Social: Classic - Sherif (1954)
AIM: to investigate intergroup relations over a period of time when various experimentally induced
situations occur, specifically, to see if two groups of boys can be manipulated into conflict through
competition and then conflict resolution by working together.
PROCEDURE:
Sample: 24 participants (11-year-old boys) of white and middle-class backgrounds, were selected by
opportunity sampling. They were split into two evenly matched groups based on their skill strengths. (2
dropped out after group formation due to homesickness and left the group imbalanced)
IV: stages of the experiment. DV: measured by observing the boy's behaviour and friendship patterns
and tape recording their conversations. Also, the boys filled out questionnaires on their attitudes toward
their group and the other group.
Stage 1 Group formation: Both groups were kept apart at the start and unaware of any other group
participating. They then began ingroup formation activities (Treasure hunt with prizes) where they
created their names and values (Rattlers and Eagles). Each group had senior camp counsellors who
were participant observers and asked not to interfere with the boys. This continued for a week until the
boys discovered the other group and immediately requested baseball games against them.
Stage 2 Friction: Tournaments began involving sports like baseball/tug-of-war. A trophy was promised
for the winners along with prizes like knives and medals.
Stage 3 Integration phase: Allowed the groups to have dinners and watch films together. When this
failed, he took a different approach, blocking the water pipe to the camp forcing the boys to work
together to find the broken portion of the pipe.
RESULTS:
Stage 1: Boys required little encouragement to be competitive. As soon as they found out about another
group in the park, they resorted to “us-and-them” language. The boys initiated the start of the friction
phase. Stage 2: Name-calling started immediately. The Eagles burned the Rattlers’ flag and the Rattlers
retaliated. Then, Rattlers did a night raid on the Eagle’s cabins, stealing comics and overturning beds.
Stage 3: Shared films and meals deteriorated into name-called and food fights. The shared task of fixing
the water pipe produced cooperation, but another food fight followed. However, each shared task led to
reduced hostility. By the end, the Rattlers shared $5 they had won to buy soft drinks for everyone.
CONCLUSION: Proved his hypotheses about Realistic Conflict Theory. The groups formed quickly, with
hierarchies and leaders, without any encouragement from the adults. When the groups meet in
competitive situations, ingroup solidarity increases as does outgroup hostility. “Mere presence” by itself
doesn’t reduce outgroup hostility. Friction is reduced when the two groups are forced to cooperate,
negotiate and share. Sherif calls this working towards “superordinate goals”
AO3: Generability: 22 boys is not a large sample, any anomalies (boys with unusual characteristics, like
violent bullies) skew the results. (CA) However, Sherif went to lengths to screen the boys beforehand,
removing any from troubled backgrounds or with antisocial behaviours. May not generalise the girls or
mixed-sex groups or adults. All were white American boys, now white Americans are only 50% in
schools compared to blacks and Hispanics.
Reliability: The observers were only with the boys for 12 hours a day and could not see or overhear
everything that went on. Procedures were developed by Sherif “on the fly” as events developed. He used
a numbered scoring system for the boys’ friendship patterns.
Validity: several different research methods (observing, tape recording, tests, quantitative, qualitative
data), making his study more valid. High Ecological validity, because real boys were at a real summer
camp, with real activities. Even the specially created tasks (fixing the broken water pipe, pulling the truck)
seemed real to the boys. Doesn’t have a control group (normal summer camp). May be normal for food
fights and raids to happen in summer camps where the counsellors aren’t imposing much discipline.
Perry (2014)- Rattlers took their name from an incident where a senior counsellor pulled out a gun and
shot two snakes, which impressed the boys, and influenced their behaviour.
, Contemporary - Burger (2009)
AIM: To investigate whether Milgram’s study was ‘era bound’ and to see if personality variables like
empathy and locus of control influence obedience. Finally, to see if the presence of a disobedient
“model” makes a difference in obedience levels.
PROCEDURE:
Sample:70 participants men/women were randomly put into the two conditions. They were a volunteer
sample, recruited through newspaper and online ads, and paid $50 before the study started. They were
aged 20-81. Burger screened many who had heard of Milgram’s experiment, who had attended 2
Psychology classes, and who had anxiety issues. It was a two-step screening process.
Replicates Milgram’s variation #5 “Empathy Variation” where Mr Wallace mentioned a heart condition at
the start and 150V he started complaining about chest pains. More participants dropped out at 150V. The
test shock that the participant receives is only 15V rather than Milgram’s painful 45V. participant watches
the learner being strapped into the electric chair and then sits at the shock generator in an adjacent
room. If the teacher moves to deliver the 165V shock, the experimenter stops the experiment.
