It's interesting to me that, apparently through a series of trials and errors, he hit upon the use of competitive sports--combined with the other things he did--as an effective means to establish the hostilities. Then the next day, the Rattler's ransacked The Eagle's cabin, overturned beds, and stole private property. Phase 1 was essential; Sherif said it was, and I agree. Is it not enough to hate everyone for different physical appearance, or different opinions and philosophy? There was a series of scenarios designed for the groups to accomplish together. And in most endeavors, even the worst competitors achieve some success. First, this study has implications for the contact hypothesis of prejudice reduction, which, in its simplest form, posits that contact between members of different groups improves how well groups get along.
Rather, the context of intergroup relations i. As said in the article, certain boys became leaders. Much of boys' play involves mock battles. If the play involves pretend armies, the players arrange the armies differently for each bout of play. The games within each group, which you refer to, wouldn't have had the same effect, because there the conditions were very different. The second phase is described as the Friction phase, at this point each group was able to acknowledge each group existed.
And casual empiricism reveals that humans have a basic need for belonging to groups and teams, and for competing and winning. Labeling helped the boys create an identity to help identify themselves with the group. This was significantly evident during the tally of the scores where the Rattlers won the overall trophy. This experiment illustrates how contact alone is not enough to restore intergroup harmony. In the second stage, the groups were introduced and placed in direct competition with one another. Therefore I believe it would be up to the therapist to identify what would cause this group to progress by introducing topics that are neutral in order or the teens to develop relationships. By placing each group in a setting were they forced to have to depend on one another will hopefully open up the dialogue, about how to create jobs for all people ii groups.
Again great article Marisa and the comments really do add a lot to the article except the first post comments, not really a problem on this site so I can tolerate it. Had other similarly interesting studies as examples and some challenging conclusions. These kids all sound like they came from essentially the same type of moral structure, and therefore responded to social stimuli in a similar fashion. Stage two had concluded successfully. I greatly enjoyed playing varsity high school sports, and I see many kids enjoying them today. While the Exam could ask general questions about the procedure or evaluation, it could also ask specific questions, like, How did Sherif select the boys? In this phase it was intended to bring the two groups into competition with each other in conditions that would create frustration between them.
However, each shared task led to reduced hostility. Take These College-level, Online Psychology Courses. The groups even chose names for themselves: the Rattlers and the Eagles. What if the second part of the experiment had not worked out and the kids went home still angry at one another and some sort of gang violence resulted? More importantly, however, this study highlights the significance of the social context in the development of prejudice and discrimination. More specifically, he was interested in understanding inner group conflict, negative prejudices, and competition between groups. Remained apart for one week. Researchers divided the boys into two equal-sized groups that were taken to opposite sides of the camp.
Not winning in these cases has direct economic impact on the individual. Do you agree with my suggestion that Sherif et al. Then, they were introduced to each other stage 2 , and immediately the name calling began. Ethical issues must also be considered. Precisely as Sherif had hypothesized, there came to be a social order very quickly in each group. This is the area of interest! In the integration phase, Sherif tried to bring the two groups together. At breakfast and lunch the last day of camp, the seating arrangements were considerably mixed up insofar as group membership was concerned.
Biased information processing can help explain why even stereotypes completely lacking in validity nevertheless develop and endure. The first experiment was for the group to figure out a way to fix the water supply problem that was vandalized. At what point in terms of the number of children in one group would the boys break up and form their own groups of buddies, regardless of how many other boys were physically presented to each other initially? Formal sports lie outside of the realm of pure play because they are controlled by officials who are not themselves players and because they have clear out-of-game consequences, in such forms as prizes or praise for victory. All seemed according to plan. All the boys were similar on important demographic features, with each exhibiting satisfactory academic performance and coming from stable, middle-class families. To decrease the potential impact of variables other factors that could prompt hostility , Sherif and his colleagues had looked for boys of similar age and intelligence, all Caucasian and Protestant, all middle-class, none from insecure homes and none known to be troublemakers.
Before supper that evening, some Eagles expressed a desire not to eat with the Rattlers. For example, one group was delayed getting to a picnic and when they arrived the other group had eaten their food. However, resolving this conflict turned out to be a more difficult task. Rather, sport seems to have been instrumental in bonding within the groups. The result was a vicious rivalry between the groups, with both verbal and physical attacks being commonplace. The Eagle flag was burned in retaliation the next day. So the psychologists tried something a bit more assertive: forcing the boys to all work together in a cooperative effort, to achieve what are called superordinate goals.
We were all white, middle class. But now there would be a new outgroup, to whom hostilities may be directed--the other camp. We should think of those players not as warriors but as junior improvisational Shakespeares. The group of experimenters posed as camp instructors. There are no trophies or prizes, no official records of victories or losses kept from one game to the next, no fans who praise winners or disparage losers. In phase two he invited the two groups of boys to compete with one another in a tournament involving a series of competitive games--including several games of baseball, touch football, and tug of war--all refereed by the camp staff.
Sherif's focus in this experiment was on ways to reduce intergroup hostility, but my focus here is on his method for creating the hostility, something not generally discussed in the textbooks. Criticised for it's lab based research because this trivialises social differences such as gender and race. We called each other names, leaders emerged, etc. In addition, this study has implications for a number of prominent social psychological theories, including realistic conflict theory and social identity theory. Even though the boys all came from the same background white, Protestant, middle class and had been divided into groups by a purely random procedure, they began to think of the boys in the other group as very different from themselves--as dirty cheaters who needed to be taught a lesson. Overly emotional players get penalized for breaking rules.