Social - Sherif et al. (1954/1961)

Question 1

What was the aim of Sherif et al.

Answer 1

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

Question 2

What kind of experiment and observation does Sherif use

Answer 2

Field experiment, non-participant covert observation, matched-pairs (boys matched so both groups had equivalent abilities)

Question 3

Independent variable - Sherif

Answer 3

Whether atmosphere at the camp was competition or cooperation

Question 4

Dependent variable - Sherif

Answer 4

There were many different ones, e.g. number of friends identified in the outgroup

Question 5

Sample - Sherif

Answer 5

22 participants. Protestant middle-class 11-year-old boys from Oklahoma, America
All socially and emotionally well-adjusted, none knew each other prior to camp

Question 6

Type of data collected - Sherif

Answer 6

Qualitative: covert observation and recordings
Quantitative - ranked scales to measure boy’s beliefs about each other, questionnaires (e.g. how long a tug of war lasted)

Question 7

Three stages of the study - Sherif

Answer 7

Stage 1: group formation
Stage 2: friction
Stage 3: reducing friction

Question 8

Procedure of Stage 1: group formation

Answer 8

Boys took part in team-building activities within their groups (‘The Rattlers’ or ‘The Eagles’).
This included canoeing, tent pitching, building campfires, etc.
*2 eagles went home due to home sickness

Question 9

Procedure of Stage 2: Friction

Answer 9

The groups learnt each other’s existence.
Researchers created a tournament with prizes of medals and trophy for the winners
Contests included tug of war, baseball and tent pitching
Extra points awarded for cabin inspections, comedy sketches and a treasure hunt

Question 10

Procedure of stage 3: reducing friction

Answer 10

Initial tasks involved increased social contact (e.g. eating or watching a movie together)
Later superordinate goals were introduced - tasks that required in inter group cooperation (e.g. mending a broken water supply and starting a broken-down truck)

Question 11

Findings of stage 1: group formation

Answer 11

Groups called themselves ‘the rattlers’ and ‘the eagles’
Leaders were established and differing social norms were apparent - rattlers were tough and swore a lot while Eagles cried more when injured and were anti-swearing

Question 12

Findings of stage 2: friction

Answer 12

After finding out the existence of each other, both groups wanted to challenge each other to a baseball contest and hostility developed rapidly.
There was name calling, fights and scuffles, they raided and trashed each other’s cabins
Ranked scales showed more in group members were seen as brave and friendly while outgroup members were seen as sneaky or stinkers.
Only 6.4% of Rattler’s friends were Eagles and 7.5% of Eagles friends were Rattlers

Question 13

Findings of stage 3: reducing friction

Answer 13

Social contact and superordinate tasks initially did little to reduce friction
After fixing water supply, groups were hurling insults again.
After fixing the truck, boys made dinner together and hostility was greatly reduced
Boys entertained each other around the campfire and left the camp as friends
Outgroup friendships increased - 36.4% of Rattler’s friends were now Eagles and 23.2% of Eagles’ friends were Rattlers

Question 14

Sherif conclusion

Answer 14

Inter group competition leads to increased in group favouritism and solidarity but also to outgroup hostility
Increased social contact not enough to reduce prejudice, but a series of superordinate goals can reduce prejudice effectively

Question 15

High generalisability - Sherif

Answer 15

All the boys were screened and approved by doctors

No mental/ psychological differences

Question 16

Low generalisability - Sherif

Answer 16

Androcentric: were all boys, there may be biological differences between males and females in terms of their competitiveness (hormones, gender norms)
Small sample: only 22 boys
Ethnocentric: all white, Protestant, middle-class boys from USA, not generalisable to collectivist cultures and those of other social classes and races
Time capsulated: study conducted in 1954/61, societal norms have changed over time, people may act differently in terms of prejudice and competitiveness

Question 17

High reliability - Sherif

Answer 17

Quantitative data: ranked scales and questionnaires conducted to collect data, this would increase reliability as it increases objectivity and makes it more standardised
Replicate: there are components of this study which could be replicated and increase reliability, e.g. the competitions (however, it may produce different results)

Question 18

Low reliability - Sherif

Answer 18

Observation: observers were with the boys 12 hours a day, there could be observer bias or the observers may only record behaviour they were told to look out for

Question 19

Application - Sherif

Answer 19

Shows how competition and frustration creates hostility towards out groups - suggests that discrimination and violent could be reduced if there was more equality between different groups

Reducing hostility through working on common goals. Ghettos should be discouraged and immigrants should be made to take up the host culture’s language, education and pastimes

Question 20

High validity - Sherif

Answer 20

Validity:used several different research methods (observing, tape recording, tests, quantitative and qualitative data), boys screened and matched beforehand so no extraneous variables
Ecological validity: field experiment, tasks and activities seemed real to the boys, more likely to exhibit natural behaviour

Question 21

Low validity - Sherif

Answer 21

Validity: 2 eagles dropped out, suggests that the matched pairs weren’t as well
Control group: Sherif doesn’t have a “normal” summer camp to compare his camp to, doesn’t show how much of a difference there is between the study and an actual camp

Billig (1976): Sherif misunderstood findings of his own study, he didn’t realise that experimenters was also a group in his own study
Perry (2014): observers had an influence on the boys, e.g. Rattlers took their name form when a senior counsellor shot two snakes which impressed the boys

Question 22

Ethical problems - Sherif

Answer 22

Consent + debrief: boys did not give valid consent (their parents did), not debrief afterwards, experimenters failed to respect their autonomy and dignity, parents not informed on everything that was going on
Deceived: about broken water pipe and food truck being broken, subjected to risk and researchers did little to stop them
Withdraw: boys could withdraw (2 boys left), however they may not have known their rights
Harm: there were violence and possible trauma however it seemed normal during the time