Sherif 1954 Essay

Aim: To examine the origin of prejudice as a result of the formation of social groupings Sherif accomplished research in groups, management and the effect groups had on thinking and actions. The Thieves Cave Study built upon his earlier work. He thought that cultural behaviour could not be studied effectively by looking at individuals in isolation.

He recognised just how social business differs between cultures and affects group practices, thus he said that groups have to be recognized as part of a social composition. The Thieves Cave Analyze used two groups of youthful boys to find: how the teams developed; if and how issue between the groups arose; and the way to reduce such friction.

Three terms described according to Sherif happen to be: small group individuals discuss a common aim that encourages interaction; people are affected in another way by being in a group; an in-group develops with its very own hierarchy and a set of best practice rules is standardised norm a product of group connection that regulates member actions in terms of predicted or best behaviour group a social device with a amount of people who happen to be interdependent and have a set of best practice rules and beliefs for home regulation; people have functions within the unit Procedure twenty-two young boys, aged 10, who would not know each other prior to the analyze. All from Protestant Ok families to eliminate family concerns and match the kids whenever you can.

They were likewise matched based on a ranking, including their IQ, off their teachers and were finally reassessed and matched, including issues just like sporting ability, before the try things out began. A nominal charge was charged for the kids to attend the camp plus they were not knowledgeable that they ended uphad been used for an item of research in order to obtain true results The Camp The experiment is referred to as the Thieves Cave Analyze because it occurred in a camp at Robbers Cave Point out Park, Oklahoma. The location was a 200-acre Boy Scouts of America camp completely surrounded by the State Park.

The site was isolated and keeping the two groups a part (at first) was easy because of the structure of the site, as proven in the plan Data Collection There was a variety of data collection methods: observer individual observer allocated to each group for half of the day a day sociometric analysis issues just like friendship habits were mentioned and analyzed experiment boys had to collect coffee beans and estimation how various each youngster had gathered tape recordings phrases used to identify their own group were researched The observers were skilled not to influence the boys’ decisions but to help them every decision was reached Three Stage Test The two groupings were formed and set up norms and hierarchies (to see how that they became in-groups) The two organizations were launched and competition was set up, as a competition (to test out for friction, name-calling and hostility to the out-group) Both groups were set goals that they can needed each other to achieve Stage 1: in-group formation The two groups were kept a part for one week to help the organization of group norms and relations. They’d to are a group to achieve common desired goals that necessary cooperation.

Data was obtained by observation, including rating of rising relationships, sociometric measures and experimental conclusions. Status positions and tasks in the organizations were analyzed. There is much detail about how exactly hierarchies within each group developed. The measurements had been thought to be both valid and reliable mainly because different data collection methods produced similar results.

For example , inside the bean-collecting process, the boys tended to overestimate the number of beans their own group users had collected and underestimate the number collected by the other group (the number of espresso beans was actually the same). Stage 2: inter-group relations, the friction phase After the first week, the two organizations were advised about one another and a tournament was set up with competitive activities. Points could possibly be earned for the group and there were rewards. When they heard of each other, both groups started to be hostile. They wanted to perform each other by baseball, therefore they efficiently set up their particular tournament, which has been what the research workers wanted.

The essence the experiment was to make one group frustrated due to other group, to see if bad attitudes produced. Adjectives keyword and key phrase were noted to see if these were derogatory and behaviour was observed because previously. The researchers presented the collecting the beans experiment: the boys was required to collect coffee beans and then evaluate how many each young man had gathered. This was to verify that the males overestimated the abilities of the in-group members and minimised the talents of the out-group members.

While was mentioned before, this was the case. Stage three or more: inter-group relations, the integration The researchers planned to achieve a harmonious relationship between the two groups, that they can did by introducing superordinate goals. This meant that the groups would have to work together to realise the goals.

