*7.6 Robbers Cave experiment Study (Sherif, 1954)

Aim

To examine how intergroup competition leads to prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination towards an outgroup.

Methodology

1. In-group formation

2. Intergroup competition (group conflict)

3. Intergroup cooperation (conflict resolution)

1.In-group formation

• Arriving at the camp as a group, each group was unaware of the other’s existence.

• Social norms developed, leadership and group structure emerged

2.Intergroup competition

• The now-formed groups came into contact with each other, competing in games and challenges, and competing for control of territory.

3.Intergroup cooperation

• Sherif and colleagues tried various means of reducing the animosity and low-level violence between the groups

• Sherif et al. concluded that contrived contact opportunities were not going to lessen tensions between the groups.

• Scenarios presenting superordinate goals were introduced.

• The attainment of these goals was beyond the resources and efforts of one group alone.

e.g fixing water supply, picking a movie and fix a stuck truck carrying food

Findings: Stage 2 (Intergroup competition)

During the subsequent two-day cooling-off period the boys listed features of the two groups.

The boys tended to characterise their own in-group in very favourable terms, and the other out-group in very unfavourable terms.

7.5% of Eagles’ friends were Rattlers.

6.4% of Rattlers’ friends were Eagles.

Findings: Stage 3 (Intergroup cooperation)

23.2% (up from 7.5%) of Eagles’ friends were Rattlers.

36.4% (up from 6.4%) of Rattlers’ friends were Eagles

Contribution

Social identity theory

• Being part of a group influences the behaviour and personal identity of members.

Realistic conflict theory

• Hostility between groups results from competition for limited resources.

Contact hypothesis

• Contact is not enough to reduce conflict.

• Superordinate goals reduce intergroup conflict and prejudice.

Criticisms / Limitations: methods, ethics and findings

Methods:

• The two groups of boys in the study were artificial, as was the competition, and did not necessarily reflect real life.

Ethics:

• The participants were deceived, as they did not know the true aim of the study.

• Participants were not protected from physical and psychological harm.

Findings:

• The results cannot be generalised to real life because the research used only 12-year-old white middle-class boys and excluded, for example, girls and adults