Robber's Cave Field Experiment and Minimal Group Paradigm

Who by at what was the year focusing on?

Sherif et al, 1961

What was the set up: number, location, map?

What were the 3 stages?

Examples of competitive events and rewards?

What were some of the escalating hostilities that took place?

• flag burning following losing a game of tug-of-war

• ransacking cabins in retaliation

How did they judge for intergroup bias?

Limitations:

• how they ask and who is present may affect their answers

• kinda stupid/pointless task

What happened at the end of stage 2?

What type of intergroup contact did not work?

What are some examples of the superordinate goals?

How were the stereotype ratings different at the end of stage 2 and stage 3?

What are some considerations to keep in mind?

• sherif conducted two previous studies in which the intergroup conflict didn’t arise

  • different design - groups together to start

  • still not compelling though

  • scout comparison - didn’t work which also shows that the formation of the group method matters

• researcher bias as the camp leaders encourgaed intergroup conflict by stealing clothes

  • also weren’t telling boys off so authority figures set the social norms

• ethical issues

• 2 of the larger boys from Eagles became homesicl and left

  • other became majority so they rigged it slightly differently

  • less cohesive groups

Who did the minimal group experiments and when?

Tajfel et al, 1971

What are the two stages in the experiments?

What does the matrix look like that they were given?

What were the 4 different reward strategies that participants could pick which would say lots about their intergroup thoughts?

What were the results?

Limitations of minimal groups paradigm?

• ingroup favouritsm doesn’t necessarily lead to outgroup hostility - Brewer (1999)

  • but they did choose difference more than MIP

• social identification may not be enough to explain extreme forms of conflict and violence

• inidivuals social identity is multi-faceted and can included outgroup members

• initial studies with fictitious groups arguably fail to capture complexity of identity in context but do show us implications of basic categorisations

• alternative explanations:

  • demand characteristics

  • expectations of reciprocity

  • anticipation of furture interaction

  • complex matrices

• didn’t actually measure conflict - prejudice and discrimination instead