Sherif et al's Robbers Cave Experiment 1954/1961

studied byStudied by 0 people
0.0(0)
learn
LearnA personalized and smart learning plan
exam
Practice TestTake a test on your terms and definitions
spaced repetition
Spaced RepetitionScientifically backed study method
heart puzzle
Matching GameHow quick can you match all your cards?
flashcards
FlashcardsStudy terms and definitions

1 / 23

encourage image

There's no tags or description

Looks like no one added any tags here yet for you.

24 Terms

1

What was Sherif's aim?

To investigate whether in-group and out-group conflict can be created between groups with no prior relationships

New cards
2

Type of Sample used:

Opportunity Sample

New cards
3

Sample Size:

22 boys

New cards
4

Sample Characteristics

White
Middle Class
Protestant
Schooled in Oklahoma
11 years old

New cards
5

Sample Mental Characteristics:

Emotionally and Socially well adjusted

New cards
6

What type of experiment was used?

Field experiment

New cards
7

What was the independent variable?

The competitive tasks used

New cards
8

What was the dependent variable?

Number of friends identified in outgroup

New cards
9

What standardised task was used?

Asked to collect beans
Estimated the number of ingroup and outgroup beans collected

New cards
10

What were the results of the bean collection task?

Overestimated in group.
Underestimated outgroup

New cards
11

What qualitative data was collected?

Tape recordings
Observation of boys behaviour for 12 hours a day

New cards
12

What was the 1st stage?

Bonding stage:
Canoeing, pitching tents

New cards
13

What was the 2nd stage?

Competition stage

New cards
14

What was the 3rd stage?

Superordinate goals

New cards
15

How did the Eagles and Rattlers differ?

Eagles: Cried when they were injured, anti-swearing
Rattlers: Tough, swore

New cards
16

By the end of stage 2 what % of Rattlers friends were Eagles?

6.4%

New cards
17

By the end of stage 3 what % of Eagles friends were Rattlers?

36.4%

New cards
18

What did Sherif conclude?

Intergroup competition = increased ingroup favouritism and outgroup hostility
Superordinate goals > social contact for reducing conflict

New cards
19

Generalisability:

AO1: Can in-group and out-group conflict can be created between groups with no prior relationships. 22 white middle class boys from Oklahoma
AO3: Low Generalisability as is culture and gender biased. Cannot generalise to wider population.

New cards
20

Reliability:

AO1: Standardised Procedure- Bean Collection task.
Estimate ingroup and outgroup total.
Observation and tape recorders

AO3: Easily replicable so can test for reliability.
Multiple observers can test for inter-rater reliability.

Counter: Boys created competition: asked to play baseball game

New cards
21

Applications:

AO1: Superordinate goals reduce conflict. Water tower
Stage 2: 6.4% of Rattler's friends were Eagles
Stage 3: 36.4%

AO3: Charity football match remove competition.
Societal benefit of less conflict between fans and violence around football matches.

New cards
22

Internal Validity:

AO1: Matched boy's IQ and sporting abilities. Split across groups.

AO3: Reduced pre-existing differences between groups.
Easier to establish a cause-and-effect relationship

Counter: Unequal sizes 2 boys from Eagles left.
Eagles left with 9.
Hostility more likely to increase

New cards
23

Ecological Validity:

AO1: Field Experiment
Took place at a real Boy Scout Campsite.
Activities: Canoeing, Baseball

AO3: High ecological validity and task validity
Behaviour is likely to represent real life situations
Applicable to real life

New cards
24

Ethics:

AO1: Parents gave consent.
Encouraged Fights: Exposed to physical and psychological harm

AO3: Did not protect from harm.
Question credibility of Sherif and findings

New cards
robot