Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Sherif - Coggle Diagram
Sherif
Results
Boys in each group formed norms and rules that formed part of the gorup identity, and had names themselves the Rattlers and the Eagles; there was an us and them attitude
Boys began to show hostility in stage two: they demanded competitive activites; the Eagles burned the Rattlers' flag; there was lots of in group favoratism and negative out group bias.
-
-
After fixing the water tank, hostility decreased breifly, but the negative out group bias soon returned
After paying for a film together and fixing the bus, there was a noticable reduction in hostility
At the end, many more boys chose friends from the other goup.
-
-
Ethics
The boys did not give valid consent to be in this study and do not seem to have been debriefed afterwards – they never realised they were being experimented on. This certain fails to respect their autonomy (because they had no choice) and dignity (because they were tricked and put through some upsetting conflicts).
They were deceived about the broken water pipe being an accident and the food truck breaking down. They were also subjected to risk (because there was vandalism, theft and nearly a serious fight) which the experimenters did little to mitigate. However, the researchers dropped their professional detachment when a serious fight nearly broke out and intervened to prevent it; this is an example of scientific integrity.
However, the boys’ parents were aware that this camp was some sort of psychology project and they did give presumptive consent on their sons’ behalf. However, they were asked not to visit the camp and check up on their sons, so they couldn’t be informed about everything that was going on.
-
It’s debatable whether the boys were harmed by this study. There were raids and food fights. One boy had his comics stolen. A fight with weapons very nearly broke out. However, these might be typical events in American summer camps, especially in the rough-and-ready culture of the 1950s (knives were used as prizes, which would never happen today). The boys seemed to enjoy themselves, which suggests the harm they were exposed to was no greater than what they would be exposed to in their normal lives. However, Gina Perry (2014) argues that the boys had unhappy experiences because the camp counselors did not intervene to protect or guide them and that some of them still look back on their time at Robbers Cave will bad feelings.
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.
Validity
Sherif claimed that, by using several different research methods (observing, tape recording, tests, quantitative as well as qualitative data), he was making his study more valid.
The study has ecological validity, because these were real boys at a real summer camp, doing real activities. Even the specially created tasks (fixing the broken water pipe, pulling the truck) seemed real to the boys. There were some unrealistic features, such as the camp counselors not intervening until the boys were actually ready to fight each other.
Although this is a field experiment, it lacked a Control Group. Sherif does not have a “normal” summer camp to compare his camp to. It may be perfectly normal for food fights and raids to happen in summer camps where the counselors aren’t imposing much discipline. It may be normal for such boys to end up as friends after 3 weeks, regardless of whether they are given special tasks to carry out. In other words, Sherif may have exaggerated how much of the boys’ behaviour was due to intergroup factors.
If Michael Billig (1976) is correct, Sherif misunderstood the findings of his own study, because he hadn't realised the experimenters made up a third group in the camp, the group with the most power. This casts doubt on the validity of Sherif's conclusions.
Gina Perry (2014) also argues that the observers had a much bigger influence on the boys than Sherif intended. She points out that the Rattlers took their name from an incident where a senior counselor pulled out a gun and shot two snakes, which very much impressed the boys.
Method
-
-
-
Observations
covert observation and recordings and ranked scales to measure beliefs about each other, questionnaires
Reliability
Since it involves observation, there are problems with reliability in this study. The observers were only with the boys for 12 hours a day and could not see or overhear everything that went on.
Despite this, Sherif took pains to make the study more reliable. He used a numbered scoring system for the boys’ friendship patterns, which collected quantitative data. He also used multiple observers on occasions, creating inter-rater reliability. Where possible, he tape recorded the boys’ conversations, so they could be played back and analysed later.
Certain aspects of this study could be replicated, such as the bean-counting test along with the tournament and the prizes. However, other procedures were developed by Sherif “on the fly” as events developed (for example, the boys themselves requested the baseball match and Sherif had to intervene to prevent a fight). These things might happen differently if the study was replicated again.
In the light of the findings by Frances Cherry (1995) about the mutiny in the 1953 study, Sherif's reliability is put in doubt, since he got different results on different occasions.
Conclusions
Strong in group identites fromed intially, and with the introduction of competition, negative out group bias quickly emerged.
The introduction of superordinate goals had a cumulative effect on reducing negative out group bias.
-
Generalisability
22 boys is not a large sample. In a sample this small, any anomalies (boys with unusual characteristics, like violent bullies) skew the results. However, Sherif went to lengths to screen the boys beforehand, removing any from troubled backgrounds or with antisocial behaviours.
Only boys were used, so the results may not generalise the girls or mixed sex groups. Crucially, they were all children, so the results may not generalise to adults.
The boys were supposed to be “all American” types: white, bright and sporty. This wasn’t entirely representative of young Americans back in the ‘50s and it certainly isn’t representative of America today, where whites make up 50% of school intake, with the other 50% being Hispanic, African American and Asian American.
Applications
The study shows how competition and frustration creates hostility towards outgroups. In society, this suggests that discrimination and violence could be reduced if jobs, housing, education and other opportunities were shared more fairly between different groups, such as ethnic groups or social classes. This is the basis for a lot of Left Wing political thinking.
The study also shows that hostility can be reduced if groups are made to interact and work together towards common goals. It is not enough for them to be “mere presences” living alongside each other. This suggests ghettos should be discouraged and immigrants should be made to take up the host culture’s language, education and pastimes. This is the basis for a lot of Right Wing political thinking.
procedure
During the first 5-6 days, the boys were kept separate, and activites were designed to encourage in group formation.
Verbal and non-verbal communication was observed, as well as the relationships that emerged. Sociometric data was gathered.
In the next 4-6 days, the boys were brought into contact with one another during competitions in the camp tournament, where each group member needed to contribute in order to win points; they were subjected to frustrating situations framed for the other group.
inc tug of war and basketball where prizes were earned
Stereotypes were recorded, and behaviours and attitudes towards each group noted.
In the final 6-7 days, common goals were designed to ensure cooperations: fixing a joint water tank; a joint camp out; starting a broken down bus.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Aim
To see whether prejudice would develop between 2 groups of similar people by putting them in competition
Sample
22 boys of 11 years old, normally adjusted from middle class protestant families from schools in Oklahoma city
-
-
They were not introduced to each other at the start of the study, but divided equally into groups based on educational and athletic ability.