Sherif ET AL ( Social classic study)

Aim
To find out what factors make two groups develop hostile relationships and then to see how this hostility can be reduced. Specifically, to see if two groups of boys can be manipulated into conflict through competition and then conflict resolution by working together.
IV
The IV is the stage of the experiment: (1) ingroup formation, (2) friction phase and (3) integration phase. This is a Repeated Measures design.
DV
Intergroup behaviour was measured by observing the boys behaviour and friendship patterns and tape recording their conversations and recording the phrases they used; also the boys filled out questionnaires on their attitudes to their own group and the other group.

Sample

24 participants (11-year-old boys) who were selected by opportunity sampling. They were split into two evenly-matched groups of boys . The boys called themselves the “Rattlers” and the “Eagles”.

Two boys later left (from the Eagles) due to homesickness, reducing the sample to 22 by the end of Phase 1.

Procedure
The boys arrived on separate buses and settled into their cabins on two sites. They were unaware of the other group, thinking they were alone at the park.participant observers who stayed with the boys for 12 hours a day. Sherif was very clear that he did not want his observers to influence the boys in any way. Ingroup Formation lasted a week. Each group had tasks to accomplish.  During this time the boys gave their groups names and discovered the existence of the other group; they immediately requested a baseball game against the other group.The friction phase involved a tournament between the two groups. This involved sports . A trophy was promised for the winners along with prizes like knives and medals.In the integration phase, Sherif tried to bring the two groups together. He tried “mere contact” by allowing the groups to have dinners and watch films together in the recreation hall. When this failed, he took a different approach, blocking the water pipe to the camp which forced the boys to work together to find the broken portion of pipe. 

Sherif found that the 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 and wanted a baseball match – so the boys themselves initiated the start of the friction phase

Sherif regards the study as proving his hypotheses about intergroup behaviour – especially Realistic Conflict Theory.

• The groups formed quickly, with hierarchies (“pecking orders) 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”

An important conclusion from the study is that, although intergroup conflict is inevitable when competition is present, it can be reduced.

Generalisability
22 boys is not a large sample. Only boys were used, so the results may not generalise the girls or mixed sex groups. Crucially, they were all children, so the results may not generalise to adults.
The boys were supposed to be “all American” types: white, bright and sporty. This wasn’t entirely representative of young Americans back in the ‘50s and it certainly isn’t representative of America today
Reliability
Since it involves observation, there are problems with reliability in this study. The observers were only with the boys for 12 hours a day and could not see or overhear everything that went on.Despite this, Sherif took pains to make the study more reliable. He used a numbered scoring system for the boys’ friendship patterns, which collected quantitative data.
Application
The study shows how competition and frustration creates hostility towards outgroups. In society, this suggests that discrimination and violence could be reduced if jobs, housing, education and other opportunities were shared more fairly between different groups, such as ethnic groups or social classes. 
Validity
Sherif claimed that, by using several different research methods (observing, tape recording, tests, quantitative as well as qualitative data), he was making his study more valid.
The study has ecological validity, because these were real boys at a real summer camp, doing real activities.
Ethics

The boys did not give valid consent to be in this study and do not seem to have  been debriefed afterwards – they never realised they were being experimented on.