Sherif Et Al

Question 1

What were the two aims of Sherif et al?

Answer 1

1. How in group behaviour developed and if conflict occurred
2. How conflict could be resolved (super-ordinate goals used to reduce prejudice)

Question 2

What was the method?

Answer 2

-Field experiment (summer camp in Oklahoma - typical event)

Question 3

Sample
Who was the sample and how was it collected?

Answer 3

-Opportunistically selected from schools in Oklahoma
-22 boys of 11 years old (one 12) normally adjusted, Protestant families from schools in Oklahoma
-Initial sample 200
-Boys not aquatinted
-screened for family instability
-matched on sporting ability and IQ. Info from parents and teachers

Question 4

What were the 3 stages of the procedure?

Answer 4

1. In-group formation
2. Friction phase
3. Integration phase

Question 5

Give a definition of each stage of the procedure

Answer 5

1. In-groups created by facilitating tasks that required group cooperation
2. Two groups brought together in situations. They had to compete against one another for goals
3. Super-ordinate goals introduced to encourage cooperation between groups and reduce hostility

Question 6

Procedure for stage one

Answer 6

-First 5-6 days two groups separate
-Had activities to encourage in-group formation
-Researchers observed verbal and non verbal communication within groups and relationships

Question 7

Procedure for stage 2

Answer 7

-next 4-6 days the boys brought into contact with each other
-competitions and camp tournament (tug of war, scavenger hunt, baseball)
-Orchestrated situations found frustrating thought causes by other group. Stereotypes recorded

Question 8

What is the procedure for stage 3

Answer 8

-Final 6-7 try to resolve the conflict
-Super-ordinate goals like fixing water tank, pooling resources to buy drinks on bus, watching film and fixing broken bus

Question 9

How was data collected in the study?

Answer 9

-Researchers observed verbal and non-verbal communication
-Socio-metric data gathered on how boys rates each other (popularity, initiative)
-Tape recordings of convo’s and how they described others
-Quant data about relationships

Question 10

Results for stage 1

Answer 10

-Boys formed own group and rules
-Defined name for group ‘rattlers and eagles’
-When made aware of other group, us and them attitude
-‘they can’t swim or use our water hole’

Question 11

Results for stage 2

Answer 11

-leaders in groups formed
-fought, name call, eagles burned rattlers flag
-In-group favouritism and out group bias (derogatory terms like stinkers, braggers and sissies)
-camp raids
-95% said friends from their own group

Question 12

What were the out-group choices of friends at the end of stage 2?

Answer 12

Rattlers: 6.4%
Eagles: 7.5%

Question 13

Results for stage 3

Answer 13

-Contact alone at mealtimes and watching movie together not enough to reduce hostility. Name calling and fighting
-When water pump blockage found boys were mingling and not name calling but outgroup bias at dinner and names called
-Lower hostility at supper and breakfast when collectively paid for movie
-Sig increase in no of boys whose friendships were with outgroup compared to stage 2

Question 14

What were the percentages of outgroup friendships at end of stage 3?

Answer 14

Rattlers: 36.4%
Eagles: 23.2%

Question 15

Other general results

Answer 15

-parents told not to contact as could influence behaviour but 2 boys went home from eagles (given $25 to not visit)

Question 16

What do the numerical results show?

Answer 16

-Prejudice can occur from having 2 separate groups. More friends with in group at end of stage 2 than outgroup
-Reduction of prejudice through super-ordinate goals - sig inc in outgroup friends after this

Question 17

Conclusions

Answer 17

-Confirmed Realistic conflict theory
-Competition between groups caused prejudice
-Overestimate ability of own group and under-estimate ability of other groups

Question 18

Generalisability

Answer 18

-low: boys. Can’t gen to women. May react diff
-Low: sporty children. Specific type of person so less gen
-low: ethnocentric as took place in America. Can gen to other countries

Question 19

Reliability

Answer 19

-Standardisation: order of stages, activities in stage 2 like tug of war, baseball. Superordinate goals of paying for movie, fixing truck and water pump. Sociometric measures, standardised qu of whose the most leader like of the group. Replicable so high R
-Other research: Jane Elliot. Divided class into two groups and then they discriminated against eye colour. Supports
-Other research: Tynman and Spencer. Used scouts in UK. Already knew about the study so not the same results

Question 20

Apps to real life

Answer 20

-Ways to reduce prejudice in society. Superordinate goals eg pooling money for a film. Can use in schools. Goals of garden projects and litter picking. Prisons = work together to get better rewards
-Football hooliganism. Results of stage 2, burned flags and said can’t use waterhole. Explains violent behaviour after a match
-Education. Prejudice occurred bc of in groups and out groups and differences. Bullying may occur due to differences in looks or social class. School wear uniform

Question 21

Validity

Answer 21

-Sample size. 22. Small so inc risk anomalies
-sporty children. Used to competition & competitive. Boys - could be T. Confounding variable and results biased
-ecological. High as natural environment as summer camp is regular environment. More rep
-MR. Sports like baseball, scavenger hunts and tug of war. Normal tasks
-Matched pairs. IQ and sporting ability and background. Reduces p variables, those with family issues screened out
-Triangulation. Observation, sociometric, tape recorder, inc validity

Question 22

Ethics

Answer 22

-consent. Parents gave informed. Followed guidelines. But could influence beh of parent, try to contact or subtle hints
-debrief. No debrief but Superordinate goals like pooling money. No LT harm from stage 2
-distress. Fighting in 2nd stage. May have causes harm