Sherif et al

Question 1

Aim

Answer 1

observe how competition and frustration of group’s goals affect prejudiced attitudes towards an out group

Question 2

Sample population

Answer 2

22 boysage 11didn’t know eachothersocially and emotionally well-adjusted

Question 3

Procedure

Answer 3

2 groups Rattlers and Eagles3 weeks (qualitative and quantitative)Covert observation, recordings, ranked scales, questionnairesStage 1 = group information (non-competitive activities so boys bond within the group, 2 eagles went home)Stage 2 = friction (learned of each other’s existence, researchers created a tournament for prizes and points awarded)Stage 3 = reducing friction (initial tasks involved increased social contact, superordinate goals introduced later in tasks requiring intergroup coordination)

Question 4

Findings Stage 1

Answer 4

Groups named themselvesLeaders establishedDifferent social norms developedRattlers tough and sworeEagles nearly cried when injured and were anti-swearing

Question 5

Findings stage 2

Answer 5

Hostility developedName calling and fightsraids on eachothers campsone burnt others flagonly 6.4% of rattlers were friends with eaglesand 7.5% of eagles were friends with rattlers

Question 6

findings stage 3

Answer 6

social contact and superordinate tasks initially did not reduce frictiongroups still hurl insults after fixing the water supplybut hostility greatly reduced after getting the truck going and making dinner together The boys entertained each other on the last night and left the camp as friends on the same bus36.4% of rattlers’ friends were eagles23.2% of eagles friends were rattlers

Question 7

Conclusion

Answer 7

Intergroup competition leads to an increase in-group favoritism and solidarity but also to out group hostilityIncreased social contact is not enough to reduce prejudice, requires a series of superordinate goals

Question 8

Strength

Answer 8

researchers spent 300hrs selecting potential participants, who were then carefully allocated across the two groups across the two groups to ensure an even match of persoinalities skills and interestsEnsured results could not be due to pre-existing differences between the two groups of boysIncreased the internal validity if the study and meant the findings really were dependent on the situations which were created

Question 9

Counter argument to strength

Answer 9

2 boys who went home were both eagles which mean the careful matching process disintegrated once the study startedThe eagles may also have become friendlier towards each other having been close to the 2 children who were initially upset and returned home. therefore, the two groups were not equivalent, reducing the internal validity of the study

Question 10

Weakness

Answer 10

Tyerman and Spencer 1983 studied sea scout troop of 30 boys at a 2 week campKnew eachother wellIn group solidarity within each patrol decreases slightly rather thann increase Did not become hostile during competitionCompetition may only elicit prejudice form people who do not already know eachother

Question 11

Application

Answer 11

Aronson and bridgman 1979Developed jigsaw classroom, an intervention for tackling racial prejudice in American shootsStudents worked together and took responsibility for different parts of a group projectLiking and empathy for out roup members increased and academic performance of black minority students improvedSherif et al’s research led to interventions to help ethnic minority students to reach their academic potential at school rather than being held back by discrimination from their peers