Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
SHERIF - Coggle Diagram
SHERIF
results
the boys needed little encouragement to be competitive, and forge their ingroups. they immediately began discriminating against the outgroup, and not wanting any involvement with them whatsoever
-
-
-
-
-
-
after working together onm a shared goal, the boys experienced cooperation and hostility slight died down. some boys even considered boys from the out group their friends in the last questionaire.
procedure
boys split into two groups and these groups travelled together on the bus into camp. both buses entered at different times from different entrances so that neither group was aware of the existence of the other group.
each group had junior councillors who lived with the boys, and senior councillors who were only around for 12 hours a day
the ingroup formation lasted a week, where the boys could build strong friendships and learn about eachother. they created names for their groups: the rattlers and the eagles
the friction phase lasted a week. there were cimpetitions between the groups of boys which involved sports, tug of war, and a scavenger hunt. a trophy was promised for the winners
the integration phase also lasted a week, where both groups of boys were forced to come together to achieve shared goals, like fix the water tank. first tried 'mere contact', watching films together and eating together but this constantly ended in fights and one group trying to be better than the other.
grave
generalisability- the boys were supposed to be "all american" which wasn't representitive of the population in the 50s, and definately not of the population today
reliability- based on observation which is subjective, but friendship patterns collected quanitive data, and many observers at once increasing the inter rater reliability when in group settings.
application- shows how competition can create hostility, limited resources, we all want to win and would put people down to get those resources.
validity- has ecological validity because the boys were in a summer camp, doing scouts activities which they typically complete. nothing about the situation was artificial other than the camp councillors not intervening in fights
there was a third group: the experimenters with the most power, and so maybe sherif misinterpretted his own results
ethics- the boys were subject to risk from the theft, breaking and enterring, and aggressive name calling, and the camp councillors didn't intervene and sometimes even encourages the behaviour, the boys may have thought it was okay to behave in that way.
info
sample: 22 11-12 year old boys from oklahoma who were sampled from oppotunity sampling. all had similar traits and from similar backgrouds. extraneous variables excluded.
IV: the different stages of the camp, 1. group formation, 2. friction phase, 3. integration
DV: intergroup behaviour observed by camp councillors, recording convos, and questionaires filled out to get extra info
aim
to see whether conflict can be created between 2 groups of boys, and then the conflict be reversed
to see what factors make two groups hositile towards one another and what can be done to reduce the hosiility