Aim:
Sherif and his colleagues wanted to investigate intergroup
relationships over time whilst manipulating the situations the groups faced.
The study was interested in group formation, the effect of
competition and the conditions under which conflict could be resolved.
Procedure:
The study took place at Robber’s Cave, a camp in Oklahoma,
famous as a hideout for outlaws such as Jesse James.
The study had 3 stages –
Stage one: in-groups were created by getting ppts to do tasks that required
co-operation.
Stage two: the two groups would be brought together to compete against one
another.
Stage three: superordinate goals (key term) were introduced to encourage
cooperation between groups in order to reduce the hostility.
Participants:
22 boys, 11 years old (1 was 12 years old), all ‘normally
adjusted’ from middle class Protestant families from schools in Oklahoma. The
boys did not know each other before the study (the researchers made sure of
this).
Procedure (detail):
Stage one
During the first 5-6 days the two groups were kept separate
from one another and each group completed tasks designed to encourage them to
form a group identity. During this stage, the ppts were observed by researchers
(who the boys thought were camp staff); they observed the verbal and non-verbal
communication of the boys, and the relationships they formed. Sociometric data
(numerical data) was also collected about how the boys rated each other in
terms of popularity, skill, etc.
Stage two
Over the next 4-6 days the boys were brought into contact
with one another during competitions such as: baseball, tug of war, tent
pitching, cabin inspections, singing, and treasure hunts. Points were awarded
to the winners of the competitions and each boy had to participate in each
competition.
There were also manipulated situations that frustrated the
boys, they were led to believe the other group had caused the problem. During
this stage, stereotypes between each group were recorded, as well as behaviours
and attitudes towards the other group.
Stage three
The final 6-7 days were devoted to ending the hostility and
conflict between the groups. This was done by introducing common goals that
needed both groups working together to complete. The three common goals
(superordinate) were:
1. Fixing a water tank that both groups
used
2. A joint camp-over where group members
had to work together for food and camping gear
3. Starting the broken down camping bus
Results:
Stage one
Each group formed their own norms and rules, this was their
group identity. By the end of the cooperative tasks, each group had a name –
one was the ‘Rattlers’ and the other was called the ‘Eagles’.
After each group was told about the other, there was a
definite ‘us’ and ‘them’ attitude.
1. Which parts of Social Identity Theory
does the creation of group names and rules support?
2. What about the ‘us’ and ‘them’
attitude, what is this indicating?
Stage two
During this stage, the boys demanded competition with the
other group. Leaders emerged in each group and the boys became territorial,
when the tournament was announced, the boys began to fight, they called each
other names (like ‘thief’, ‘braggers’, and ‘stinker’), the Eagles burned(!) the
Rattlers flag! They also went into each other’s camps to take things/mess
things up. When each boy was asked about who their friends were out of all the
boys, 93% said it was someone in their own group.
1. Is there any evidence here of in-group
favouritism?
2. Out group bias?
3. What does the 93% data of friendships
say about their group identity?
Stage three
Initially, the researchers tried to reduce the hostility by
putting the boys together, for example, watching a movie together and sharing
the same meal area. However, this had little effect in reducing group
prejudice.
The tasks involving the superordinate goals were introduced.
The first task (fixing the water tank) required all of the boys to try and find
the source of the problem; when the source was identified (a blocked tap) the
groups started to work together – there was no name calling. That evening, the
cooperation disappeared and name calling re-emerged.
The for the camping bus scenario, the boys worked together to
pull the bus and get it started. At the end of the study the researchers
reassessed friendship choices. They found a significant number of boys who said
their friendships were from outside their group.
1. What do these results say about
reducing prejudice? Is it enough just to be with the out-group?
2. Does a superordinate goal work
straight away?
Conclusions:
Group identities formed quickly. Competition leads to
negative out-group bias emerging quickly. Completing successive superordinate
goals leads to a decrease in prejudice because it removes competition.
KOP!
No comments:
Post a Comment