Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Social psychology > Classic study - Sherif > Flashcards

Classic study - Sherif Flashcards

(47 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

What were the 2 aims ?

A
  1. Produce group norms & measure effects on perceptions & judgements
  2. See how in group behaviour developed to include related out group hostility & how friction could be reduced
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What was the IV ?

A

Stage of experiment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What was the DV ?

A

Observing boys behaviour & friendship patterns by tape recording their conversations

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What did the questionnaire the boys’ completed measure ?

A

Attitudes on their own group & other group

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What experimental design was used ?

A

Repeated measures design

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What was the experiment ?

A

Field experiment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

How many participants were there ?

A

Orignally 24, 2 boys dropped out in Eagles due to homesickness at end of Phase 1

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

How old were the participants ?

A

12 years old

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What sampling technique was used ?

A

Opportunity sampling

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What backgrounds did the boys have ?

A

Middle class, Protestant, two parent background

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Were the boys known to each other or informed of aims before the study ?

A

No

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

How were the boys matched ?

A

IQ & sporting ability, rated by teachers

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What were the boys screened on ?

A

Problems at home & difficulties in attitudes/behaviour

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

How were boys assigned to each group ?

A

Random selection

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Where did the study happen ?

A

200 acre Boy Scouts of American camp in Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What were the 3 phases ?

A
  1. In group formation
  2. Friction phase
  3. Integration Phase
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What happened in Phase 1 ?

A
  • Kept separate for 1 week to bond as individual groups
  • Bonded through pursuit of common goals
  • Quickly established norms by hiking, swimming
  • Chose name for groups & stencilled onto shirts & flags
  • Gave recognised leader
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What were the 2 groups called ?

A

The Rattlers & The Eagles

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What happened when the groups were made aware of each others presence ?

Study These Flashcards
A
  • Rattlers = ‘they had better not be in our swimming hole’
  • Eagles didn’t discuss Rattlers as much but wanted to engage in competition
  • Eagles invited Rattlers to play games against them
  • Group stereotypes emerged
20
Q

What happened in Phase 2 ?

Study These Flashcards
A
  • 4-6 days
  • Series of competitive activities with trophy on basis of accumulated team score
  • Individual prizes for winning group
21
Q

What were individual prizes ?

Study These Flashcards
A

Medal & multi bladed pocket knife

22
Q

Why did some events have to be modified ?

Study These Flashcards
A

Not appealing to subjects & some decided were hazardous

23
Q

What were some examples of competitive games ?

Study These Flashcards
A

Tug of war, baseball, tent pitching

24
Q

What did the ‘collecting of beans’ experiment show ?

Study These Flashcards
A

To see if boys estimated abilities of in group member & minimised abilities on out-group member (beans were the same)

25
What acts of violence were shown ?
- Verbally expressed at first (taunting, name calling) - Eagles burned Rattler's flag - Rattler's ransacked Eagle's cabin - Researchers had to physically separate them
26
What were the out-group friendship choices at the end of stage 2 ?
Rattlers = 6.4% Eagles = 7.5%
27
What happened during their two day cooling off period ?
- Listed features of 2 groups - In-group in favoured terms - Out-group unfavourable terms ('braggers', holding noses in their vicinity)
28
What did groups eventually object to ?
Eating in the same mess hall at the same time
29
What did Sherif do to increase cooperation ?
Superordinate goals
30
What happened during phase 3 ?
- Superordinate goals - Water shortage problem & 'broken down' camp truck
31
What did the boys insist after superordinate goals ?
All ride back home on the same bus
32
What were the out-group friendship choices after end of phase 3 ?
Rattlers = 36.4% Eagles = 23.2%
33
What did the findings conclude ?
- Supports Realistic Conflict Theory - Increased contact not enough to reduce conflict - Superordinate goals reduce conflict - People overestimate abilities of their group & minimise abilities of out-group
34
How is the study low in generalisability ?
- Only 12 year old boys - Homogenous group - Cant generalise to other ages, genders, backgrounds, times or countries
35
How is the study low is reliability ?
- Field experiment - Many uncontrolled extraneous variables in natural environment - Cant replicate conditions exactly
36
How is the study high in reliability ?
- Standardised procedures during phase 1 - Named Eagles & Rattlers, stencilled shirts & flags - Easily replicated to test for the consistency of the results
37
What are applications of the study ?
- Offers explanation for origin of prejudice - Offers ways to reduce it - Aronson's jigsaw classroom technique = split into groups, individual members break off to work with 'experts' with other groups & be role of instructor to return to starting group
38
How is the study high in internal validity in terms of prejudice ?
- No pre-existing prejudice beforehand - Prejudice generated during the scenario - Can infer cause & relationship between prejudice & competition
39
How is the study high in ecological validity ?
- Field experiment - Can observe natural behaviour - Removes demand characteristics
40
How does the study lack internal validity ?
- No control group - Reduce ability to infer cause & effect
41
How does the study lack internal validity in terms of observing ?
- Only observed 12 hours a day - Tape recordings - Cant observe all behaviours
42
How is the study high in internal validity in terms of matched pairs ?
- Careful matching - Individual differences not affect results - Enables cause & effect
43
How does the study lack mundane realism ?
- Summer camp not like real life prejudice - Prejudice only developed over 2 week period
44
How is the study reductionist ?
- Aim to study boys' whole behaviour in situation they created in their field experiment - Less scientific & holism valued more
45
How is the study unethical in terms of consent ?
- Boys unaware they were taking part & deceived - Believed it was a real summer camp
46
How is the study ethically sound ?
- Informed consent collected from parents prior to study
47
How is the study unethical in terms of harm ?
- Physical & psychological harm - Fights broke out - Purposeful creation of hostility & tension

Social psychology (7 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions