Sherif et al (1954)

Sherif et al (1954)

1. ABOUT

   • AIM
     • To find out what factors make two groups develop hostile relationships and then to see how this hostility can be reduced.
   • IV
     • The stage of the experiment: (1) ingroup formation, (2) friction phase and (3) integration phase
   • DV
     • Intergroup behaviour was measured by observing the boys behaviour and friendship patterns and tape recording their conversations
   • SAMPLE
     • 24 participants (11-year-old boys) who were selected by opportunity sampling.
   • METHOD
     • Repeated measures design

2. PROCEDURE

   • The boys arrived on separate buses and settled into their cabins on two sites.
   • INGROUP FORMATION
     • Each group had tasks to accomplish (eg a treasure hunt with a $10 prize).
       • During this time the boys gave their groups names and discovered the existence of the other group; they immediately requested a baseball game against the other group.
     • Rattlers and Eagles
   • FRICTION PHASE
     • Tournament between two groups, such as tug of war, for prizes such as trophy
   • INTEGRATION PHASE
     • The boys were encouraged to work together by tasks, such as fixing a blocked water pipe,

3. RESULT

   • Sherif found that the boys required little encouragement to be competitive.
     • As soon as they found out about another group in the park, they resorted to “us-and-them” language
   • FRICTION PHASE
     • Name calling started immediately
     • The Eagles burned the Rattlers’ flag and the Rattlers retaliated by doing the same.
     • When the Eagles won the tournament, the Rattlers stole their prizes
   • INTEGRATION PHASE
     • Initially there was food fights
     • However, each shared task led to reduced hostility. By the end, the Rattlers shared $5 they had won to buy soft drinks for everyone.

4. CONCLUSION

   • Sherif regards the study as proving his hypotheses about intergroup behaviour
     • Although intergroup conflict is inevitable when competition is present, it can be reduced.

5. EVALUATION

   • GENERALISABILITY
     • Only boys were used, so the results may not generalise the girls or mixed sex groups.
     • The boys were supposed to be “all American” types: white, bright and sporty. This isn't representative of the american population
   • RELIABILITY
     • The observers were only with the boys for 12 hours a day and could not see or overhear everything that went on. Which decreases reliability
   • APPLICATION
     • The study shows how competition and frustration creates hostility towards outgroups. In society, this suggests that discrimination and violence could be reduced if jobs, housing, education and other opportunities were shared more fairly between different groups
   • VALIDITY
     • The study has ecological validity, because these were real boys at a real summer camp, doing real activities.
   • ETHICS
     • The boys did not give valid consent to be in this study and do not seem to have been debriefed afterwards – they never realised they were being experimented on.