The participants were warned 3 times in writing that they could withdraw at any point and still keep the
$50. The experimenter was a clinical psychologist, skilled in spotting and reacting appropriately to
distress
RESULTS: Burger found that 70% of participants in the baseline condition were prepared to go past
150V, compared to 82.5% in Milgram’s Variation #5 which is similar. Compared men and women but
didn’t find a difference in obedience and those who stopped at 150V or sooner had a significantly higher
locus of control.
CONCLUSION: Milgram’s results still stand half a century later. People are still influenced by situational
factors to obey an authority figure, even if it goes against their moral values. Burger assumes that any
participant who was willing to go beyond 150V would have been willing to go all the way to 450V
AO3: Generability: 70 people is larger than Milgram’s sample of 40, it covers a wider age range. 2/3 of
Burger’s sample were women, whereas Milgram’s were all male. Burger excluded a lot of people, which
may have affected the results and Milgram used a wider range of types of people. Reliability: Burger
replicates aspects of Variation #5, Variation #17, and Variation #8. Burger followed Milgram’s script
wherever possible. Filming adds to the inter-rater reliability because other people can view their
participants’ behaviour and judge obedience for themselves.Validity: lacking ecological validity because
the task is artificial – in real life, teachers are not asked to deliver electric shocks to learners. Stopping
the study at 150V may be invalid, a huge assumption to say they would have continued to 450V.
Cognitive: Classic - Baddeley
AIM: To investigate the influence of acoustic and semantic word similarity on learning and recall in ST
and LT memory.
Sample: 72 participants from the university, both male/female. There were 15-20 in each condition.
PROCEDURE:
Participants are split into four groups, each group views a slideshow of a set of 10 words. Each word
appears for 3 seconds. Acoustically Similar (man, cab, can, max, etc), Dissimilar (Control group) had
different words (pit, few, cow, etc), Semantically Similar (great, large, big etc.), Dissimilar (good, huge,
hot). 4 conditions then carry out an “interference test” which involves hearing and then writing down 8
numbers 3x. Then they recall the words from the slideshow in order. four trials as participants get better
each time they do it because the words stay the same. Words are displayed on signs around the room
so the participants only have to concentrate on getting the ORDER of the words right, not remembering
the words themselves.
After the 4th trial, there’s a 15-minute break and an unrelated interference task. Then they are asked to
recall the list again. This fifth and final trial is unexpected. The words themselves are still on display; it is
the order of the words the participants have to recall.
AIM: to investigate intergroup relations over a period of time when various experimentally induced
situations occur, specifically, to see if two groups of boys can be manipulated into conflict through
competition and then conflict resolution by working together.
PROCEDURE:
Sample: 24 participants (11-year-old boys) of white and middle-class backgrounds, were selected by
opportunity sampling. They were split into two evenly matched groups based on their skill strengths. (2
dropped out after group formation due to homesickness and left the group imbalanced)
IV: stages of the experiment. DV: measured by observing the boy's behaviour and friendship patterns
and tape recording their conversations. Also, the boys filled out questionnaires on their attitudes toward
their group and the other group.
Stage 1 Group formation: Both groups were kept apart at the start and unaware of any other group
participating. They then began ingroup formation activities (Treasure hunt with prizes) where they
created their names and values (Rattlers and Eagles). Each group had senior camp counsellors who
were participant observers and asked not to interfere with the boys. This continued for a week until the
boys discovered the other group and immediately requested baseball games against them.
Stage 2 Friction: Tournaments began involving sports like baseball/tug-of-war. A trophy was promised
for the winners along with prizes like knives and medals.
Stage 3 Integration phase: Allowed the groups to have dinners and watch films together. When this
failed, he took a different approach, blocking the water pipe to the camp forcing the boys to work
together to find the broken portion of the pipe.
RESULTS:
Stage 1: Boys required little encouragement to be competitive. As soon as they found out about another
group in the park, they resorted to “us-and-them” language. The boys initiated the start of the friction
phase. Stage 2: Name-calling started immediately. The Eagles burned the Rattlers’ flag and the Rattlers
retaliated. Then, Rattlers did a night raid on the Eagle’s cabins, stealing comics and overturning beds.
Stage 3: Shared films and meals deteriorated into name-called and food fights. The shared task of fixing
the water pipe produced cooperation, but another food fight followed. However, each shared task led to
reduced hostility. By the end, the Rattlers shared $5 they had won to buy soft drinks for everyone.
