sherif et al: Robbers cave study

Question 1

What were the 2 aims?

Answer 1

1. to explore how competition can lead to prejudice and discrimination
2. investigate ways of reducing prejudice by the use of common goals

Question 2

What kind of sample was used?

Answer 2

Oppurtunity sample

Question 3

How many participants were there?

Answer 3

22

Question 4

How old were the participants?

Answer 4

11

Question 5

What characteristics did they share?

Answer 5

All white
middle-class
protestant boys
from Oklahoma, USA

Question 6

Did the participants know each other prior to the study?

Answer 6

No

Question 7

How much were the parents paid to not see their kids during the study?

Answer 7

$25

Question 8

Who gave consent for the kids?

Answer 8

Their parents and doctors

Question 9

Did the boys know they were being observed?

Answer 9

No

Question 10

What kind of experiment was the study?

Answer 10

Field experiment

Question 11

What was stage one?

Answer 11

Group formation

Question 12

How were the boys put into groups?

Answer 12

Randomly divided into 1 of 2 groups

Question 13

What were the names of the 2 groups?

Answer 13

1. Rattlers
2. Eagles

Question 14

Who and how many went home during stage 1 and why?

Answer 14

2- Home sickness

Question 15

What happened in the first stage?

Answer 15

Boys were placed in separate cabins and did non-competitive activities like canoeing and hiking to bond within their groups.

Question 16

What was the second stage called?

Answer 16

Friction

Question 17

What happened in the second stage?

Answer 17

The groups learned of each others existence

Question 18

How was negative interdependence encouraged in the second stage?

Answer 18

Groups entered tournaments with activities (baseball and tug of war) with a trophy as a reward

Question 19

What were extra points awarded for?

Answer 19

clean cabins
comedy sketches
treasure hunts

Question 20

What was the third stage called?

Answer 20

Reducing friction

Question 21

What happened in the third stage?

Answer 21

Superordinate goals such as fixing the water supply and the camp truck
Tasks such as eating together and watching a movie together to increase social contact

Question 22

What were the results of stage 1?

Answer 22

Eagles established leaders, cried when injured and were anti-swearing
Rattlers were tough and swore a lot

Question 23

What percentage of rattlers friends were eagles in Stage 2?

Answer 23

6.4%

Question 24

What percentage of eagles friends were rattlers?

Answer 24

7.5%

Question 25

What were some of the behaviours observed in Stage 2?

Answer 25

Name-calling ("sneaky"/"stinky") fights/scuffles Cabin raids One group burnt another's flag

Question 26

What percentage of rattler's friends were eagles by stage 3?

Answer 26

36.4%

Question 27

What percentage of eagle's friends were rattler's by stage 3?

Answer 27

23.2%

Question 28

What were some of the behaviour observed in stage 3?

Answer 28

Social contact + superordinate goals reduced friction Made dinner together after fixing truck which reduced the hostility entertained each other on the last night

Question 29

What were the 2 conclusions of the study?

Answer 29

1. Intergroup conflict causes ingroup favouritism and outgroup hostility 2. Prejudice and hostility can be decreased by introducing superordinate goals

Question 30

Why does the study have poor generalisability? (G.r.a.v.e)

Answer 30

Ethnocentric and androcentric- lacks variation and isn't representitive

Question 31

How does the study have low inter-rate reliability? (g.R.a.v.e)

Answer 31

Andrew Tyerman and Christopher Spencer tried to replicate findings with 30 boy sea scouts but failed

Question 32

How does the study have low reliability? (g.R.a.v.e)

Answer 32

Study was observational and there was no inter rate reliability

Question 33

How can the findings be applied in real-life situations? (g.r.A.v.e)

Answer 33

Decrease prejudice in schools, workplace Gang warfare

Question 34

How does the study have high ecological validity? (g.r.a.V.e)

Answer 34

Where you'd expect the behaviour to take place

Question 35

What could've compromised the validity? (g.r.a.V.e)

Answer 35

The cameras may have caused the children to demonstrate demand characteristics

Question 36

How were ethics violated? (g.r.a.v.E)

Answer 36

Deception- didnt give informed consent Protection from harm- exposed to hostility and anxiety