Social Approach - Studies

AIMS: Sherif wanted to test the idea that if you create an in-group/out-group situation by creating groups and then creating conflict between them, prejudice will arise (RCT). Sherif also thought that if the two groups were set a goal that needed their co-operation to achieve, the prejudice would be reduced (superordinate goals).

PROCEDURE: 20 boys stayed at Robber's Cave State Park, Oklahoma, camp for three weeks and were carefully selected to be 'typical' of their age (12), sex (male) and race (white). The boys were randomly divided into two groups, which the boys named the 'Rattlers' and the 'Eagles'. For the first week the groups did not know about each other, and passed the time normally and seperately, doing what they chose to do. Then they discovered each other and felt that the other was invading their territory.

Sherif introduced real conlict at the stage by having a tournament between the two groups. The teams got points, and the member of the team with the most points, got a prize. This led to loyalty to the in-group and hostility towards the out-group, as was predicted. At this stage, there was negative stereotyping of the other group. The camp counsellors counted the negative words used when referring to the other group. Each grou thought the other group were 'sneaks. smartc alecks and stinkers', while their own members were 'brave, tough and friendly'.

Each burned the flag of the other group and carried out raids on the other group's camp. Then the reasearchers set about trying to reduce the prejudice. At first they tried simple contact, by bringing the groups together. However, this made things worse. So Sherif organised 'superordinate goals', where the boys had to work together to overcome problems. First, the camp water supply 'failed'. Initially, the groups set off seperately to find the problem. they met up at the water tank, where the problem was, and co-operated to fix it, getting on better in the process. Second, a truck got stuck in the mud and they all had to pull it out. This reduced hostility and indeed led to a friendly atmosphere. The counsellors noticed less name-calling and the boys used fewer negative traits when describing the others.

RESULTS - Prejudice was reduced after the two groups had to work together on the superordinate goals. Sherif (poing as the camp handyman) also asked the boys who their friends were. In the 'hostility' phase, 93% had friends in their own group; however after the co-operation phase, 30% had friends between the two groups. This shows the reduction in prejudice.

CONCLUSIONS - Prejudice will occur in a situation merely where two groups are created - this supports SIT. Sherif's study also supports the idea that competition may also be a factor resulting in prejudice.

GENERALISABLITY

• 22 boys is not a large sample - any anomalies (e.g. violent bullies) will skew results - although Sherif screened them to remove any troubled backgrounds etc.
• Only boys were used - doesn't generalise to girls
• Only children were used - doesn't generalise to adults
• The boys were supposedly typical American - white, bright and sporty - so doesn't generalise to other races or personalities.

RELIABILITY

• As it was an observation, the counsellors were only with the boys 12 hours a day and so did not see or hear everything that went on. Although to combat this, Sherif sometimes taped the boys speech so it could be analysed later.
• Used a number scoring system for the boy's friendship patterns which collected qualitative data
• He used multiple observers on occasions which created inter-rater reliability
• Certain aspects could be replicated such as the tournament games and the prizes. However, other procedures were developed by Sherif 'on the fly' as events developed.

APPLICATION

• Shows how competition and frustration creates hostility towards out groups. In society, ths suggests that discrimination and violence could be reduced if jobs, housing, education and other opportunities were shared more equally between different groups (ethnic, class etc). This is the basis for a lot of Left Wing politcal thinking.
• The study also shows that hostility can be reduced if groups are made to interact and work together towards common goals. It is not enough for them to be 'mere presences' living alongside each other. This suggests ghettos should be discouraged and immigrants hould be made to take up the host culture's language, education and pastimes. This is the basis of a lot of Right Wing Political thinking.

VALIDITY

• Sherif claimed that, by using several different research methods (observing, tape recording,tests, both quantitative and qualitative data), he was making his study more valid.
• The study has ecological validity because they were real boys at a real summer camp, and even the specially created tasks (fixing the water pipe, pulling the truck) seemed real to them.

• Although this is a field experiment, it lacked a control group. Sherif does not have a 'normal' summer camp to compare to. The results of the study may be normal - Sherif may have exaggerated that they were the consequence of the intergroup factors.

