Sherif Study (Classic)

Question 1

What happened in stage 2?

Answer 1

-They held a sporting tourdement where they did activites such as baseball, tug of war and counting beans.
-Introduced competition to the boys and started name calling (cheat, stinker, sneak) and physical fights started.

Question 2

What methods were used to observe the boys behaviour?

Answer 2

-Observation
-Sociometric analysis
-Experimenting
-Tape recordings

Question 3

Where did the study take place?

Answer 3

Robbers cave state park, Oklahoma.

Question 4

What happened in stage 1?

Answer 4

-Groups were kept apart for 1 week and di activites such as hiking and camping.
-The groups had given themselves names: eagles and rattlers.

Question 5

What were the three stages of the study?

Answer 5

-In-group formation
-Friction phase
-Integration phase.

Question 6

What were the boys grouped from?

Answer 6

-IQ
-Sporing ability

Question 7

Where were all the boys from?

Answer 7

America, Oklahoma

Question 8

What shared characteristic did the boys have?

Answer 8

All prodestants

Question 9

What was Sherif’s sample?

Answer 9

22, 11 year old boys

Question 10

What was the aim of the study?

Answer 10

To test the development of in-group behaviour to include out-group hostility through competition and how this can be reduced.

Question 11

What did the reasearches introduce to reduce prejudice/hostility?

Answer 11

Superordinate goals- where everyone has a collective goal to work on and therefore work together.

Question 12

What happened in stage 3?

Answer 12

-Introduced superordinate goals to improve everyone’s relations (e.g: making the camp truck break down so they had to fix it).

Question 13

What were the results between stage 2 and 3 between the rattlers and the eagles?

Answer 13

-Rattles increased for 6.4: in stage 2 to 36.4% in stage 3 for out-group friendships.
-Eagles increased from 7.5% in stage 2 to 23.2% in stage 3 for out group friendships.

Question 14

What is the conclusion?

Answer 14

-When there was a lot of competition between the two groups there was a lot of physical fighting and name calling due to the researchers creating prejudice.
-Prejudice can be reduced by introducing superordinate goals.

Question 15

What bias is the study high in?

Answer 15

Beta bias
-Generalises all individuals but they don’t know females would react this way or be less aggressive as males have a higher level of testosterone which makes someone more aggressive.

Question 16

What is beta bias?

Answer 16

The tendency to minimise differences between genders.

Question 17

What was the prizes for the winning group in the tordument?

Answer 17

Pen knives - created more competion.

Question 18

Why is the study not very generalisable?

Answer 18

-Andocentric sample- can’t represnt women.
-All prodestants so have shared characteristics.
-Ethnocentric sample- all from America/Oklahoma.

Question 19

Why is the study reliable?

Answer 19

Quite standerdies as the tasks and enviroment are kept the same for each participant.

Question 20

Why is the study applicable to real life situation?

Answer 20

Superordinate goals can be useful in real life to reduce reduce prejudice.

Question 21

Why is the study valid?

Answer 21

-Didn’t know they were being observed so there are less demand characteristics, ppts are less likely to change behaviour.
-Triangulation of data- many techniques used so high validity.
-High ecological validity- in a summer camp, naturalistic setting.
High mundane realism- sporting tasks.

Question 22

Why is the study low in validity?

Answer 22

-Low mundane realism for counting beans tasks, can influence unnatural behaviour.

Question 23

What is the triangulation of data?

Answer 23

Multiple measure to measure the same thing (all different means low validity).

Question 24

What ethical guidelines are not followed?

Answer 24

Consent- cannot get informed consent as no one knew about the observation.
Deception- not aware of observation
Protection from harm- has physical fights, name calling can cause psychological harm which is a product of the researcher causing prejudice.

Question 25

What does it mean if a study is low in ethics?

Answer 25

Lowers credibility.