Classic study sherif robbers cave

• Aim : To investigate relations between groups. Specifically to see whether strangers

  brought together into a group with common goals will form a close group, and to

  see whether two such groups brought into contact and competition will become

  hostile towards each other.
• Stage One: The boys bonded within their groups.

  The groups called themselves ‘The Rattlers’ and ‘The Eagles’

  Leaders were established

  The Rattlers were tough and the Eagles cried more when injured
• Stage Two: Competition led to immediate hostility. The Eagles refused to eat with the Rattlers.

  When together the groups shouted insults at each other and were reported by observers to get

  close to physical violence. Both groups raided the others’ huts and burned their flags. When

  prizes were awarded, they were stolen by the other group.
• Stage Three: Early activities in stage 3, which just involved getting the groups together

  without competition, did not reduce hostility, however the joint-problem-solving task did.

  Following these, both groups opted to share a bus home and the Rattlers spent a $5 prize won

  in one competition on drinks for both groups.
• This suggests that COMPETITION is a factor in leading to DISCRIMINATION

  between groups (inter-group conflict), but that some discrimination takes

  place even without competition
• In Sheriff's Robbers Cave experiment, the boys formed strong identities based around their respective teams. They derived self-esteem from being part of these groups and wanted to feel good about them. As a result, they developed negative attitudes towards the opposing team.
• Realistic - conflict arises due to an

  actual need for resources and therefore

  not something irrational.
• Conflict – Sherif rejected the idea that

  different groups of people could share

  and cooperate in harmony (popular in

  the 60s)
• Zero-Sum Fate - Only one winner - if

  one side gains, someone else has to

  lose out. Realistic Conflict occurs when

  people believe that an out group can

  only benefit at their expense. So, if

  they see out group members doing

  well, they conclude that they must be

  losing out somehow.
• Competition for limited resources can cause inter-group conflict
• supporting theory

  Filindra and Pearson-Merkowitz (2013)

  Examination of data in New England to see if, when dominant white majority perceive threat, there is more prejudice and discrimination Perceived increase in the presence of immigrants in the community

  correlated positively with an immigration policy with more restrictions.
• subjects boys about 11 or 12 years old,
• Parcicepents were 22 boys aged 11 who didn’t know each other before study.
• boys were split into two groups of 11
• all boys were from Protestant families in Oklahoma
• They were screened to eliminate problems at home or any other difficulties that might account for individual difference.
• data collection method observation - a particepant observer was allocated to each group for 12 hours a day
• sociometric analysis– issues such as friendship pternswere noted and studied
• Home and behavioural problems in boys was eliminated
• boys were matched as far as possible by characteristics and ability
• Boys weren’t aware of study
• single-bind study


  participants aren’t aware of aim
• Sherif’s procedure enabled measurement of the boys attitudes and behaviours.

  • For example, the bean counting activity where the boys were set a task to collect beans and then asked to estimate how many were collected by the in-group and then out-group.  Also, the baseball tournament and tug of war competition between the groups where completed where only the winners were rewarded. 
  • Finally, the boys were asked to complete standardised questionnaires rating both the in group and out group
• Weeks:

  1. Solidarity and group formation - Kept apart for a week, worked to achieve common goals to form bonding in groups (rattlers & eagles)
  2. Intergroup relations friction - tournament with competitive activities, rewards available, groups become hostile, set up own tournament.
  3. Intergroup relations integration - tasks to cause communication, superordinate goals
• Sherif’s study was carried out in a state park, which would be typical of summer camp venues.  The activities were everyday tasks, which would be usual for boys that age to take part in.  e.g canoeing, tug of war, building tents,  therefore observations were made of natural behaviour. It was held in the natural setting of the Robbers Cave Camp, which was a well-known park in the area.  

   
• Sherif’s aims were to investigate relations between groups. Specifically, to see whether strangers brought together into a group with common goals will form a close group, and to see whether two such groups brought into contact and competition will become hostile towards each other.  

   
• Some hostility was observed between the groups as soon as they were aware of each other.

  Once competition was introduced this became more intense.

  This suggests that competition is a factor in leading to discrimination between groups (inter-group conflict), but that some discrimination takes place even without competition.  However, when groups work together on cooperative tasks that benefit both of them, prejudice and discrimination can be reduced.
• Results

   

  1. Social norms became apparent, rattlers were rough, eagles cried
  2. Wanted to challenge each other, and hostility developed, name-calling, and fights. In group members were grave, out group was sneaky. 6% reported had friends in the other group.

  Reduced friction, after the water supply was fixed, continued to insist but when the truck was fixed, made dinner and became friends.30% reported having friends in the other group.
• Strength of study

  Sherif wanted to understand the rise of conflict between two groups and wanted his sample to have expected characteristics of average boys. 

   Therefore, despite Sherif only using ‘emotionally stable’ boys with at least an average IQ, his inclusion of a sample of boys with different sporting abilities, personalities and children in a  camp experience.

  This means the sample is representative of average boys so the results on competition and limited resources leading to prejudice can be generalised to a wider population.    
• State the weakness:

  A weakness of Sherif research The sample consists of 22 eleven-year-old boys. They are also all middle-class, protestant boys and all are from the same place, Oklahoma. This means the sample suffers from being androcentric and ethnocentric due to these restrictions placed on the sample.This means that the sample is not representative of a wider population(girls and people from different cultures) decreasing generalisability of the findings into competition producing prejudice between groups.
• State the strength

   A strength within the study is that he used standardised methods to collect data from every boy.

   Use of the questionnaires being given to the boys was standardized and the same for every boy as the boys were asked to complete standardized questionnaires rating both the in-group and out-group after their activities using a 5-point scale. Using standardised methods, such as questionnaires, will allow replication of the study into competition, between groups, causing prejudice allowing results to be tested for consistency, increasing the reliability.
• State the weakness:Tyerman and Spencer(1983) replicated the study with 30 sea troop boys. The boys each belonged to four patrols within the troop. At their annual two-week camp, Tyerman noticed that during the competition phase ingroup solidarity didnt increase in fact it decreased. This means that expected behaviour of the children in their groups to favour own groups over competing group as seen in Sherif's study, was not demonstrated. The replication shows different results, meaning that understanding of competition for limited resource causing prejudice has low reliability.