ETHICS

• The boys did not give valid consent to be in the study - their parents gave presumptive consent and were not debriefed after
• Fails to respect their autonomy (they had no choice) and their dignity (because they weer tricked and put through some upsetting conflicts)
• Decieved about the water pipe and broken down truck
• They were also subjected to risk (there was vandalism, theft and a nearly serious fight)
• The researchers dropped their professional detachment when a serious fight broke out and intervened to prevent it - scientific integrity.
• The boys could withdraw from the study - two of them went home in the first week
• It is debatable whether the boys were harmed in this study due to the intense conflict between the two groups.
• Sherif could also be defended by pointing to the common good served by this sort of research.

AIMS - To see if obedience levels have chenged since Milgram's 1963 study and also to conduct a more ethical study on obedience to authority figures. In particular:

• Would Milgram's findings be replicated nearly 50 years later?
• To examine people's reactions to the modelled refusal - to see whether people copy their behaviour or not.
• Are there gendre differences in obedience?
• Are there personality differences in obedience?

PROCEDURE - Burger had the experimenter administer a very mild 15V shock to the participants (with their consent) so they could see that the generator was real and could obtain some idea of what the shock felt like. In order to deal with the ethical problems associated with Milgram's original study, it was decided that the study would not go any further than 150V.

Individuals responded to advertisements and were randomly assigned to one of two conditions (base condition and moral refusal condition). Those assigned to the base condition were taken to the laboratory by a research assisstant and introduced to the experimenter. A minute later, the confederate enters the room and used a script largely from Milgram's research.

The confederate was told to try to remember each of the 25 word-pairs read by the experimenter. The confederate then has to press a button to indicate their answer, but was told that an incorrect answer would result in an electric shock and it would continue until all 25 word-pairs were learned. All the responses from the confederate were pre-recorded.

No participant was allowed to press any switches after the 150V stage. The participant was debriefed immediately after the experiment and they met the confederate.

MODEL REFUSAL CONDITION - This followed the same procedure as the base condition, but with a few exceptions. Two confederates were used. One of the confederates was the same man who played the learner in the base condition. The other confederate, also posing as a participant, was the same gender as the real participant (changed each time). The draw was rigged so that the participant was Teacher 2 and the confederate was Teacher 1. They both watched the strapping into the chair and recieved the sample shock. The teachers sat next to each other in front of the generator with the participant on the right.

Teacher 1 began the procedure by reading the words and pressing the switches. The confederate showed no signs of hesitation until reaching 75V. The confederate paused before continuing and after the 90V switch said, 'I don't know about this', while the experimenter used the prod 'please

continue'. The confederate then paused for a few seconds and said 'I don't think I can do this'. The experimenter then focussed on the participant instead, asking them to continue with the test.

RESULTS - 

In the base condition:

• 12 stopped at 150V or sooner (30%)
• 28 continued at after 150V (70%)

In the modelled refusal condition:

• 11 stopped at 150V or sooner (36.7%)
• 19 continued after 150V (63.3%)

CONCLUSIONS - Burger's experiment highlights that average Americans react to this laboratory experiment today much in the same way as they did in the 1960s, and that the same situational factors that affected obedience then still apply.

Contrary to expectations, participants were no less obedient after seeing another person refuse to continue compared with the base condition. This might demonstrate the powers of the situational forces that led to participants to follow the experimenter's instructions.

The failure to find gender differences may reflect the power of situational variables in this setting to override individual differences (such as women's tendency to be more concerned about the learner's plight). Alternatively, women's greater concern for others may have been weaker than their ability to stand up to the experimenter compared to men.

EVALUATION

GENERALISABILITY

• 70 participants - two thirds were female
• Burger was careful about who he allowed to take part - did not allow those with emotioal issues or those with some psychology education.

RELIABILITY

• Milgram's procedure was reliable because it was very easily replicated - Burger replicated aspects of variation #5 (heart condition), variation #8 (testing women) and variation #17 (model refusal)
• Burger followed Milgram's script where possible
• Used the same confederates every time
• Burger filmes the whole thing - inter-rater reliability (because other people can view the experiment)

APPLICATION

• Demonstrates how obedience to authority works and this can be used to increase obedience in schools, workplaces and prisons
• Testing for locus of control may help us find out who is more likely to be disobedient+