Sherif et al (1954/1961)
Aim
First phase of study
Judging social evaluations
Procedure continues
Procedure
Conclusions
Final phase
Revelations
Sample
Happy endings
22 middle class, Protestant, 11 year old boys from Oklahoma. All socially and emotionally well adjusted. Didn't know each other prior
To see whether strangers brought together into a group with common goals will form a close group and to see if two such groups brought into competition will be hostile.
Observed the formation of group structure. They were housed in a bunkhouse and were able to choose their 'buddies'
After a few days, they seperated the kids into 2 groups, breaking up buddies
The boys were given a range of activities
Campout and Hikes
Task were divided and each group developed its own jargon, jokes, secrets and methods to perform task
They maintained social control through ostracism and ridicule
Each group selected a group name and symbol for t-shirts
Eagles
Rattlers
To test what the boys thought of each other, the researchers invented a game of target practice. The judgement of accuracy was made by the peers.
However the board was secretly wired to give an objective judgement of accuracy
Boys overestimated the efforts of highly-regarded boys and underestimated lowly-regarded boys.
In the second phase, the researchers introduced conflict through games
Tournament started in good spirits but soon became hostile
Calling names: 'stinker', 'sneak' and 'cheat'.
The boys refused contact with opposing group and their 'buddies
They gave negative rating to other group, when asked to give ratings to boys in other group
Soon after, name-calling, scuffles and 'raids
Stealing the other teams flag and setting fire to it
The researchers realised they have confirmed their hypothesis surprisingly easily, so a further hypothesis is developed.
This was "working in a common endeavour should promote harmony".
Established subordinate goal
Established natural and urgent situations
Interrupting water supply
Truck breakdown
By the end of the camp, boys were actively seeking opportunities to mingle together
The boys also made less negative rating of the opposite groups
People over-estimate the abilities of ingroup members
Contact between two groups is not enough to reduce hostility
Working together towards a common goal reduces tension
Leader-follower relationships develop as a result of having to solve problems through combined action