14. Classic study - Robbers cave study - Sherif (1961)

realistic conflict theory - robbers cave study by Sherif (1961)

What does realistic conflict theory suggest about prejudice

• Sherif agreed with the idea put forward by Tajfel and Turner in their social identity theory

• realist theory because it proposes that conflict isn’t based on irrational needs for identity, rather for an actual need for resources.

• but he took it further and focused on conflict/prejudice being caused due to competition over scarce resources.

• suggested that when two groups are in competition for resources that are limited, then conflict is created between them.

• however the conflict/prejudice can be reduced by introducing a superordinate goal, a common goal both groups work towards together.

Sample?

• 22 boys

• 11-12 years old

• from two parent protestant families, similar socio economic backgrounds, all white from the USA, above average intelligence.

What was the aim?

• to investigate if creating an in group and an out group and causing competition for scarce resources results in conflict/prejudice.

• to investigate if introducing a superordinate goal reduces conflict/prejudice.

What did he hypothesise would happen?

• That intergroup conflict will occur when the two groups have conflicting aims, and the members will become hostile toward each other (i.e. show discrimination and prejudice toward the outgroup) 

 

What happened in the first phase?

• intergroup formation phase

• 22 boys divided into 11/two different groups.

• both groups encouraged to participate in group activities to generate strong group identities.

• named themselves to create a strong sense of identity - the eagles and the rattlers.

• made flags, shirts - symbols/labels give a strong sense of group identity.

• successfully created ingroups (including hierarchies, rules, group identity, common goals.)

What happened in the second phase?

• friction phase

• two groups were introduced as soon as they developed strong group identities

• competitions such as baseball, tug of war for prizes to create a sense of their respective outgroups.

• winners got a prize, losers no consolation and losers labelled as such.

• this was done to create conflict between the two groups in competing for scarce resources.

• ingroups and outgroups were formed.

• conflict occurred through physical violence, raiding, burning of flags, vandalism.

What happened in the third and final stage?

• integration phase

• experimenters introduced a superordinate goal, a common goal where both groups needed to work together to be solved.

• water shortages - came up with a solution together

• food truck getting stuck - all helped to push it out

• movie was not paid for by camp - all pitched in to pay

• re established group identities from working together, tension decreased

• even chose to go home on one bus together when the experiment ended.

Conclusions?

• conflict does arise when two groups are in competition for scarce resources

• prejudice can be reduced by introducing a superordinate goal.

What are the key evaluation points for generalisability?

A01

• 22 boys, 11- to 12-year-olds

• who were all white, from two-parent, protestant families and had a similar socio-economic background.

• Above average intelligence

• From the USA

A03

• Using all white males was not representative of the time - what about the other ethnic groups that make up around 50% of school intake.

• Poor population validity due to it only being boys and the age range was small.

• Androcentric research and suffers from alpha bias results are applied to everyone even though females weren't studied.

• Culture bias, ethnocentric research, cannot apply results to other places.

• Cannot generalise results to the wider population.

What are the key evaluation points for reliability?

A01

• They were picked up to go to “camp” on the same day, same time, to ensure minimal prior interaction before reaching the experiment field.

• standardised procedures were used due to the stages also were done in the same way and they were asked to do the same things  e.g. in stage 1 when creating their group identities (eagles and rattlers, flags, shirts etc)

A03

• Internal reliability - boys were only observed partially for 12 hours a day - what were they doing for the rest of the time.

• Poor internal reliability

 

• Inter - rater reliability - multiple researchers rated the boys behaviour and kept accounts of what they were doing.

• Scoring systems were also used to look at behavioural patterns.

• These were checked by each other, so the results were reliable.

• Increases inter-rater reliability

 

• External reliability - Standardised procedures were used (the phases) and so this study could be replicated

• However, this procedure was quite flexible as Sherif made changes 'on the spot' so direct replication would be difficult.

What are the key evaluation points for application?

• The ecological validity is good because it is a field experiment, in the natural world, in a real world setting the robbers cave Oklahoma.

• This means that results can be applied to similar situations in the real world.

• The mundane realism is good because the tasks are reflective of the real world.

• They would play baseball, tug of war in summer camps.

• Social control - Sherif's study has shown us how easy it would be to create prejudice and conflict.

• When we segregate people into groups who develop strong group identities and then make resources scarce, conflict can be created.

• Psychological knowledge in society - Sherif's study also showed us however, that by encouraging people to pursue a superordinate goal, people can come together therefore reducing conflict and prejudice.

• Do you think this would happen on a larger scale though? For example, wars between countries?

What are the key evaluation points for validity?

• Extraneous variables - Sherif didn’t test for factors such as personality.

• The boys may have had certain personality traits that made them more likely to develop prejudice towards others.

• Such as the authoritarian personality.

• It was extremely hot, during summer in Oklahoma and this would make them more annoyed 'hot and bothered'.

• Screening - Sherif did however remove 6 boys from the study as they already knew each other.

• This meant that the boys who didn’t know each other had no preconceived biases about one another.

• This increases internal validity

• Pp selection - Sherif visited the schools of the Pp and observed them before asking them to be a part of the study.

• He chose the boys who he thought would deliver the results he wanted, he chose the more aggressive boys.

• Therefore, the experimenter bias would have reduced the external validity of the results.

• The boys were aware of the fact they were being observed.

• Creating the Hawthorne effect this means they may not have behaved naturally, lowering the internal validity of results.

• Additionally, the research team also encouraged conflict by instigating the boys.

• Their influence meant that real behaviours may not have been observed.

• Lowering the internal validity of results.

What are the key evaluation points for ethics?

• Deception - the boys were not aware that they were a part of an experiment and that for example, the food truck wasn’t stuck of that the water pipes had burst.

• This was justified however to protect against demand characteristics which would have lowered the internal validity of the study.

 

• Protection - Yes they were exposed to harm such as violence, vandalism, verbal insults but Sherif argued that these behaviours would be typical in a 1950's summer camp.

• The boys seemed to enjoy themselves and so how much they were affected by being a part of the study is debatable.

 

• Consent - presumptive consent was provided by the parents (gate keepers) so the boys never directly consented to taking part.