Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Sherif et al (1954/1961) - Coggle Diagram
Sherif et al (1954/1961)
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.
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.
The boys/parents were not debriefed afterwards.
Perry (2013) discovered they were not aware they had been in a study
Deception: Lied to about broken truck/water tank, that there was another group.
Physical harm: They were subjected to risk (because there was vandalism, theft and nearly a serious fight) which the experimenters did little to mitigate
Poor scientific integrity: The counsellors did not intervene when conflict broke out.
It could have been worse esp as knives were given as prizes
Sherif could also be defended by pointing to the common good served by this sort of research. By understanding intergroup conflict, we are better able to prevent it or defuse it. This is social responsibility in research
-
Reductionism
By breaking prejudice down into finite resources and competition could be considered reductionist and therefore more scientific.
Nature Vs Nurture
The focus on group formation of groups and competition over resources leading to prejudice is linked to nurture
-
-
Our roles in society influences our behaviour
- The group we are a part of influences our behaviour
- The situation we are in influences our behaviour
-
-
Scientific status
The use of a real life setting with a lack of controls means the study could be considered less scientific.
By breaking prejudice down into finite resources and competition could be considered reductionist and therefore more scientific.
The experimental aspect of the study in trying to establish some level of cause and effect with the tasks and prejudice could be considered scientific to an extent.
Sherif et al. (1954/1961) did aim to study the behaviour of the boys in the whole situation and conducted it using a field experiment so it is holistic to an extent and less scientific.
Frances Cherry (1995) because he got different results on different occasions
Sherif’s studies were not replicated and did not show consistent findings regarding prejudice so this is less scientific. One study boys got on. Another study the study had to be stopped due to the boys mutiny
There were careful controls, such as matching the boys
in the two groups (IQ, Sporting ability) to make the groups equal with regards
to individual differences
Sherif et al. (1954) could not follow an entirely standardised procedure or script all the interactions with the boys.
It was a field experiment so manipulating an IV (3 stages) and drawing conclusions about cause and effect from differences in the DV (observing behaviour/friendships
-
-
-