Classic studies
Paper 3 section B
CLASSIC STUDY
SHERIF ET AL. (1954, 1961) : INTERGROUP CONFLICT
AND COOPERATION - ROBBER’S CAVE EXPERIMENT
Conducted a series of boys’ summer camp experiments to investigate intergroup
conflict.
Aim: investigate intergroup relations when experimentally induced situations were
introduced.
The study was interested in group formation, the effect of competition and conditions
under which conflict could be resolved.
Procedure: 22 11yrs old “normally adjusted” boys from middle-class Protestant families
from schools in Oklahoma City.
Researchers ensured boys weren’t acquainted with each other before the study.
Fee of $25 paid to parents to incentivise them not to visit them throughout the 2-week
stay at the camp.
, 2
Boys were not introduced to each other at the start of study, but divided into equally
matched groups through information obtained from parents/teachers about their
educational and athletic abilities.
STAGE 1
In-groups created by facilitating tasks requiring in-group cooperation
2 groups kept separate, each group involved in activities encouraging in-group
formation.
Researchers (boys thought were camp staff) observed verbal+non-verbal
communication within each group and the relationships that emerged.
STAGE 2
2 groups brought together in situations where they compete against one another for
goals.
Boys brought into contact with each other during competitions as part of a camp
tournament.
Both groups were subjected to orchestrated situations which they would find frustrating
and believe were caused by the other group.
Stereotypes between each group recorded; Behaviors and attitudes towards eax=ch
group were noted.
STAGE 3
Superordinate goals introduced to encourage cooperation and reduce in-group hostility.
Bring about conflict resolution by introducing common goals designed to ensure
cooperation between groups. 3 problem situations set up so they could only be resolved
if both groups worked cooperatively :
- Fix water tank that provided water to both groups
- Joint camp-over where groups had to work together for food and sleeping gear
- Start broken-don camp bus
Results:
, 3
1) boys in each group formed their own set of group norms/rules that formed their
group identity.
They took part in cooperative activities, by end, defined name for their group :
- “Rattlers” and “ Eagles”
Groups made aware of other’s existence -formation of “us’ and “them” attitude
2) boys showed signs of hostility to other group, persisted in demanding for competitive
activities
Leaders that took on challenges of the tournament emerged in each group
Boys became territorial
Tournament announced:
- Name call
- Fight
- Eagles burned Rattlers’ camp flag
Strong sense of in-group favoritism and negative out-group bias, resulting in derogatory
terms used about the other group and a lot of skirmishes and camp raids.
Asked to self-report their friends out of all: 93% selected exclusively from their own in-
group.
3) researchers attempted to bring 2 groups together
Ex: in the dining hall for mealtimes, watching movies.
But mere contact was insufficient to reduce intergroup hostility, so boys persisted in
name calling and fighting.
The 1st cooperative involved fixing a water tank, which was rigged by researchers.
All had to play a role in identifying the cause of water shortage, after identifying it,
they were mingling with each other and no longer name calling.
But boys displayed negative out-group bias during supper in evening, resulting in
derogatory terms used about other groups and food being thrown.
Paper 3 section B
CLASSIC STUDY
SHERIF ET AL. (1954, 1961) : INTERGROUP CONFLICT
AND COOPERATION - ROBBER’S CAVE EXPERIMENT
Conducted a series of boys’ summer camp experiments to investigate intergroup
conflict.
Aim: investigate intergroup relations when experimentally induced situations were
introduced.
The study was interested in group formation, the effect of competition and conditions
under which conflict could be resolved.
Procedure: 22 11yrs old “normally adjusted” boys from middle-class Protestant families
from schools in Oklahoma City.
Researchers ensured boys weren’t acquainted with each other before the study.
Fee of $25 paid to parents to incentivise them not to visit them throughout the 2-week
stay at the camp.
, 2
Boys were not introduced to each other at the start of study, but divided into equally
matched groups through information obtained from parents/teachers about their
educational and athletic abilities.
STAGE 1
In-groups created by facilitating tasks requiring in-group cooperation
2 groups kept separate, each group involved in activities encouraging in-group
formation.
Researchers (boys thought were camp staff) observed verbal+non-verbal
communication within each group and the relationships that emerged.
STAGE 2
2 groups brought together in situations where they compete against one another for
goals.
Boys brought into contact with each other during competitions as part of a camp
tournament.
Both groups were subjected to orchestrated situations which they would find frustrating
and believe were caused by the other group.
Stereotypes between each group recorded; Behaviors and attitudes towards eax=ch
group were noted.
STAGE 3
Superordinate goals introduced to encourage cooperation and reduce in-group hostility.
Bring about conflict resolution by introducing common goals designed to ensure
cooperation between groups. 3 problem situations set up so they could only be resolved
if both groups worked cooperatively :
- Fix water tank that provided water to both groups
- Joint camp-over where groups had to work together for food and sleeping gear
- Start broken-don camp bus
Results:
, 3
1) boys in each group formed their own set of group norms/rules that formed their
group identity.
They took part in cooperative activities, by end, defined name for their group :
- “Rattlers” and “ Eagles”
Groups made aware of other’s existence -formation of “us’ and “them” attitude
2) boys showed signs of hostility to other group, persisted in demanding for competitive
activities
Leaders that took on challenges of the tournament emerged in each group
Boys became territorial
Tournament announced:
- Name call
- Fight
- Eagles burned Rattlers’ camp flag
Strong sense of in-group favoritism and negative out-group bias, resulting in derogatory
terms used about the other group and a lot of skirmishes and camp raids.
Asked to self-report their friends out of all: 93% selected exclusively from their own in-
group.
3) researchers attempted to bring 2 groups together
Ex: in the dining hall for mealtimes, watching movies.
But mere contact was insufficient to reduce intergroup hostility, so boys persisted in
name calling and fighting.
The 1st cooperative involved fixing a water tank, which was rigged by researchers.
All had to play a role in identifying the cause of water shortage, after identifying it,
they were mingling with each other and no longer name calling.
But boys displayed negative out-group bias during supper in evening, resulting in
derogatory terms used about other groups and food being thrown.
