9C (Sherif: conflict and cooperation, 1949, 1953, 1954)

big question

is all conflict ‘realistic conflict’

background- what was he interested in

Sherif was interested in how group norms develop through group dynamics

• Early work- social influence studies showing conversion (auto kinetic effect)

But what happens when different groups make judgements in the same situation- and where that situation is malign rather than benign (not so nice)

Inspiration- looks toward world wars

Two aspects of group dynamics in which sherif was particularly interested were

• Leadership

• Stereotyping

what ideas did Sherif reject

Sherif rejected:

• Trait-based explanations of stereotypes

• The great man theory of leadership (some people more leaderish than others)

Intergroup behaviour is not primarily a problem of deviate behaviour (not individuals, its the situation)

the summer camp studies

• In 1949, 1953 and 1954 Sherif conducted 3 experimental field studies offering boys camps in the USA

• Makes use of the fact that this already exists- has ecological validity and easier to get consent from parents

participants

• N=24 boys aged 11-12 years

'meticulously selected to be socially well-adjusted and academically successful individuals' from stable, white, protestant, middle class homes

• Does this for same reason as Zimbardo- more of a story when it’s the white males

design and procedure

stage 1 (not 1954):

• boys allowed to choose their own friends and develop their own friendship networks and allegiances

stage 2:

• boys placed into two different groups and placed in separate cabins

stage 3:

• groups compete for scarce resources (e.g., valued prizes, treats fro winning)

stage 4 (1954 only):

• group co-operate to achieve superordinate goals (e.g., rent a movie, find a leak in water system)

hypotheses

H1- group formation (stage 1 and 2)

• Hierarchical structure differentiated in terms of status and roles

H2- groups in competition (stage 3)

• Hostile attitudes and actions towards the outgroup will be standardised and consensualised

1949 Connecticut results

H1:

• groups developed an internal structure of leaders and subordinates so ‘the group became an organisation’

• bull dogs & red devils (had more leadership)

further H1 support

the groups became a reference group for its members

• basis for standardised attitudes and behaviour

friendship choices

• end stage 1- 35% RD, RD

• end stage 2- 95% RD,RD

other results supporting H1

emerging group culture:

• nicknames

• group name development (RD, BD)

• slogans

• myths

• rituals

group norms actively enforced

results supporting H2

in stage 2, intergroup relations quite cordial

• this changed once start competing for scarce resources

• marks a decline of intergreoup relations (2, 4, 6, 8, who do we appreci-hate)

what do this develop into

derogatory slurs and stereotypes (RD are pigs)

emergent dynamic associated with

1. outgroup derogation and distancing

2. ingroup enhancement, self-justification and self-glorification

solidarity within groups increased

• change in leadership

another aspect of the research

planned (by experimenters) (1949) and actual (1954) raids on other groups cabins to sabotage plans, reclaim prizes, ransack beds etc

replication

1954 robber’s cave study

rattlers vs eagles

results:

• data support hypotheses 1 and 2

additional hypothesis- how to turn conflict around

H3:

hostile attitudes and actions that develop among groups competing for scarce resources can be overcome when groups need to cooperate to achieve super-ordinate goals

• water leak

• rent movie

results for hypothesis 3

these interventions had a cumulative effect

• reduced friction between groups and unfavourable stereotypes toward outgroup

• goes from 12% intragroup friendships to 36%

conclusions

group formation: hierarchy of norms quickly established

• emergent group norms regulate behaviour

intergroup relations: contact does NOT necessarily lead to low levels of prejudice (needs to be contact under specific situations)

• negative interdependence (zero-sum situations/ win-lose) problematic

  • between groups- tension and associated prejudicial attitudes toward out group

  • within groups- increases attachment and positive evaluation of in group

• positive interdependence: (subordinate goals, win win)

  • between groups- increases co-operation and helping decreases prejudice

debate and controversy

field experiments:

• experimental control over a dynamic situation → ethics

• measuring outcome variables without disruption diffuclt as all entangled

  • group cohesion, leadership, prejudice and discrimination, norms and group rules

• sample size- group level measurement difficult as looking at groups, not individual- little statistical power

• resources manageable

• replication ahrd

another debate pointed out

experimenter influence:

Billig (1976): experimenters another out-group (3 groups?)

• junior counsellors who stay with children and coordinate activities → boys show admiration

participant observers (billig and colleagues) instructed to keep professional distance

• permissiveness encourages non-normative behaviour (food fights etc)

• planned frustrations

impact and legacy

Realistic conflict theory (RCT)

• is realistic conflict over scarce resources necessary to create competition and tensions or merely sufficient (Tajfel)

theories for why there is group conflict

conflict over resources

• RCT

conflict over values

• symbolic conflict

groups look out for their own

• in group bias

humans evolved this way

• evolutionary conflict

impact on social reality

key contribution:

• suggests psychological processes (leadership, conflict and prejudice) are grounded in material social reality

  • problems in the world are NOT a result of psychological limitations or deficiency, but a response to material circumstances (competition fro scarce resources) and zero-sum perception

not bad apples!!- it’s a bad barrel

continued

• stereotyping, prejudice not cognitive problems but social

• to understand them we need social (group-based) psychology

but to improve social relations, can’t look just for psychological cures (on the individual)- need to change social reality and relationships

→ have to change system not the individual

applied impact

conflict and cooperation in organisations:

• conflict awareness: avoiding zero-sum situations and perceptions of

• conflict resolution/ team building: focus on super-ordinate goals

• leadership: person-situation not charisma of the individual

• building inclusive cultures: changing situation, not the individual with cognitive trainings