To start with, they released tasks that simply helped bring the two groups together so that they could connect. They then presented the superordinate goals, including: fixing the water tank and pump when the water supply was threatened a 52 pick up that would not really start, so they had to pull together to try and start it pooling assets so that they can afford a film that they most wanted to watch The analysts measured the usage of derogatory terms and applied observation and rating of stereotyping. Right at the end of the first Stage, the boys had given themselves names: the Rattlers and the Eagles.

The groups designed similarly, although this was anticipated due to how carefully that they had been coordinated. Any differences present had been most likely as a result of different decisions they had to create based on their very own cabins being located in different areas. For equally groups, status positions had been settled more than days five and 6 of the first week, and an obvious group leader was in place. The Rattlers often talked about the situation in the Eagles, saying things such as They had better certainly not be going swimming in our swimming hole. Even though the Eagles did not refer to the Rattlers so frequently, they wished to play a competition game with them.

It appears that even just knowing an additional group persisted was enough reason for hostility to develop, despite the fact that neither group had been introduced yet. Level 2: inter-group relations, the friction stage As soon as the organizations found out about each other, they planned to play snowboarding in a group competition: and so both organizations had normally moved onto Stage installment payments on your The Rattlers were enthusiastic, and reviewed such concerns such as protecting their banner. The Silver eagles weren’t as excited, yet made such comments as we is going to beat them.

The Bald eagle selected as baseball chief for the baseball competition became the group leader of the Eagles for all of Level 2, though he was not really the group leader at the conclusion of Level 1 . If the two groupings first fulfilled, there was a lot of brand calling. There may be evidence gathered, including what the boys stated, who these were friends with and functional issues (such as the burning up of a flag). It was found that there were clearly adverse attitudes for the out-group associates.

Stage several: inter-group relationships, the integration Through the initial associates of this Stage, the hostility remained. There are comments just like ladies first and when they watched a bunch movie collectively, they seated separated inside their individual groups. After seven contact actions, there were superordinate goals create: 1 The staff turned off the valve to the water pump and placed two large boulders over the top of it. The children were informed that vandals experienced damaged this in the past. They worked with each other to fix destruction and rejoiced in common whenever they were powerful 2 The second goal was to watch a movie together, yet both teams had to chip in to pay it off.

They sooner or later agreed to get halves even though one group had fewer members than the others. However , this kind of agreement revealed that the two groups cooperated to arrive at one final decision which they both had been happy with 3 The young boys all proceeded an organized trip to Cedar Lake, in which the truck instantly developed’ a problem meaning the boys needed to use the tug-of-war rope in an attempt to pull it out and get it started It was noticeable just how friendships differed between Level 2 and 3. More out-group users were picked as close friends by the end of Stage 3, which is evidence that friction was decreased by the superordinate goals defined. Conclusions Most of the hypotheses put forward by the experts at the beginning of the analysis were proved. Some of the a conclusion drawn from the experiment consist of: The organizations developed interpersonal hierarchies and group rules, even though we were holding not stable throughout the research Each group had a very clear leadership composition by the end from the first week If the two teams meet intended for competition, in-group solidarity and cooperation improves and inter-group hostility can be strong Persons tend to overestimate the abilities of their own group members and to reduce the abilities of out-group associates Contact among two groupings is too few to reduce hostility When groups needed to interact, exchanged equipment, shared responsibilities and arranged how to resolve problems, scrubbing was reduced doing work towards a superordinate target once was not sufficient, presently there needed to be numerous cooperation jobs to achieve this There was controls, including the careful sample and the briefing observers and so they all adopted the same methods, this resulted in cause-and-effect findings could be drawn more justifiably than the moment observing naturally-occurring groups There was several info collection methods and the studies agreed, so validity was claimed for example , derogatory behaviour and recordings located derogatory remarks against the out-group The group conflict could possibly be seen as prejudice; reduction of friction can be reducing the prejudice, and so the study contains a practical application Disadvantages: It was dishonest in the sense that there was not any informed consent obtained, there was no right to withdraw pertaining to the participants (also, the boys’ father and mother were not allowed to visit to prevent them feeling homesick but this meant they cannot check on their children’s welfare) It was hard to generalise to additional situations as the sample was restricted to males with a specific background