Aim: Investigate how in-group behaviour develops to include related out-group hostility. To see how friction between groups could be reduced. To see how attitudes & behaviours change by introducing competition.
Sample: 22 boys from white middle class background, 12 years of age, opportunity sample (ppl at summer camp), matched on sporting ability & IQ, and screened to eliminate attitude problems.
Procedure: observational study, 1 observer for each group for 12 hours a day. Field experiment. Sociometric analysis – notes on issues of friendship patterns. Tape recording – adjectives & phrases used to refer to in-group & out-group.
Phase 1 (in-group formation) : Groups separated for a week, encouraged to bond over common goals needing co-operation & planning. Both boys created a group (rattlers & eagles) & creating a recognisable leader.
Results: when other group revealed Rattlers described eagles frequently saying ‘they better not be in our swimming hole’. Eagles wanted to engage in competition. Group stereotypes emerged & clear hostility to outgroup
Phase 2 (competition): Competitions were set up. Points rewarded for winning. After both groups revealed they wanted to engage in basketball tournaments. Competition was to increase frustration to develop negative attitudes. Collective bean experiment to collect beans & estimate how many they got.
Results: Rattlers discussed protecting their flag. Eagles made comments ‘we will beat them’. Both groups used name calling & taunting. Eagles burned Rattlers flag so they stole property of the eagle’s cabin. They became so aggressive they were physically separated.
Phase 3 (integration phase): Wanted to achieve harmony. Simple tasks introduced to bring both groups together to communicate. A superordinate goal was introduced for both groups in conflict to resolve
Results: Hostility remained & verbal taunts like ‘ladies first’. Sat in in-groups when watching film. Superordinate goal introduced, such as water shortages, broken down camp truck needing both groups help & share resources to buy a film. At the end out-group friendship choices. Eagles: 23% Rattlers 36%
Conclusion: Support realistic conflict theory, suggesting conflict of interest or competition between groups can make prejudice. Boys overestimated abilities of their in-group & minimised their out-group. Increase contact is not enough to reduce conflict, superordinate goal required.
| Strengths | Weaknesses |
| High ecological V- study took place in a natural environment where tasks reflected the environment especially on a summer camp – behaviour likely to be natural & high in mundane realism.
High internal V – researcher used covert observation so boys did not know they were being watched – ppts couldn’t guess the aim or know being watched meaning behaviour natural (no DC) Application – prejudice was reduced when both groups had to work together on a superordinate goal – techniques like jigsaw fit have been introduced where ppl work together & rely on each other to get the task done to reduce prejudice. Highly scientific – careful controls to an extent as there was experimental aspects of the study – this can be seen as a creditable piece of research, but less scientific than lab based experiment. |
Low G – 22 boys, 12 years old, white middle class background –can’t generalise to whole population or females.
Low R – Tyreman & spencer tried to follow similar procedure with English scouts, finding after dividing the boys they remained in friendly competition – shows prejudice may arise due to other factors than competition. Low R – Carried out in a field experiment / natural setting – therefore there was a lack of control over EV’s meaning harder to test for consistencies of findings Low E – the study deliberately tries to create prejudice, hard and conflict by group formulation & introducing competition – exposed 12 year old vulnerable children to harm. |