Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
CLASSIC STUDY; Social Sherif et al (PROCEDURE; (Setting; Robbers Cave camp…
CLASSIC STUDY; Social Sherif et al
Robbers cave experiment
AIM;
To investigate INTERGROUP RELATIONS with various experimentally introduced situations. Study was interested in group formation and the effect of competition.
PROCEDURE;
Setting; Robbers Cave camp (an old hideout for outlaws.)
3 stages; 1) In-groups were created by facilitating tasks that required groups. 2) 2 groups brought together where they'd have to compete against one another. 3) Superordinate goals introduced to encourage cooperation between the groups to reduce hostility.
Ppts; 22 boys aged 11 (one 12yr old) from middles class protestant families.
CONCLUSIONS;
Strong in-group identities formed initially with the intro of competition. Negative out-group bias formed quickly. Intro of superordinate tasks reduced the negative out group bias as there was no competition.
Research SUPPORTS RCT that prejudice is brought about through competition.
Stages;
Stage 2; Boys brought into contact with each other during competitions as a camp tournament. Subject to frustrating situations, which were believed to be caused by the other group. Stereotypes between the groups were recorded. FINDINGS; boys showed signs of hostility, in-group favouritism and negative out-group bias.
Stage 3; Designed to bring out the conflict through the introduction of common goals designed to ensure co-operation between the groups. E.g. fixing the water tank so both groups had water, joint camp over groups working together for food and shelter, fixing the broken down bus. FINDINGS; contact alone didn't reduce hostility- needed joint tasks (superordinate goals).
Stage 1; 2 groups of boys kept separate, involved in activities to encourage group bonding. Researchers (camp staff) observed with both verbal and non verbal communication. Sociometric data was collected- boys rated each other in terms of personalilty etc.
EVALUATION;
Pros;
High ecological validity- took place in a natural environment, behaviour isn't manipulated and tasks were natural so has mundane realism. High levels of control- staff were ppts observes (boys unaware of their behaviour being observed, staff only intervened if there was a safety risk.
Cons;
Interviews years after the investigation found that some of the boys were aware they were being observed so there could be some demand characteristics decreasing the internal validity of the study. Unpublished notes of interviews show that the researchers encouraged conflict.