CONCLUSION: Proved his hypotheses about Realistic Conflict Theory. The groups formed quickly, with
hierarchies and leaders, without any encouragement from the adults. When the groups meet in
competitive situations, ingroup solidarity increases as does outgroup hostility. “Mere presence” by itself
doesn’t reduce outgroup hostility. Friction is reduced when the two groups are forced to cooperate,
negotiate and share. Sherif calls this working towards “superordinate goals”
AO3: Generability: 22 boys is not a large sample, any anomalies (boys with unusual characteristics, like
violent bullies) skew the results. (CA) However, Sherif went to lengths to screen the boys beforehand,
removing any from troubled backgrounds or with antisocial behaviours. May not generalise the girls or
mixed-sex groups or adults. All were white American boys, now white Americans are only 50% in
schools compared to blacks and Hispanics.
Reliability: The observers were only with the boys for 12 hours a day and could not see or overhear
everything that went on. Procedures were developed by Sherif “on the fly” as events developed. He used
a numbered scoring system for the boys’ friendship patterns.
Validity: several different research methods (observing, tape recording, tests, quantitative, qualitative
data), making his study more valid. High Ecological validity, because real boys were at a real summer
camp, with real activities. Even the specially created tasks (fixing the broken water pipe, pulling the truck)
seemed real to the boys. Doesn’t have a control group (normal summer camp). May be normal for food
fights and raids to happen in summer camps where the counsellors aren’t imposing much discipline.
Perry (2014)- Rattlers took their name from an incident where a senior counsellor pulled out a gun and
shot two snakes, which impressed the boys, and influenced their behaviour.
, Contemporary - Burger (2009)
AIM: To investigate whether Milgram’s study was ‘era bound’ and to see if personality variables like
empathy and locus of control influence obedience. Finally, to see if the presence of a disobedient
“model” makes a difference in obedience levels.
PROCEDURE:
Sample:70 participants men/women were randomly put into the two conditions. They were a volunteer
sample, recruited through newspaper and online ads, and paid $50 before the study started. They were
aged 20-81. Burger screened many who had heard of Milgram’s experiment, who had attended 2
Psychology classes, and who had anxiety issues. It was a two-step screening process.
Replicates Milgram’s variation #5 “Empathy Variation” where Mr Wallace mentioned a heart condition at
the start and 150V he started complaining about chest pains. More participants dropped out at 150V. The
test shock that the participant receives is only 15V rather than Milgram’s painful 45V. participant watches
the learner being strapped into the electric chair and then sits at the shock generator in an adjacent
room. If the teacher moves to deliver the 165V shock, the experimenter stops the experiment.
The participants were warned 3 times in writing that they could withdraw at any point and still keep the
$50. The experimenter was a clinical psychologist, skilled in spotting and reacting appropriately to
distress
RESULTS: Burger found that 70% of participants in the baseline condition were prepared to go past
150V, compared to 82.5% in Milgram’s Variation #5 which is similar. Compared men and women but
didn’t find a difference in obedience and those who stopped at 150V or sooner had a significantly higher
locus of control.
CONCLUSION: Milgram’s results still stand half a century later. People are still influenced by situational
factors to obey an authority figure, even if it goes against their moral values. Burger assumes that any
participant who was willing to go beyond 150V would have been willing to go all the way to 450V
AO3: Generability: 70 people is larger than Milgram’s sample of 40, it covers a wider age range. 2/3 of
Burger’s sample were women, whereas Milgram’s were all male. Burger excluded a lot of people, which
may have affected the results and Milgram used a wider range of types of people. Reliability: Burger
replicates aspects of Variation #5, Variation #17, and Variation #8. Burger followed Milgram’s script
wherever possible. Filming adds to the inter-rater reliability because other people can view their
participants’ behaviour and judge obedience for themselves.Validity: lacking ecological validity because
the task is artificial – in real life, teachers are not asked to deliver electric shocks to learners. Stopping
the study at 150V may be invalid, a huge assumption to say they would have continued to 450V.
Cognitive: Classic - Baddeley
AIM: To investigate the influence of acoustic and semantic word similarity on learning and recall in ST
and LT memory.
Sample: 72 participants from the university, both male/female. There were 15-20 in each condition.
PROCEDURE:
Participants are split into four groups, each group views a slideshow of a set of 10 words. Each word
appears for 3 seconds. Acoustically Similar (man, cab, can, max, etc), Dissimilar (Control group) had
different words (pit, few, cow, etc), Semantically Similar (great, large, big etc.), Dissimilar (good, huge,
hot). 4 conditions then carry out an “interference test” which involves hearing and then writing down 8
numbers 3x. Then they recall the words from the slideshow in order. four trials as participants get better
each time they do it because the words stay the same. Words are displayed on signs around the room
so the participants only have to concentrate on getting the ORDER of the words right, not remembering
the words themselves.
After the 4th trial, there’s a 15-minute break and an unrelated interference task. Then they are asked to
recall the list again. This fifth and final trial is unexpected. The words themselves are still on display; it is
the order of the words the participants have to recall.
