used in schools to reduce prejudice; by joining 2 ‘opposing groups’ together to work on a problem solving task; or through the ‘jigsaw technique’

Question 29

Is Realistic Conflict Theory Complex?

Answer 29

The theory provides a more complex explanation of how prejudice works in comparison to individual personality explanation. It explains how prejudice is not fixed or unchangeable but can be reduced through social intervention (e.g. jigsaw technique).