Socialš ā¢ Robber's Cave Study (1954) Flashcards
Who conducted the Robberās cave experiment?
Sherif et al.
What was the aim of the experiment?
To explore how competition between groups and their goals can lead to steryotyping and prejudiced attitudes towards an outgroup + encourage ingroup cooperation
What was the sample of the experiment?
- 22
- Protestant
- middle-class
- 11-12 year-old
- boys
- from Oklahoma, USA
The procedure of the experiment is split into 3 stages:
Explain stage 1 in the procedure of the experiment & state the name of the stage
- Stage 1: Group Formation
- Boys were split into two arbitrary groups & each group arrived on different days & didnāt know of other groups existence
- The boys took part in non-competitive activities to bond with their groups to create sense of solidarity
- Activities included canoeing, tent pitching & building campfires
The procedure of the experiment is split into 3 stages:
Explain stage 2 in the procedure of the experiment & state the name of the stage
- Stage 2: Friction
- Groups were informed of other groupās existence
- Experimentors created a tournament with rewards such as medals/ a trophy for winners
- Games included: tug-of-war, baseball & tent-pitching
- Boys then competed against the other groups for limited resources (rewards)
The procedure of the experiment is split into 3 stages:
Explain stage 3 in the procedure of the experiment & state the name of the stage
- Stage 3: Reducing Friction
- Initally experimentors introduced increased interaciton between the groups e.g. watching a movie together or eating together
- Superordinate tasks then introduced to get groups to cooperate together, these included fixing a broken water supply and fixing a broken truck
Explain the results of stage 1 of the experiment
- The groups started categorising themselves by giving themselves group names, these included the Rattlers & the Eagles
- Group leaders were established
- Group characteristics became apparent (identification):
- Rattlers were anti-swearing and cried more when injured
- Eagles swore a lot and were more tough
- Both groups created flags
Explain the results of stage 2 of the experiment
- Upon the discovery of eachother, the hosility between groups rapidly developed, examples include: name-calling, fights, trashing cabins, burning flags & stealing from eachother
- Ranked scales showcased that boys percived their ingroup members as brave/ tough/friendly but their outgroup members as decietful/sneaky
Explain the results of stage 3 of the experiment
- Initally the increased social contact & introduction of superordinate goals did little to reduce friction
- After water supply groups returned back to intergroup hostility, but after the second superordinate goal of fixing the broken truck animosity significantly reduced & the boys made dinner together
What percentage of a Rattlersā friends were Eagles BEFORE the introduction of superordinate goals?
6.4% friends were Eagles
What percentage of a Rattlersā friends were Eagles AFTER the introduction of superordinate goals?
36.4% friends were Eagles
How did the boys spend the last night?
All as one group around a campfire, all the boys left on the same bus
What did Sherif conclude from his Robberās Cave experiment?
- That Intergroup competiton leads to ingroup favouritism and solidarity but also outgroup hostility.
- Social contact between groups is not enough to reduce prejudice
- But a series of superordinate goals that include positive interdependence can reduce prejudice/ animosity between groups significantly
What is the Generalisability of the Robberās Cave study?
- sample included only male participants, Androcentrism so cannot be generalised as not representative of female behaviour
- sample included only caucasian participants from the USA, Ethnocentrism so cannot be generalised as not represenative of any other cultureās behaviour
What is the Reliability of Burgerās study?
- Numbered scoring system for friendships provided quantative data
- Tournaments were replicable
- Inter-rater reliability as multiple observers were used
What is the Application of Burgerās study?
Application to real world situations to help reduce prejudice:
* competition between groups will lead to outgroup hostility
* Superordniate/ cooperative goals help to significantly reduce animosity between groups and therfore also prejudice
This suggests that in the real world we should not encourage any form of segregation of alternate cultures; alternate cultures should participate in events with host culture to decrease prejudice/ hositlity
What is the Validity of Burgerās study?
- Had ecological validity due to real camp and real activities - field experiment
- Low Population Validity with screening - children were chosen specifically
- Multiple different research methods such as: observation, tape recording conversations and quantative data
- Lacked a control group: no ānormalā summer camp to compare findings to
What are the Ethics of the Robberās Cave study?
- Ethical concers w/ Psychological harm (participants must emerge from study in the same mental & physical state in which they entered in): experimentors did little to mitigate physical fights and encouraged prejudice/ discrimination between groups such as name-calling (both of those could certainly damage a young boy mentally or physically)
- Had the right to withdraw
- Ethics: deception? No apparent debrief after experiment & certainly decived during experiment for true aim as the boys & parents belived it was a normal summer camp
What is a field experiment?
A field experiment is a scientific study that takes place in a real-world setting, rather than in a laboratory, to test causal relationships
What is the competing argument against this study in relation to Sherifās RCT?
- That initially the two groups of boys needed to be provoked before animosity emerged during stage 2 e.g. competitions.
- Experimentors had to secretly raid one of the groups cabins and blame it on the other group to catalyse hostility
- Therefore with this information it can be stateds that intergroup competition doesnt neccesarily lead to hostility
