Sherif: Robbers Cave Study
Aim: To investigate relations between groups. To see whether strangers who have common goals will form a close group and to see whether two groups who compete with each other will become hostile towards each other.
Procedure: Participants - 22 aged 11 years old boys, who did not know each other before the study. The boys were split into two random groups of 11 and matched as far as possible on background, IQ, sporting ability etc. The boys were not informed they were part of a study and the aim of the camp. They were also not initially informed of the presence of the other group.
There were 3 stages to the study:
Stage 1 group formation- for 1 week the groups were kept apart and allowed to form group norms and identities boys developed an attachment to their groups throughout the first week of the camp by doing various activities together like hiking, swimming, etc. The boys chose names for their groups, The Eagles and The Rattlers, and stencilled them onto shirts and flags
Stage 2 intergroup relations - the boys were told about one another. A tournament of a series of competitions between the groups, and promised trophies, medals, and camping knives to the winners was set up to see if this would lead to hostility of the out group. The researchers recorded phrases used by the boys, in order to analyse whether the comments were derogatory. A bean counting competition was included, where boys had to estimate how many each found – this was to see whether they overestimated the boys in their in group and underestimate the boys in the out group.
Stage 3 The integration phase – to achieve harmony between the groups the boys were introduced to tasks that brought the two groups together.
These tasks included fixing a water tank when water supply was threatened, pulling a broken down truck out of mud and pooling their money to afford to watch a film they all wanted to watch.
Data was collected using observation of the boys friendship, an analysis of friendship, through the experiments and tape recordings.
Findings: Stage 1 – The boys bonded with their groups and both groups had a recognised leader. They discussed the existence of the other group in negative terms e.g. ‘they had better not be in our swimming hole’.
Stage 2 – Towards the end of stage 1 the groups began to become competitive and prejudice became apparent between the two groups. At first, this prejudice was only verbally expressed, such as taunting or name-calling. As the competition wore on, this expression took a more direct route. The Eagles refused to sit with the Rattlers. The Eagles burned the Rattler's flag. Then the next day, the Rattler's ransacked The Eagle's cabin, overturned beds, and stole private property. The groups became so aggressive with each other that the researchers had to physically separate them.
The boys attitudes were negative to out group members which was shown by the way they talked about each other.
Stage 3 – During initial contact hostility between the groups remained. The joint problem solving problems began to reduce their hostility towards each other – when they fixed the water tank they celebrated together, and there was cooperation by all the boys contributing the same amount to hire a film.
These tasks helped reduce friction and by the end of this stage although friendship choices still favoured the in-groups, there was increased friendship between the groups. The Rattlers even spent a $5 prize from one of the competitions on drinks for all of the boys.
Conclusion: Groups bonded and developed hierarchies within them as expected. When the groups met in competition in-group solidarity and cooperation increased and hostility towards the other group was strong. Contact between the two groups was not enough to reduce hostility and friction was reduced by the groups having to solve problems together and cooperate.
Evaluation
Generalisability: Difficult to generalise – the boys were carefully selected for the study and had similar family backgrounds and were of similar ability. This means it could be difficult to generalise to those with different backgrounds or from different cultures.
Reliability: There was careful planning and control e.g. matched participants so that individual differences would not play a role. This allows cause and effect conclusions to be made. They also had reliability due to the consistent findings across these methods, and that different observers had the same conclusion – inter-rater reliability.
Application: Can explain why conflict between rival football teams occur – replace Eagles and Rattles, with Man U and Man City – and it can suggest ways of reducing this – setting a common goal.
Validity: High ecological validity, it was a field experiment, so a study of natural behaviour of two groups of boys at camp. They were not aware of the study, so unlikely to have been affected by demand characteristics. The data was collected using several methods – this helps to ensure they were measuring they intended making it valid.
Ethics: There was a lack of informed consent – the boys did not know they were taking part in a study, meaning they were also deceived. Parents were given more information but were told not to visit and check the boys were happy. There is no mention of a debrief, however in their book, Sherif et al make no mention that any of the boys were unhappy.
