Robbers cave study

• What was the aim of Sherifs study?

  to investigate inter group relations over a period of time where various experimentally induced situations are introduced.
• procedure? (stage 1)

  in group formation: first 5-6 days of 2 weeks. 2 groups kept separate and given names to increase group identity. near the end 2 groups made aware of each other and experimenters made judgements when observing (used sociometric measures too)
• procedure? (2)

  friction phase: next 4-6 days. Ps were made aware of each other and immediately acted hostile, conflict was encouraged by competitions with rewards. observation and tape recordings done.
• Procedure? (3)

  integration phase: final 6-7 days. trying to bring down conflict and tension by deliberate co-op with making a common goal (eg joint problem solving). tape recording and rating of stereotypes.
• results?

  in-group formation: group bonded, recognised leader and made names. “us v them” attitude made and rattlers discussed other group more.

  friction phase: comp=hostility. eagles refused to eat w/ rattlers, each group shouted insults, close to

  violence, raided huts, burnt flags. self rep=93% Ps voted IG members as friends.

  integration phase: group together w out comp=no change in hostility. Joint tasks= decrease. groups shared bus home and rattlers spend $5 sharing drinks (from prize money)
• conclusion?

  some prejudice and discrimination arise w out competition.

  competition increases prejudice.

  stage 3, co-op in tasks that are meaningful decrease prejudice and discrimination.

  supports RCT, prejudice arises w out competition.
• generalisability?

  quite low, all white protestant boys that are from same area (Oklahoma) and age (11). also randomly divided into 2 groups which isn’t done in real life.
• reliability?

  high, individual variables controlled and controls were made so confounding variables decrease. however its in real world so ext v are possible and uncontrolled.
• applications?

  very high! Aronson with jigsaw effect (work together in class project) also able to understand how prejudice works with competition and co operation.
• validity?

  internal: high. same academic and sport ability so demand characteristics lowered. also didn't know they were being studied and many data collection methods used.

  ecological: high. done in real world so not artificial and summer camp is normal for 11yo boys. however there is no control group to compare
• ethics?

  very low! no informed consent so have no right to withdraw. also deceived about aim and may not have been guaranteed protection. parents also weren’t able to see boys so psychological strain? however observers were told to intervene if it seemed someone was in need of protection or in harm.