Sherif et al. (1954/1961)

Question 1

what was the aim of the study ?

Answer 1

to explore how competition and frustration of a group’s goals can lead to unfavourable stereotyping and prejudiced attitudes towards an outgroup, and encourage ingroup solidarity

Question 2

what type of experiment was it ?

Answer 2

field experiment

Question 3

what is an example of a dependent variable ?

Answer 3

number of friends identified in the outgroup

Question 4

how many boys took part?

Answer 4

22

Question 5

how old were the boys ?

Answer 5

11 years old

Question 6

name four things (apart from age) that the boys all had in common (control variables)?

Answer 6

1. middle class
2. from Oklahoma
3. protestant
4. all socially and emotionally well-adjusted

Question 7

what were the two groups called ?

Answer 7

1. eagles

2. rattlers

Question 8

what is a control for the groups’ abilities ?

Answer 8

each group comprised boys with equivalent abilities (such as IQ and sporting prowess)

Question 9

what was required of the parents of the boys ?

Answer 9

1. they had to give full consent (their doctors had to give full consent as well)
2. parents had to pay a small fee for camp
3. were asked not to visit

Question 10

what were the three stages of the procedure?

Answer 10

1. group formation
2. friction
3. reducing friction

Question 11

what occurred in ‘group formation’ ?

Answer 11

• boys took part in non-competitive activities (bonding)
• activities included canoeing and tent pitching
• two eagles went home toward the end of the first week due to homesickness

Question 12

what happened in ‘friction’ ?

Answer 12

• each group learnt of each other’s existence
• researchers created tournament with prizes (medals and trophies and pocket knives)
• contests included tug of war, baseball and tent pitching
• extra points awarded to comedy sketches and cabin inspection

Question 13

what occurred in ‘reducing friction’ ?

Answer 13

• initial tasks involved increased levels of social contact (e.g. watching a film)
• then superordinate goals were introduced (e.g. mending a broken water supply and starting a broken-down truck)

Question 14

findings from stage one ?

Answer 14

• groups named themselves ‘The Rattlers’ and ‘The Eagles’
• the rattlers were tougher and swore more
• eagles cried more when injured and were anti-swearing

Question 15

findings from stage two ?

Answer 15

• on discovering each other, they wanted to challenge each other to a baseball game
• hostility grew rapidly from the beginning
• there was name-calling, fights and scuffles
• raided each other’s cabins
• only 6.4% of rattlers’ friends were eagles
• only 7.5% of eagles’ friends were rattlers

Question 16

findings from stage three ?

Answer 16

• social contact and superordinate goals initially did nothing to reduce friction
• soon after fixing the water supply - insults were hurled at the other group
• but after getting the truck going, the boys all made dinner together and hostility was significantly reduced
• outgroup friendships increased

Question 17

how did the the percentages change with outgroup friendships from the end of the second stage to the end of the third stage ?

Answer 17

• Rattlers’ outgroup friendships = 6.4% to 36.4%

- Eagles’ outgroup friendships = 7.5% to 23.2%

Question 18

what were the conclusions of the study ?

Answer 18

• intergroup competition leads to increased ingroup favouritism and solidarity but also outgroup hostility
• increased social contact is not enough to reduce prejudice effectively
• the conclusions of this study led sherif to develop realistic conflict theory

Question 19

Validity of study ?

Answer 19

• careful matching of the two groups improved the internal validity
• researchers spent over 300 hours observing, interviewing and testing ppts until finalising the 22
• allocated them carefully to ensure a match of personalities
• meant results could not be explained by pre-existing differences between the two groups

Question 20

competing argument to validity ?

Answer 20

• two boys went home due to homesickness - both eagles-careful matching disintegrated after the first week
• gave rattlers an unfair advantage
• moreover the two groups had different personalities (rattlers swore and eagles didn’t)
• therefore the groups weren’t equal and so the internal validity was reduced

Question 21

reliability of the study ?

Answer 21

• subsequent research by Andrew Tyerman and Christopher Spencer (1983) failed to replicate the findings

Question 22

explain tyerman and Spencer (1983)

Answer 22

• tyerman was a sea scout
• studied his troop of 30 boys
• each belonged to one of four patrols
• they all knew each other well
• at their two-week annual camp, tyerman observed that in-group solidarity within each patrol did not increase - even decreased a little
• no hostility between patrols during competitions

Question 23

what does tyerman and Spencer (1983) suggest ?

Answer 23

it suggests that competition only elicits prejudice when the people don’t know each other well

Question 24

what is an application of the study ?

Answer 24

• can be applied to reducing prejudice in society, using the idea of superordinate goals
• Aronson and Bridgeman (1979) used sheriff’s superordinate goals to develop the jigsaw classroom (made to reduce racism in American schools)
• students had to work together to take responsibility for a different part of a project
• end result was an increased liking and empathy for outgroup members and improved performance for black minority students

Question 25

what did they give the boys at the end of the study ?

Answer 25

they were asked to complete standardised questionnaires rating both the in-group and out-group