5a. Sherif

2 aspects of group dynamics Sherif was interested in

1. Leadership

2. Stereotyping

Participants

In each experiment, there was 24 boys aged 11-12 (socially well-adjusted and academically successful individuals from stable white, Protestant, middle-class homes

Standard design and procedure

1. Stage 1 (not 1954) → boys allowed to choose their own friends and develop their own friendship networks and allegiances

2. Stage 2 → boys deliberately placed into two different groups and placed in separate cabins

3. Stage 3 → groups compete for scarce resources (e.g. valued prizes, privileges, treats for winning at tug-of-war, baseball, a treasure hunt)

4. Stage 4 (1954 study only) → groups co-operate to achieve superordinate goals (e.g. rent a movie, find a leak in the water system, tow a broken down bus)

2 hypothesis of the summer camp studies

1. Group formation (stage 1 and 2) → hierarchical structure differentiated in terms of status and roles

2. Groups in competition (stage 3) → hostile attitudes and actions towards the outgroup will be standardised and consensualised (ie, become stereotypes)

Results of 1949 Conneticut study

• Groups did indeed develop an internal structure of leaders and subordinates, so that ‘the group became an organisation’

• The group became a reference group for its members

• Basis for standardised attitudes and behaviour to develop

• Emerging group culture → use of nicknames, development of name for the group, slogans, myths, rituals and group norms were actively enforced

• In stage 2 intergroup relations had been quite cordial which changed once the groups competed for scarce resources which marked decline in quality of intergroup relations

• Increasingly derogatory slurs and stereotypes

• Emergent dynamic associated with outgroup derogation & distancing, and ingroup enhancement, self-justification and self-glorification

• Solidarity within groups increased at this time and change in leadership

Results of 1954 Robber’s cave study

• Data support hypothesis 1 and 2

• Hostile attitudes and actions between groups can be overcome when groups need to co-operate to achieve super-ordinate goals

Conclusions from the summer camp studies

• Group formation → hierarchy and norms are quickly established

• Emergent group norms regulate behaviour

• Intergroup relations → contact does not necessarily lead to low levels of prejudice and conflict

• Negative interdependence (zero-sum situations)

  • Between groups → tensions and associated prejudicial attitudes towards an outgroup

  • Within groups → increases attachment to, and evaluation of, ingroup

• Positive interdependence (superordinate goals, win-win)

  • Between groups → increases co-operation and helping, decreases prejudice and tensions

Issues with field experiments

• Experimental control over a dynamic situation

• Measuring outcome variables without disruption → group cohesion, leadership, prejudice & discrimination, norms, group rules

• Sample size/statistical power → group-level measurement means N = number of groups, not individuals

• Resources

• Replication

Experimenter influence

Billig (1976) suggested that experimenters were another outgroup with junior counsellors who stayed with children often being looked up to

Realistic conflict theory

Intergroup hostility, prejudice, and discrimination arise from competition between groups for limited, valued resources

4 reasons why groups are in conflict

1. Conflict over resources (e.g. jobs, wealth, territory) → realistic conflict

2. Conflict over values → symbolic conflict

3. Groups look out for their own → ingroup bias

4. Humans evolved that way → evolutionary conflict

Material social reality

The physical, tangible world created and modified by human effort—such as infrastructure, tools, money, and landscapes—that exists alongside social constructs like laws and culture

Beyond individualism

Stereotyping, prejudice and hatred are not ‘cognitive problems’ but social problems and to understand them we need a social (group-based) psychology

Conflict and cooperation in organisations

• Conflict awareness → avoiding zero-sum situations and perceptions

• Conflict resolution and negotiations → focus on superordinate goals

• Team building → superordinate goals and cooperation

• Leadership → person-situation fit rather than “charismatic” leaders

• Building inclusive cultures → changing the situation rather than pathologizing individuals or “curing” them with cognitive trainings