Week 5 - Conflict and Cooperation

Question 1

Relevant Background: Who was Sherif, what was he interested in and what concepts did he reject?

Answer 1

Sherif
–> Witnessed the invasion of Turkey, and arrested for his anti-fascist views
–> Was interested in how GROUP NORMS develop through GROUP DYNAMICS
–> Early Work: Autokinetic Effect *social influence studies showing conversion)
BUT: what happens when different groups make judgements in the same situation (and where that situation is MALIGN rather than BENIGN)

Sherif REJECTED
1. Trait-based explanations of stereotypes
2. The ‘great man’ theory of leadership
Intergroup behaviour IS NOT primarily a problem of deviate behaviour

Question 2

“The Summer Camp Studies” Experiment: Aims

Answer 2

To explore the origins of intergroup conflict and cooperation
–> The experiments focused of the formation of group identities, the development of prejudices and hostility between groups, and methods to reduce conflict and foster positive intergroup relations

Question 3

Experiment: Participants

Answer 3

N = 24 boys
–> Aged 11-12
–> selected to be socially well-adjusted, academically successful, from stable, white, Protestant, middle-class homes

Question 4

Experiment: Methods

Answer 4

In 1949, 1953, and 1954 Sherif conducted 3 experimental field studies offering boys to visit camps in the USA

Stage 1 (*not 1954): Boys allowed to choose their own friends and develop allegiences

Stage 2: Boys deliberately placed into two different groups and placed in separate cabins

Stage 3: Groups compete for scarce resources (eg. prizes, treats, treasure hunts)

Stage 4 (*Only 1954): Groups co-operate to achieve goals (eg. tow a broken down bus, find a leak in the water system)

Question 5

Experiment: Hypotheses

Answer 5

H1:Group Formation (Stage 1 and 2)
–> Hierarchal structure differentiated in terms of status and roles

H2: Groups in competition (Stage 3)
–> Hostile attitudes and actions towards the outgroup will be standardised and consensualised

Question 6

Findings: 1949 Connecticut

Answer 6

Hypotheses 1:
–> The groups DID indeed develop an internal structure of leaders and subordinates, so that ‘the group became an organisation’
o The Bull Dogs (winners; close-knit; cohesive)
o Red Devils (losers; more stratified - a few high up leaders, rest down below)
–> The groups became a REFERENCE GROUP for each of its members (basis for standardised attitudes to develop)
At the end of stage 1 there was MORE of a mix in ‘friends’ between the groups, at the end of stage 2 almost all of a member’s friends were from their group

Intergroup friendship post-competition becomes the NORM: (emerging group culture)
–> Nicknames
–> Development of group names (Red devils and bull dogs)
–> Slogans and rituals

Hypothesis 2: Once the groups had competed for scarce resources, marked decline in quality of intergroup relations
–> Increasing derogatory slurs and stereotypes
–> Planned and actual raids on other groups cabins to reclaim and steal prizes etc.

There was an emergent dynamic association with:
–> Outgroup distancing and derogation
–> Ingroup enhancement, self-justification (solidarity WITHIN GROUPS increased at this time - as well as leadership changes in times of peace (popular kids) and times of competition (authoritarian kids)

Question 7

Results: 1954 Robber’s Cave (Replication) - Rattlers vs Eagles

Answer 7

Found that: Data found similar results for H1 and H2 in Connecticut

ADDITIONAL HYPOTHESIS: Hostile attitudes can be overcome when groups need to co-operate to achieve super-ordinate (worth completing but require multiple groups) goals
–> Was achieved by creating situations that resulted in a “cumulative effect of reducing friction between groups and unfavourable stereotypes towards the outgroup”
o Pooling money to rent a film, towing a broken truck, finding a water leak etc.

CONCLUSIONS:
–> Emergent group norms regulate behaviour
–> Negative interdependence (in a zero-sum situation)
o Between groups: tensions and associated prejudicial attitudes towards an outgroup
o Within groups: increases evaluation of ingroup
–> Positive interdependence (goals, win-win)
o Between groups: increases cooperation and helping, decreases prejudice and tensions

Question 8

Debate

Answer 8

Field Experiment: Control over a dynamic situation

Measuring outcome variables without disruption
–> Group cohesion
–> Leadership
–> Prejudice and Discrimination
–> Norms, group rules

Replication IS difficult BUT was performed three times

Experimenter Influence
–> Were there three groups? Some researchers suggest that the experimenters were another outgroup
–> Participant observers father data: instructed to keep professional distance

Question 9

Impact: Realistic Conflict Theory

Answer 9

Is realistic conflict over scarce resources necessary to create competition and tensions between groups or merely sufficient?
A) Conflict over RESOURCES
B) Conflict over VALUES - symbolic conflict
C) Groups look out for their own - ingroup bias
D) Humans evolved that way - evolutionary conflict

Material Social Reality: A key contribution is to show that social psychological processes (eg. leadership, conflict) are grounded in material social reality