Aim: To investigate relations between groups. To see whether strangers who have common goals will form a close group and to see whether two groups who compete with each other will become hostile towards each other.
Procedure: Participants - 22 aged 11 years old boys, who did not know each other before the study. The boys were split into two random groups of 11 and matched as far as possible on background, IQ, sporting ability etc. The boys were not informed they were part of a study and the aim of the camp. They were also not initially informed of the presence of the other group.
There were 3 stages to the study:
Stage 1 group formation- for 1 week the groups were kept apart and allowed to form group norms and identities boys developed an attachment to their groups throughout the first week of the camp by doing various activities together like hiking, swimming, etc. The boys chose names for their groups, The Eagles and The Rattlers, and stencilled them onto shirts and flags
Stage 2 intergroup relations - the boys were told about one another. A tournament of a series of competitions between the groups, and promised trophies, medals, and camping knives to the winners was set up to see if this would lead to hostility of the out group. The researchers recorded phrases used by the boys, in order to analyse whether the comments were derogatory. A bean counting competition was included, where boys had to estimate how many each found – this was to see whether they overestimated the boys in their in group and underestimate the boys in the out group.
Stage 3 The integration phase – to achieve harmony between the groups the boys were introduced to tasks that brought the two groups together.
These tasks included fixing a water tank when water supply was threatened, pulling a broken down truck out of mud and pooling their money to afford to watch a film they all wanted to watch.
Data was collected using observation of the boys friendship, an analysis of friendship, through the experiments and tape recordings.
Findings: Stage 1 – The boys bonded with their groups and both groups had a recognised leader. They discussed the existence of the other group in negative terms e.g. ‘they had better not be in our swimming hole’.
Stage 2 – Towards the end of stage 1 the groups began to become competitive and prejudice became apparent between the two groups. At first, this prejudice was only verbally expressed, such as taunting or name-calling. As the competition wore on, this expression took a more direct route. The Eagles refused to sit with the Rattlers. The Eagles burned the Rattler's flag. Then the next day, the Rattler's ransacked The Eagle's cabin, overturned beds, and stole private property. The groups became so aggressive with each other that the researchers had to physically separate them.
The boys attitudes were negative to out group members which was shown by the way they talked about each other.
Stage 3 – During initial contact hostility between the groups remained. The joint problem solving problems began to reduce their hostility towards each other – when they fixed the water tank they celebrated together, and there was cooperation by all the boys contributing the same amount to hire a film.
These tasks helped reduce friction and by the end of this stage although friendship choices still favoured the in-groups, there was increased friendship between the groups. The Rattlers even spent a $5 prize from one of the competitions on drinks for all of the boys.
Conclusion: Groups bonded and developed hierarchies within them as expected. When the groups met in competition in-group solidarity and cooperation increased and hostility towards the other group was strong. Contact between the two groups was not enough to reduce hostility and friction was reduced by the groups having to solve problems together and cooperate.
Evaluation
Generalisability: Difficult to generalise – the boys were carefully selected for the study and had similar family backgrounds and were of similar ability. This means it could be difficult to generalise to those with different backgrounds or from different cultures.
Reliability: There was careful planning and control e.g. matched participants so that individual differences would not play a role. This allows cause and effect conclusions to be made. They also had reliability due to the consistent findings across these methods, and that different observers had the same conclusion – inter-rater reliability.
Application: Can explain why conflict between rival football teams occur – replace Eagles and Rattles, with Man U and Man City – and it can suggest ways of reducing this – setting a common goal.
Validity: High ecological validity, it was a field experiment, so a study of natural behaviour of two groups of boys at camp. They were not aware of the study, so unlikely to have been affected by demand characteristics. The data was collected using several methods – this helps to ensure they were measuring they intended making it valid.
Ethics: There was a lack of informed consent – the boys did not know they were taking part in a study, meaning they were also deceived. Parents were given more information but were told not to visit and check the boys were happy. There is no mention of a debrief, however in their book, Sherif et al make no mention that any of the boys were unhappy.