Robbers cave experiment - social

• aim

  . to look at intergroup relations over a period of time in order to investigate group formation

  . to see the effect of competition and the conditions under which conflict could be resolved
• how many ppts were there

  22
• who were the ppts -age, gender, faith, etc

  middle class, protestant, 11 year old, boys, from Oklahoma, all socially and emotionally well adjusted

  . none knew each other prior to the experiment
• who gave consent

  the parents and doctors of the boys
• what were the groups

  2 groups of 11 , equal in terms of abilities
• what data was collected

  qualitative and quantitative
• what methods were used to collect data

  covert observation, ranked scales, questionnaires
• what type of experiment was it

  a field experiment
• what was stage 1 called

  group formation
• what was done in stage 1

  . group cohesion created
• how was group cohesion created

  by getting them to do tasks which required group work
• where were the groups kept during this stage in relation to each other

  apart, unaware of the other groups existence
• results from stage 1

  . leaders of each group were established

  . different norms became apparent

  . named their groups: Rattlers and the Eagles
• what were the Rattlers like


  tough and swore lots
• what were the eagles like

  weaker, cried a lot - 2 left in stage 1 due to homesickness
• what was stage 2 called

  creating friction
• what was done in stage 2

  subordinate goals introduced eg competitive games between the groups such as baseball
• why were subordinate goals introduced

  to encourage negative functional interdependence
• where were the groups kept in relation to each other in stage 2


  learned of each others existence and competed with them
• results from stage 2

  intergroup fighting, name calling, and hostility developed - raided each others cabins, burnt each others flags down
• data from stage 2

  ranked scale questionnaires showed 90% of friendships were with boys in their own group
• what was stage 3 called

  superordinate goals
• what was done in stage 3

  superordinate goals were introduced eg fixing the communal water tanks
• why were superordinate goals introduced

  to encourage cooperation and positive functional interdependence
• results of stage 3

  . hostility greatly reduced

  . intergroup friendships formed, reduction in name calling
• data from stage 3

  approx 30% of friendships were with boys from the other group
• generalisability weakness


  only boys in sample = homogenous sample, all boys, white, protestant, from Oklahoma
• what did a homogeneous sample mean

  results were unrepresentative of the target population
• counter argument to homogeneity

  a heterogenous sample would not have worked as subgroups would have naturally formed due to gender, damaging the validity of the study
• overall generalisability point


  homogeneity was justified
• reliability strength


  high levels of control and careful planning at each stage = study could be easily replicated
• reliability counter argument


  measures used to observe hostility may be inconsistent between observers as it is subjective - this compromises the internal reliability of the study
• application


  understanding hostility in schools that arises as result of competition and how to reduce prejudice using superordinate goals
• validity strength


  . two groups were matched and organised very carefully to improve internal validity = ensured results could not be explained due to pre-existing differences between the boys
• validity weakness


  boys may have been aware of they were part of a study - be suspicious that adults weren't intervening , audio equipment present, staff taking notes = could have created demand characteristics = affects both types of validity
• ethics strength


  . parental consent was gained

  . boys had right to withdraw
• ethics weakness


  . no protection from harm

  . socially sensitive - induces hostility in younger boys