Sherif et al's Robbers cave experiment (pack 2 prejudice)

Question 1

What was the aim of this study?

Answer 1

to investigate inter-group relations over a period of time when various experimentally induced situations were introduced

Question 2

what 3 things was the study particularly interested in?

Answer 2

1. group formation
2. the effect of competition
3. conditions under which conflict could be resolved

Question 3

What was the sample?

Answer 3

twenty-two 11 year old boys.
White, American, lower middle class and protestant
All above- average IQ
From Oklahoma

Question 4

In what four ways was data gathered?

Answer 4

1. Observation
2. Sociometric analysis
3. experiment
4. tape recordings

Question 5

What were the 3 stages called?

Answer 5

1. in-group formation stage
2. friction phase
3. intergroup relations: integration phase

Question 6

what happened in the in-group formation stage?

Answer 6

First 5-6 days, kept separate and each group given tasks to carry out together
Each given a name (eagles and rattlers) to strengthen their group identity
told about other group at the end

Question 7

What happened in the friction phase?

Answer 7

next 4-6 days of the camp
told groups about each other, as soon as they knew about the other group, they expressed hostility
encouraged conflict- had to compete for prizes such as pen knifes

Question 8

What happened in the integration phase?

Answer 8

final 6-7 days
reduce tension and bring about conflict resolution through superordinate goals
For example:
water supply blocked by vandals and had to work to remove blockage
a joint camp-over were they worked together for food and sleeping equipment
free a truck stuck in the mud

Question 9

results of in-group formation stage?

Answer 9

bonded, developed norms and came up with names and both had a recognised leader
used words like ‘us’ and ‘them’

Question 10

results of friction phase?

Answer 10

competition led to immediate hostility
- Eagles refused to eat with rattlers
- came close to physical violence
- raided each others rooms and burned flags

When asked to self-report who their friends were…93% selected boys from own group

Question 11

results of integration phase?

Answer 11

simply getting groups together without competition did NOT reduce hostility

joint problem solving did work to reduce hostility and evidence for this is that they chose to ride bus home together

by end of stage 3, boys had friends from other groups

Question 12

What are two conclusions of the study?

Answer 12

some hostility found when the groups were made aware of each other, this suggest some prejudice can arise without competition

contact between groups not enough to reduce hostility

Question 13

ecological validity?

Answer 13

S- high as it was conducted in a real-world environment

W- boys divided into groups artificially as well as the competition (so can’t generalise to real life situations such as rival inner-city gangs where group membership is meaningful)

Question 14

reliability?

Answer 14

W- real-world so uncontrolled extraneous variables

S- Boys matched for age, socio-economic status and religion, this ensured home background and individual factors were not the reasons for behaviour.

Question 15

validity?

Answer 15

S- ppt observers, covert and would only intervene for safety, not aware of aims of research, no demand characteristics so validity high

Question 16

ethics?

Answer 16

boys parents informed, no informed consent from the boys and did nit know they were in a study

deceived with the aim of study

not fully protected as parents could not visit the boys

Question 17

generalisability/

Answer 17

W- sample biased as they were all from the same backgrounds

Question 18

How does the issue/debate of use of psychological knowledge in society link to this study?

Answer 18

RCT useful for reducing prejudice
issues such as crowd rioting could be calmed down if they have to work together towards a common goal