Classic Study: Sherif et al. 1954

• What year was Sherif’s Robbers Cave study?

  1954
• What was the aim of Sherif’s study?

  To investigate the effects competition has on conflict and the conditions under which conflict can be resolved.
• What was the sample for Sherif’s study?

  22 boys, 21 aged 11 and 1 aged 12, all white, middle class Protestant families from schools in Oklahoma City. 200 opportunity sampled, 24 selected, 2 dropped out.
• What was the procedure for Sherif’s study?

  3 phases: In-group formation (first 5-6 days), friction phase (next 4-6 days) and the integration phase (final 6-7 days).
• What happened in the first phase of Sherif’s study?

  The two groups were kept separate, activities designed to promote in group formation, researchers collected sociometric data (boys ratings of popularity and initiative).
• What happened in the second phase of Sherif’s study?

  Two groups introduced via camp tournament. Had to compete to win points and prizes (zero sum). Dealt with tasks made to be frustrating, researchers recorded evidence of stereotyping behaviour and attitudes.
• What happened in phase 3 of Sherif’s study?

  Conflict resolution via introduction of superordinate goals which required groups to work together.
• What were the results of phase 1 of Sherif’s study?

  Groups formed group identity, developed an us vs them attitude.
• What were the results of phase 2 of Sherif’s study?

  Signs of hostility between two groups, in group favouritism and out group bias.
• What were the results of phase 3 of Sherif’s study?

  Contact wasn’t enough to resolve conflict, tasks requiring teamwork reduced hostility, worked together following day.
• What were the conclusions of Sherif’s Robbers Cave study?

  Strong in group identities formed, competition quickly led to our group bias, superordinate goals reduced bias and competition, supports RCT.
• (G) Why might a small sample size skew results?

  It can include anomalies affecting outcomes
• (G) What type of boys were excluded from the study?

  Boys from troubled backgrounds or antisocial behaviors
• (G) Why might the results not generalize to girls?

  Only boys were used in the study
• (G) What demographic did the boys represent?

  White, bright, and sporty boys
• (G) How does the demographic of the boys compare to modern America?

  It is not representative of today's diversity
• (R) What reliability issue is mentioned regarding the observers?

  They could not see everything that happened
• (R) What method did Sherif use to improve reliability?

  A numbered scoring system for friendship patterns
• (R) What did Sherif do to ensure inter-rater reliability?

  Used multiple observers on occasions
• What did Sherif tape record for later analysis?

  The boys' conversations
• (R) What aspect of the study could be replicated?

  The bean-counting test and tournament
• (V) What did Sherif have to intervene in during the study?

  A baseball match to prevent a fight
• What did Frances Cherry's findings suggest about Sherif's reliability?

  Different results were obtained on different occasions
• (A) What does the study suggest about competition and frustration?

  It creates hostility towards outgroups
• (A) How can discrimination and violence be reduced according to the study?

  By sharing opportunities fairly among groups
• (A) What does the study suggest about group interaction?

  It reduces hostility when working towards common goals
• What is the basis for a lot of Left Wing political thinking?

  Sharing jobs and opportunities fairly
• What is the basis for a lot of Right Wing political thinking?

  Encouraging integration into the host culture
• (V) What did Sherif claim about his research methods?

  They made his study more valid
• (V) What type of validity does the study have?

  Ecological validity
• What did Tyerman and Spencer argue about Sherif's study?

  It lacked ecological validity
• What was a limitation of Sherif's field experiment?

  It lacked a control group
• What did Michael Billig argue about Sherif's findings?

  He misunderstood the influence of the third group
• What did Gina Perry argue about the observers' influence?

  They had a bigger influence than intended
• (E) What ethical issue did the boys face regarding consent?

  They did not give valid consent
• (E) What were the boys deceived about during the study?

  The broken water pipe and food truck incidents
• (E) What risk did the boys face during the study?

  Vandalism, theft, and potential fights
• What did the researchers do when a serious fight nearly broke out?

  They intervened to prevent it
• (E) What type of consent did the boys' parents give?

  Presumptive consent on their sons' behalf
• What was a limitation regarding parental involvement?

  Parents were asked not to visit the camp