Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
CLASSIC STUDY - Social - Sherif et al 1954 'Intergroup conflict and…
CLASSIC STUDY - Social - Sherif et al 1954 'Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment'
AIM
To see whether it is possible to create prejudice between two similar groups when they are put in competition with each other and to see if prejudice can be reduced through getting the groups to work together to achieve a superordinate goal.
PROCEDURE
Before the start of the experiment, the boys were randomly divided into 2 groups with 11 boys each. The 2 groups were then taken to a summer camp in Robbers Cave State Park. Initially, each group did not know the existence of the other group.
In the first week the groups spent time bonding with each other while hiking in the park or swimming. Each group had to decide on a name, one chose 'Eagles' and the other chose 'Rattlers'. The names were stencilled on to their flags and shirts to help build a sense of in-group identity.
22 11yr old boys were chosen to take part because they were well-adjusted. They were all from similar backgrounds.
During the 2nd phase of the experiment, the 2 groups found out about each other's existence. A tournament with prizes was set up to create in-group favouritism. There was so much conflict between the 2 groups that phase 2 had to be cut short.
In phase 3, the experimenters attempted to bring about cooperation between the two groups by getting them to work towards superordinate goals (task that can only be achieved by working together). The 2 groups were told that they had to work together to restore the drinking water supply as it had been damaged by vandals.
RESULTS
The boys developed a strong in-group preference and even before the tournament started, the groups were fighting each other and calling each other names.
The competition increased the antagonism between the two groups. The group that lost the tournament even stole the prizes off the winning group. After the groups had to cooperate with each other in phase 3, tension between the groups diminished.
CONCLUSION
Competition increased prejudice and led to conflict between the two groups. Cooperation reduced conflict between the two groups.
EVALUATION
Application to real life: The study can be applied to real life by helping reduce prejudice between groups in society through use of superordinate goals.
Validity: This field study has high ecological validity as the boys were in a natural setting of a summer camp. The study also has experimental validity as the boys were unaware they were being observed and so would not have shown demand characteristics.
Reliability: The study would be hard to replicate as it was a field study. Extraneous variables in the natural environment of the summer camp could have affected results. However some elements are easy to replicate e.g. they carefully controlled how long the boys had to bond and when they introduced the competition element of the study.
Ethics: The researchers deliberately created prejudice between the 2 groups of boys which meant that the boys were not protected from psychological and physical harm. The boys did not know they were in the study and were not offered the right to withdraw. Although parents gave consent, they did not know the full details of the study and probably would not have been happy at the idea of their boys being placed in a situation where conflict was likely to occur.
Generalisability: The study lacks generalisability as it only consisted of young boys who are not representative of the wider population.
Demand characteristics occur when ppts guess the aim of the study and change their behaviour to please the researchers.