sherif et al Flashcards
1
Q
background
A
- wanted to see how groups developed
- if and how conflict between groups arose
- how to reduce friction (application)
2
Q
small group
A
- individuals that share a common goal which fosters interaction
- individuals are affected by being in a group
- a group develops with its own hierarchy and a set of norms is standardised
3
Q
norms
A
- a product of group interaction
- regulates behaviour of members in terms of the expected behaviour
4
Q
group
A
- a social unit with a number of individuals who are interdependent and have a set of norms and values for self regulation
- individuals have roles within the unit
5
Q
aims
A
- explore how competition and frustration of a groups goal can lead to unfavourable stereotyping and prejudice towards the outgroup and encourages in-group solidarity and cooperation
- to produce group norms and to measure their effects of the perceptions of those involved
- study intergroup relations
- find a trace of formation of positive and negative attitudes towards members of the other group
6
Q
sample
A
- 22 boys
- 11 yrs
- all white
- none knew each other
- matched and split into 2 groups
- all from protestant, stable families
- all from Oklahoma
- not aware of aims
7
Q
how were the boys matched
A
- by teachers (IQ)
- later their sporting ability
8
Q
what was the process of selecting the sample
A
- all screened to eliminate home problems
- eliminate other issues which could have been an individual difference
9
Q
4 data types used
A
observation
experiment
sociometric analysis
tape recordings
10
Q
obsevation
A
participant observer was allocated to each group 12hrs a day
11
Q
sociometric analysis
A
issues such as friendship patterns were noted and studies
12
Q
experiment
A
boys had to collect beans and had to estimate how many beans each other had collected
13
Q
tape recordings
A
adjectives and phrases used to refer to in/outgroup members were examined
14
Q
procedure stage 1
A
- boys kept apart for 1 week to form social norms/relations
- given activities to work together, e.g hiking, swimming to form relations
- gave themselves names (rattlers and eagles)
- stenciled names onto flags, t-shirts, e.t.c
- 2 eagles went home
15
Q
procedure stage 2
A
- friction phase
- tournament set up with activites, e.g tug of war, baseball
- points given to winning team = prizes
- prizes such as medals, trophies, pocket knifes given
- as soon as they heard about each other hostility arose
- collecting beans experiment
16
Q
beans experiment
A
- boys had to collect beans and judge how many each boy had collected to see if they would overestimate their own team
17
Q
stage 3 procedure
A
- researchers wanted to achieve harmony
- introduced tasks with superordinate goals, e.g fixing broken water pipe, piling resources together to be able to watch a film
- pulling broken truck back to camp
18
Q
stage 1 -findings
A
- rattlers discussed existence of another group ‘they had better not be in our swimming hole’
- eagles wanted to play a game against them = seeking out competition
19
Q
stage 2 - findings
A
- groups naturally moved into this stage
- wanted competition
- rattlers protected their flag ‘we will beat them’
- name calling ‘stinkers’
- eagles burnt rattler flag
20
Q
stage 3 - findings
A
- still hostility ‘ladies first’
- sat in own groups
- increased outgroup friendships
- were able to dine together
21
Q
rattlers outgroup friendships end of stage 2
A
6.9%
22
Q
rattlers outgroup friendships end of stage 3
A
36.4%
23
Q
eagles outgroup friendships end of stage 2
A
7.5%
24
Q
eagles outgroup friendships end of stage 3
A
23.2%`
25
Q
generalisability -
A
- sample = 22, small - so it is unlikely there will be a wide range of backgrounds = can’t represent to the most of the population
- only male participants = androcentric so results can’t be generalised to women
- all aged 11 = not generalisable to other age groups
- all from Oklahoma = ethnocentric
- all from protestant, white families so doesn’t reflect other races
26
Q
reliability
A
- multiple data sources, observed 12 hours a day
- sociometric measures
- beans experiment
- tape recordings
- all gathered similar findings, so there’s high inter-rater reliability
- standardised procedures, e.g tug of war, baseball in stage 2
- cooperative activies, e.g hiking
- can be easily replicated
- however boys asked to move into stage 2 phase early so the study didn’t follow a precise structure as to when different timings came into place = not as standardised
- small sample size of 22
27
Q
applications
A
- demonstrates how competition and frustration leads to hostility towards outgroups
- suggests discrimination and violence could be reduced if jobs, housing, education and other opportunities were shared more fairly
- shows hostility can be reduced if groups are made to interact or given superordinate goals, it isn’t enough just to be in the presence of each other
28
Q
validity
A
- differing research methods and the boys were at a real summer camp and did real life activities = high ecological validity
- if fights broke out in real life councelers wouold intervene = lacks some ecological validity ?
- experiment lacked a control group so it doesn’t mean behaviour was down to rivalry and prejudice it may just have been lack of discipline
29
Q
ethics
A
- boys didn’t give valid consent to be in this study and weren’t seen to be debriefed after = covert
- deceived about broken water pipe
- but when a serious fight did break out experimenters did intervene = protected from harm
- boys parents gave presumptive conseikjint but were asked not to visit camp so weren’t informed about everything that was going on
