classic study: intergroup conflict and cooperation: the robber’s cave experiment (Sherif et al., 1954, 1961) Flashcards
(19 cards)
1
Q
summary
A
- series of boys’ summer camp field exps
- conducted with 10-12 year old boys
- took place over a 2 week summer camp
- boys were divided into 2 groups
- groups were made to compete against each other
- behaviour was observed and recorded
- aim: examine how competition led to intergroup conflict
2
Q
background (how psychology develops over time i&d)
A
- 1st study (1949 - Connecticut):
- 24 well-adjusted boys, aged 10-12
- 18 day summer camp
- initially formed one group
- later split into two: Red Devils and bull dogs
- participated in separate group activities (eg hikes, camp outs)
- developed group identities, nicknames and symbols
- formed new friendships and social hierarchies within groups
- shifted allegiance from whole group to their own group
- conflict emerged between groups
- boys rated former friends from other group negatively
- 2nd study (1953 - New York):
- groups names panthers and pythons
- boys became suspicious of researchers’ intentions
- suspected manipulation to create conflict
- study was stopped early; deemed **unsuccessful
- 3rd study: successfully attempted to reduce prejudice between groups (this study)
3
Q
aim
A
- to investigate intergroup relations over time when various situations were introduced
- to study how groups form (group formation)
- to examine the effects of competition between groups
- to explore how intergroup conflict could be resolved
4
Q
who took part in the Robber’s Cave exp and how was the study set up?
A
- 22 boys ages 11 yrs (one was 12
- all white, American, middle class Protestants
- from schools in Oklahoma City
- did not know each other before study
- taken in two separate groups to Robber’s Cave National Park, Oklahoma
- lived in separate areas of camp
- not introduced to each other initially
- divided into groups based on educational and athletic ability (info obtained from parents/teachers)
5
Q
in-group formation
A
- lasted 5-6 days
- each group carried out tasks together to build group cohesion
- groups were kept separate from each other
- researchers observed as undercover camp staff
- observed verbal and non-verbal behaviour
- monitored how relationships developed within groups
- sociometric data collected (eg ratings of popularity, leadership, initiative)
6
Q
in-group relations, the friction phase (competition)
A
- lasted 4-6 days
- groups brought into direct contact with each other
- competitions held for attractive prizes (eg penknives)
- all group members has to participate to earn points
- situations were orchestrated to create frustration
- boys believed frustrations were caused by other group
- stereotypes about the out-group were recorded
- researchers observed behaviours and attitudes towards the other group
7
Q
inter-group relations, the integration (superordinate goals)
A
- lasted 6-7 days
- aimed to resolve conflict between groups
- introduced superordinate goals (shared goals requiring cooperation)
-
3 problem situations set up that could only be resolved if both groups worked together cooperatively:
1. fixing water tank which provided water for both groups
2. joint camp-over where group members had to work together for sleeping gear and food
3. starting broken-down camp bus
8
Q
in-group formation results
A
- boys bonded within their groups
- formed their own group norms and rules (group identity)
- took part in cooperative activities
- gave themselves group names: rattlers and eagles
- later became aware of the other group’s existence
- developed an ’us’ vs ‘them’ attitude
9
Q
in-group relations, the friction phase (competition) results
A
- competition led to immediate hostility
- leaders emerged from each group
- groups became very territorial
- eagles refused to eat with rattlers
- groups shouted insults at each other
- observers reported near physical violence
- during the tournament:
- fight and name-calling occurred
- eagles burned rattlers’ flag.
- strong in-group favouritism
- strong negative out-group bias
- 93% of boys self-reported friends only from their own group
10
Q
inter-group relations, the integration (superordinate goals) results
A
- early non-competitive activities (meals, movie) did not reduce hostility
- still name calling and fighting
- join problem-solving tasks introduced (superordinate goals)
- fixing the water tank:
- boys assigned roles
- identified the cause of water shortage
- mingled without name calling
- however, harmony was short-lived, negative out-group bias returned at supper.
