| Course | EDP 814 The Social Psychology of Groups |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 7 |
| Paper type | Doctoral critical review |
| Length | About 1,026 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Doctor of Education |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for EDP 814 Module 7
Armbands, Summer Camps and Superordinate Goals: Two Classic Studies Reconsidered
Student Name
Doctor of Education Program, Aspen University
EDP 814: The Social Psychology of Groups
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Armbands, Summer Camps and Superordinate Goals: Two Classic Studies Reconsidered
At the composite medical device company followed in this course, the rivalry between engineering and regulatory affairs has spread beyond Hana's team. Engineers joke that regulatory "exists to say no"; regulatory staff call engineers "cowboys." After two delayed submissions, the departments eat separately, and each blames the other in meetings with leadership. Hana proposed examining two classic studies of intergroup conflict. These departments and people are invented.
Blue Eyes, Brown Eyes
In 1968, the day after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., Jane Elliott, a third-grade teacher in Riceville, Iowa, divided her class by eye color and told them that one group was superior. Children in the favored group gained privileges and became condescending; children in the other group became withdrawn and performed worse on classroom tasks. The next day she reversed the roles. The exercise became famous through television documentaries, but it was a teaching demonstration rather than a controlled study.
Weiner and Wright (1973) tested a version of the exercise with third graders. In one class, children were divided by the color of armbands and experienced two days of arbitrary discrimination, each group taking a turn as the favored one. A comparison class did not. Afterward, children who had taken part expressed less prejudiced beliefs about Black people and were more willing to attend a picnic with Black children than children in the comparison class, and differences persisted at follow-up. The study supports the idea that experiencing arbitrary discrimination can increase empathy, though the sample was small and the setting a single school.
Robbers Cave
Sherif (1958) described studies at a boys' summer camp, the best known held at Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma. Twenty-two eleven-year-old boys, similar in background, were divided into two groups that at first did not know of each other. Once each group had formed its own identity, the researchers introduced competition through a tournament with prizes for the winners. Hostility followed: name-calling, flag-burning and raids on each other's cabins. Simply bringing the groups together for pleasant activities, such as meals and films, did not reduce the hostility; it provided more occasions for conflict. Conflict was reduced when the researchers introduced superordinate goals, problems that both groups cared about and that required cooperation, such as restoring the camp's water supply and pooling money to rent a film.
A Classic Reconsidered
Perry (2018) examined Sherif's archives, including notes and recordings. She described an earlier camp study in 1953 that had failed when the boys refused to turn on each other and suspected they were being manipulated, and she argued that researchers at Robbers Cave intervened to provoke hostility more than published accounts suggested. She also raised ethical concerns: the boys and their parents were not told they were in an experiment. Her work does not erase the finding that shared goals reduced conflict, but it shows that the study's story was cleaner than its practice.
Contact and Prejudice
Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) meta-analyzed more than five hundred studies of intergroup contact. Contact typically reduced prejudice, and the effect generalized beyond the individuals involved to the outgroup as a whole. Conditions proposed by Allport, including equal status, common goals, cooperation and support from authorities, enhanced the effect but were not essential for it. Sherif's observation that contact alone did not reduce hostility fits the meta-analysis: contact in a competitive setting works less well than contact structured around cooperation.
| Study | Finding | Caveat |
|---|---|---|
| Elliott's exercise | Vivid demonstration of arbitrary discrimination | Teaching exercise, not a controlled study; ethical concerns about children's distress |
| Weiner and Wright (1973) | Children who experienced discrimination later showed less prejudice | Small sample; one school; short follow-up |
| Sherif (1958) | Competition produced hostility; superordinate goals reduced it | Perry (2018): researcher intervention, earlier failed study, no informed consent |
| Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) | Contact reduces prejudice across hundreds of studies | Effects larger under supportive conditions |
Ethics
Both classics involved children who could not give informed consent to the research. Elliott's exercise caused real distress, and Sherif's boys were deceived about the camp's purpose. Modern standards would require consent from parents and assent from children, and would limit distress. Neither approach is appropriate as a workplace intervention.
Applying the Lessons
For the company, the evidence points to two steps. First, superordinate goals: a joint submission target owned by both departments, with shared recognition when it is met. Second, structured contact under supportive conditions: joint planning sessions with equal status, a shared goal and visible support from the vice presidents of both departments, rather than social events that might, as at Robbers Cave, give rivalry new occasions. Hana's team, where cross-functional pairs already work together, can serve as a model.
From Children to Adults at Work
The classic studies involved children, and adults in organizations differ in ways that matter. Professionals carry long-standing occupational identities, as the first module of this course examined, and their rivalries are tied to real differences in goals and accountability. Engineering is judged on speed and innovation; regulatory affairs on accuracy and compliance. Those differences will not disappear with a shared project. What the studies suggest is that the hostility layered on top of real differences can be reduced. Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) found contact effects across age groups and settings, including workplaces, which supports applying the contact findings to adults. The superordinate goals finding has less direct workplace evidence, but it is consistent with research on shared goals in teams.
