Psychology Dictionary of Arguments

Home Screenshot Tabelle Begriffe

 
Method: a method is a procedure agreed on by participants of a discussion or research project. In the case of violations of a method, the comparability of the results is in particular questioned, since these no longer come from a set with uniformly defined properties of the elements.
_____________
Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments.

 
Author Concept Summary/Quotes Sources

Muzafer Sherif on Method - Dictionary of Arguments

Haslam I 147
Method/Sherif: Sherif knowingly adopted a model of intergroup relations based upon small-group interactions (Sherif, 1951)(1). At the same time, however, by moving out of the laboratory and choosing to conduct intensive field experiments, Sherif was ultimately able to test hypotheses and make inferences that extended well beyond the scope of nearly all social-psychological experimentation prior to, and since, his groundbreaking work.
>Robbers Camp Study/Sherif.
The first challenge that Sherif and colleagues faced was the translation of their broad conceptual notions of groups and intergroup relations into specific experimental practices. Sherif began the empirical work by attempting to define precisely the ‘minimal essential properties of groups’ (Sherif et al., 1955(2): 371). Note that the very claim that groups have ‘properties’ reveals Sherif’s belief that groups had a material reality.
Haslam I 148
Sherif 1969(3): 223:
Interactions: a) between people within at least two separate groups
b) between groups.
Method/Sherif: three experimental phases
1) ingroup formation
2) intergroup conflict
3) reduction of intergroup conflict. >Robbers Cave Experiment/Sherif.
Each study incorporated slightly different variants of these phases, and Experiment 2 did not involve the third phase. In each study, the participants were boys who were naïve to the experimental hypotheses and, in fact, to the fact that they were taking part in an experiment at all. Instead, they believed they were attending a normal summer camp.
Participants: In selecting participants, Sherif and his colleagues actively worked to ensure ‘homogeneity of subjects as to sociocultural and personal backgrounds’ (Sherif et al., 1961(4): 59). (…) this meant that if they ultimately came to behave viciously towards each other, this could not be attributed to any inherent deficiencies in their character or background.
Haslam I 155
1. VsSherif: One common criticism of Sherif’s work – levelled by both biographers and critical social psychologists (e.g., Brannigan, 2006(5); Grandberg and Sarup, 1992(6)) – is that, for him and his colleagues, hypothesis testing typically came rather late in the research process. That is, following immersion in a given problem the researchers would develop insights about the nature of the problem, which they would then seek to confirm empirically. As a result, Sherif and his colleagues have been criticized for seeking to devise experiments that would verify (rather than test) their hypotheses (e.g., see Sherif, 1948(7): 357). For epistemological reasons, this type of approach will tend to have high external validity, but it is not well suited to the discovery of new insights (Cherry, 1995(8)).
Haslam I 156
2. VsSherif: In relation to theory, several authors (e.g., Brewer and Brown, 1998(9); Turner, 1975(10)) have also stressed that Sherif and his colleagues failed to distinguish between competition based on real, material competition and more symbolic competition (e.g., based on values, prestige, social status).
3. VsSherif: one of the major strengths of Sherif’s research – its location in the field (as opposed to laboratory) – is also one of its biggest weaknesses. Because there were so many variables interacting in the field experiments (e.g., mutual frustration, ingroup bullying, intergroup attribution, the anticipation of competition, the consequences of winning or losing), it remains almost impossible to discern specifically what it was about any given situation that led to the observed effects (Dion, 1979(11); Rabbie, 1982(12); Platow and Hunter, 2001(13)).

1. Sherif, M. (1951) ‘A preliminary experimental study of inter-group relations’, in J.H. Rohrer and M. Sherif (eds), Social Psychology at the Crossroads. New York: Harper & Row. pp. 388–424.
2. Sherif, M., White, B.J. and Harvey, O.J. (1955) ‘Status in experimentally produced groups’, American Journal of Sociology, 60: 370–9.
3. Sherif, M. and Sherif, C.W. (1969) Social Psychology. New York: Harper & Row.
4. Sherif, M., Harvey, O.J., White, B.J., Hood, W.R. and Sherif, C.W. (1961) Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment. Norman, OK: Institute of Group Relations, University of Oklahoma.
5. Brannigan, A. (2006) Introduction to the Aldine Translation Edition of M. Sherif: Social Interaction: Processes and Products. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
6. Grandberg, D. and Sarup, G. (1992) ‘Muzafer Sherif: Portrait of a passionate intellectual’, in D. Grandberg and G. Sarup (eds), Social Judgment and Intergroup Relations: Essays in Honor of Muzafer Sherif. New York. Springer-Verlag. pp. 3–54.
7. Sherif, M. (1948) An Outline of Social Psychology. New York: Harper.
8-Cherry, F. (1995) The ‘Stubborn Particulars’ of Social Psychology: Essays on the Research Process. London: Routledge.
9. Brewer, M.B. and Brown, R.J. (1998) ‘Intergroup relations’, in D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske and G. Lindzey (eds), The Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th edn. New York: McGraw-Hill. pp. 554–94.
10.Turner, J.C. (1975) ‘Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup behaviour’, European Journal of Social Psychology, 5: 1–34.
11Dion, K.L. (1979) ‘Intergroup conflict and intragroup cohesiveness’, in S. Worchel and W.G. Austin (eds), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. pp. 33–47.
12. Rabbie, J.M. (1982) ‘The effects of intergroup competition on intragroup and intergroup relationships’, in V.J. Derlega and J. Grzelak (eds), Cooperation and Helping Behaviour: Theories and Research. New York: Academic Press. pp. 123–49.
13. Platow, M.J. and Hunter, J.A. (2001) ‘Realistic intergroup conflict: Prejudice, power, and protest’, in M. Augoustinos and K.J. Reynolds (eds), Understanding the Psychology of Prejudice and Racism. London: Sage. pp. 195–212.


Michael W. Platow and John A. Hunter, „ Intergroup Relations and Conflicts. Revisiting Sherif’s Boys’ Camp studies“, in: Joanne R. Smith and S. Alexander Haslam (eds.) 2017. Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic studies. London: Sage Publications


_____________
Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments
The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition.
Sherif, Muzafer
Haslam I
S. Alexander Haslam
Joanne R. Smith
Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies London 2017


Send Link

Authors A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   I   J   K   L   M   N   O   P   Q   R   S   T   U   V   W   Z  


Concepts A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   I   J   K   L   M   N   O   P   Q   R   S   T   U   V   W   Y   Z