- collective payment for a movie task:
- boys worked out a strategy
- reduced hostility at supper and next breakfast
- friendship reassessment:
- 30% chose friends from both groups
- indicates reduction in prejudice
11
Q
conclusions
A
- strong in-group identities were formed early on
- negative out-group bias emerged quickly with competition
- superordinate goals helped reduce hostility:
- had a cumulative effect in reducing bias
- worked by removing competition
- supports RCT:
- prejudice can arise from competition over resources
12
Q
weaknesses generalisability
A
- 22 boys isnt large sample. in a small sample, any anomalies (boys w unusual characteristics, eg violent bullies) skew results. however, Sharif went to lengths to screen boys beforehand, removing any from troubled backgrounds and with antisocial behaviours
- only boys were used (androcentric), so results may not generalise girls or mixed sex groups. also, they were all children, so results may not generalise to adults
- boys were supposed to be ”all American” (ethnocentric) types: white, bright and sporty. this wasn’t entirely representative of young Americans back in ‘50s and it certainly isn’t representative of America today, where whites make up 50% of school intake, with other 50% being Hispanic, African American and Asian American
13
Q
strengths reliability
A
- used numbered scoring system for boys’ friendship patterns, which collected quantitative data. he also used multiple observers, creating inter-rater reliability. where possible, he tape recorded the boys’ convos, so they could be played back and analysed later
- certain aspects of study could be replicated, eg bean-counting test along with tournament and prizes. however, other procedures were developed by sherif “on the fly” as events developed (eg boys requested baseball match and sherif had to intervene to prevent fight). these things might happen differently if study was replicated again
- high level of control and careful planning. staff were ppt observers, so boys were unaware that their behaviour was being recorded. there’s less possibility of demand characteristics as ppts were unaware they are taking part and so less likely to ‘act up’
14
Q
weaknesses reliability
A
- since it involves observation, there are problems with reliability in study. observers were only with boys for 12 hrs a day and couldn’t see or overhear everything that went on
- in the light of the findings by Frances Cherry about the mutiny in 1953 study, sherif’s reliability is put in doubt, since he got different results on different occasions
- study was field exp at summer camp which meant they couldn’t control all extraneous variables that may impact on conflict between rattlers and eagles. this reduces reliability of findings about negative attitudes towards an out-group as study cannot be fully replicated to check results for consistency
15
Q
strengths application
A
- study shows how competition and frustration creates hostility towards outgroups. in society, this suggests that discrimination and violence could be reduced if jobs, housing, education and other opportunities were shared more fairly between different groups, eg ethnic groups or social classes. this is the basis for a lot of left wing political thinking
- also shows that hostility can be reduced if groups are made to interact and work together towards common goals. it’s not enough for them to be “mere presences” living alongside each other. this suggests ghettos should be discouraged and immigrants should be made to take up the host culture’s language, education and pastimes. this is the basis for a lot of right wing political thinking
16
Q
strengths validity
A
- sherif claimed that, by using several different research methods (observing, tape recording, tests, quan as well as qual data), he was making his study more valid
- the study has ecological validity/mundane realism, because there were real boys at real summer camp, competing and doing real activities. even the specially created tasks (fixing water pipe, pulling truck) seemed real to boys. there were some unrealistic features, eg camp counsellors not intervening until boys were actually ready to fight each other
17
Q
weaknesses validity
A
- although field exp, it lacked a control group. sherif doesn’t have “normal” summer camp to compare his camp to. it may be perfectly normal for food fights and raids to happen in summer camps where counsellors aren’t imposing much discipline. it may be normal for such boys to end up as friends after 3 weeks, regardless of whether they are given special tasks to carry out. in other words, Sherif may have exaggerated how much of the boys’ behaviour was due to intergroup factors
- if Michael Billig is correct, sherif misunderstood findings of own study, because he hadn’t realised the exps made up a third group in camp, the group with most power. this casts doubt on validity of sherif’s conclusions
- Gina Perry also argues observers had much bigger influence on boys than sherif intended. she points out that rattlers took their name from an incident where senior counsellor pulled out a gun and show two snakes, which very much impressed the boys
18
Q
strengths ethics
A
- boys’ parents were aware that camp was some sort of psychology project and they did give presumptive consent on sons’ behalf. however, they were asked not to visit camp and check up on sons, so they couldn’t be informed about everything that was going on
- boys could withdraw from study and in fact two of them did go home in first week
- sherif could be defended by pointing to the common good served by sort of research. by understanding intergroup conflict, we are better able to prevent it or defuse it. this is social responsibility in research
19
Q
weaknesses ethics
A
- boys didn’t give valid consent to be in study and don’t seem to have been debriefed afterwards - they never realised they were being experimented on. this certain fails to respect their autonomy (they had no choice) and dignity (they were tricked and put through upsetting conflicts)
- they were deceived about broken water pipe being accident and food truck breaking down. they were also subjected to risk (as there was vandalism, theft and nearly serious fight) which exps did little to mitigate. however, the researchers dropped their professional detachment when serious fight nearly broke out and intervened to prevent; example of scientific integrity
- debatable whether boys were harmed by study. there were raids and food fights. one boy had his comics stolen. fight with weapons very nearly broke out. however, these might be typical events in American summer camps, especially in rough-and-ready culture of 1950s (knives were used as prizes, which would never happen today). boys seemed to enjoy themselves, which suggests harm they were exposed to was no greater than what they would be exposed to in their normal lives. however, Gina Perry argues boys had unhappy experiences because camp counsellors did not intervene to protect or guide them and that some of them still look back on their time at Robbers Cave with bad feelings
