Sherif et al (1954/61) Classic Study

Question 1

Background?

Answer 1

Sherif et al’s work involved a series of experiments investigating the behaviour of 10-12 year old boys at summer camps.

Question 2

Aims?

Answer 2

> To investigate relations between groups - to see whether strangers brought into a group with common goals will form a close group
And to see whether conflict will arise when the groups are brought into contact and competition
Also saw if it was possible to reduce the hostility

Question 3

How many participants and how old?

Answer 3

22 participants, 11 year old boys from an opportunity sample of 200

Question 4

How much was the fee that was paid and why was it paid?

Answer 4

$25 so that the parents wouldn’t visit the boys

Question 5

Background of the participants?

Answer 5

Middle class, psychologically well adjusted, American protestants from families living in Oklahoma

Question 6

They were matched on…

Answer 6

IQ and sporting ability

Question 7

How was their behaviour recorded?

Answer 7

Tape recorder, friendship patterns were noted and studied

Question 8

What were observers trained for?

Answer 8

To not influence the boys’ decisions but to hep once a decision had been reached

Question 9

What happened in stage 1?

Answer 9

> Unaware of each other
5 days worth of bonding activitied
Status positions and roles recorded
Made aware after a week

Question 10

What happened in stage 2?

Answer 10

> Tournament set up

>Baseball, bean collecting experiment - had to estimate how many beans collected, points

Question 11

What happened in stage 3?

Answer 11

> Brought together to communicate

>Joint problem solving activites - superordinate goal e.g blocked water supply, put money together to watch a film

Question 12

Results of stage 1?

Answer 12

> Gave themelves names - Rattlers/Eagles
Appointed a leader
Expressed dislike for the other group -“They had better not be swimming in our swimming hole”
Wanted competition

Question 13

Results of stage 2?

Answer 13

> Competition = Hostility
Eagles refused to eat with Rattlers
Name calling, close to physical violence
“Stinkers” “Sissies”
Tended to oversetimate how many beans collected in their own group/ underE other group

Question 14

When asked who their friends were in stage 2…

Answer 14

93% selected exclusively from the ingroup

Question 15

Results of stage 3?

Answer 15

> Bringing them together w/out competiton didn’t reduce hostility
“Ladies first” when they watched a movie together
Joint problem solving activties did reduce hostility - shared a bus home, Rattlers spent $5 prize on everyone

Question 16

Their friendship choices by stage 3 were…

Answer 16

36.4% out group friendship

Question 17

Conclusions….

Answer 17

> Some hostility as soon as they were aware of each other
Competition increased hostility
Discrimination takes place without competition
Cooperative tasks reduce hostility
People tend to overestimate abilities of their own group

Question 18

There were controls such as

Answer 18

the careful sampling of the boys and the briefing of observers so they all followed the same procedures allowing cause and effect conclusions to be drawn

Question 19

Very controlled structure to the experiment, specific stages, detailed info which means

Answer 19

it can be replicated and is therefore reliable

Question 20

Several data collection methods such as

Answer 20

observation and tape recordings, the findings of each agreed with each other so there is reliability as there is consistency in findings

Question 21

Application to real life?

Answer 21

Can demonstrate to society that the mere formation of two groups is enough to produce prejudice, offers a way to reduce prejudice and how it is created

Question 22

Ecological validity is likely to be high because

Answer 22

they weren’t aware that they were taking part in an experiment so the behaviour is likely to be natural and an accurate reflection of their behaviour in similar settings

Question 23

Unethical in the sense that there was no…

Answer 23

informed consent obtained as the boys weren’t aware they were taking part, decpetion too, weren’t aware of their right to withdraw, debriefing not mentioned

Question 24

Limited sample, all boys, American, protestant, middle class…

Answer 24

some of these factors may have contributed to the findings meaning the same results may not be true of others outside the sample; girls or other cultures for eg

Question 25

Interviews with some of the boys after the experiment suggest that they were aware of audio recording in the dining hall and staff taking notes, also

Answer 25

some researchers didn’t leave the boys to be as independent as they should have, makes the results questionnable

Question 26

May be gender biased as

Answer 26

only boys used

Question 27

Why could it be an issue that all the boys were athletic?

Answer 27

They could have been naturally competitive which could have created a degree of conflict

Question 28

How did they reduce the influence of individual differences?

Answer 28

They were matched and there was a specific criteria - all boys, same age, similar IQ, social class and religion