Why Not Simulate Discrimination
Some trainers have used versions of Elliott's exercise with adults. The results reported by Weiner and Wright (1973) suggest it can increase empathy in children, but the exercise depends on causing distress, and adults at work cannot meaningfully refuse to take part in a training their employer requires. Contact and shared goals produce benefits without that cost.
Conclusion
Weiner and Wright found that experiencing arbitrary discrimination reduced children's prejudice, Sherif found that superordinate goals reduced hostility where contact alone did not, Perry showed that the Robbers Cave story was more complicated and Pettigrew and Tropp confirmed that contact reduces prejudice. For the company, shared goals and structured contact offer a route out of the rivalry.
References
Perry, G. (2018). The lost boys: Inside Muzafer Sherif's Robbers Cave experiment. Scribe.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751-783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
Sherif, M. (1958). Superordinate goals in the reduction of intergroup conflict. American Journal of Sociology, 63(4), 349-356. https://doi.org/10.1086/222258
Weiner, M. J., & Wright, F. E. (1973). Effects of undergoing arbitrary discrimination upon subsequent attitudes toward a minority group. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3(1), 94-102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1973.tb01298.x
EDP 814 Module 7 instructions, in plain terms
The seventh module of EDP 814 pairs two classics, the Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes exercise and Robbers Cave, for critical evaluation. Follow the Module 7 instructions in your Aspen course; the organizational case is a composite. Describe each study accurately. Examine evidence from controlled studies and later critiques. Address ethical questions each raises. Review broader evidence on reducing intergroup conflict. Apply the lessons to a group setting. Write in APA 7 at doctoral depth, and separate what the original studies showed from what later research has confirmed or questioned. Where your setting is a workplace, explain why the lessons transfer and where they do not, since children at camp and professionals at work differ in important ways.
Inside the EDP 814 Module 7 example
Engineering and regulatory staff at the composite company have begun to stereotype each other after a series of delayed submissions. Weiner and Wright's Journal of Applied Social Psychology study ran a version of Elliott's exercise with third graders and measured later attitudes. Sherif's American Journal of Sociology article describes the Robbers Cave camp, the competition phase and superordinate goals. Perry's book draws on Sherif's archives to question the study's procedures and interpretation. Pettigrew and Tropp pooled over five hundred contact studies and found prejudice generally falls with contact. A table pairs each finding with caveats, and a plan applies superordinate goals and structured contact. A section considers why the findings transfer to adults at work and where they may not.
Reading the EDP 814 Module 7 grading rubric
A strong review of classic studies describes them accurately, engages critiques and links them to broader evidence. This example distinguishes the Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes exercise, a teaching demonstration, from a controlled study of its effects. It reports Sherif's findings and then Perry's archival critique, showing how a classic's story can change. Pettigrew and Tropp's meta-analysis supplies the strongest evidence for intervention. The ethics of both studies are discussed. The application uses the most robust findings, contact and shared goals, rather than simulating discrimination at work. It also weighs how far findings from children transfer to adults in organizations, rather than assuming they do. The plan avoids the trap Sherif himself identified, contact without shared goals, and builds in leadership support, one of the conditions the contact meta-analysis found most helpful.
Common EDP 814 Module 7 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Reviews of classic studies often repeat textbook accounts. Describe each study precisely, including participants and procedures. Engage later critiques and controlled tests. Discuss ethics, since both studies involved children who did not fully consent. Link the classics to broader evidence, such as meta-analyses of contact. Apply the robust lessons carefully; simulating discrimination is not an appropriate workplace intervention. Ask how far findings from children or laboratory groups transfer to adults at work, and say where they may not. Watch for contact that happens in a competitive setting, which can make rivalry worse. Build leaders' visible support into any plan.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More EDP 814 and Doctor of Education sample papers
- EDP 814 Module 1: The Self and the Self in Groups
- EDP 814 Module 2: Group Formation, Norms and Roles
- EDP 814 Module 3: Group Performance
- EDP 814 Module 4: Culture, Gender and Groups
- EDP 814 Module 5: Idea Generation and Creativity
- EDP 814 Module 6: Obedience: The Milgram Experiment
- EDP 814 Module 8: Roles, Power and the Stanford Prison Study
- EDP 812 Module 7: Work-Family Conflict and Balance
- EDN 814 Module 7: Accreditation as a Leadership Decision
- EDN 810 Module 6: Leading Organizational Change
- EDN 812 Module 6: Root Cause Analysis of a Sentinel Event
EDP 814 Module 7 questions, answered
What does EDP 814 Module 7 usually ask for?
Aspen's EDP 814 covers prejudice and intergroup conflict through the Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes exercise and Robbers Cave in this module, so a critical review with application is typical. Read your Module 7 prompt.
What was the Robbers Cave experiment?
Sherif's study at a boys' summer camp in Oklahoma in which two groups developed hostility through competition, which contact alone did not reduce but superordinate goals did.
Did the Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes exercise reduce prejudice?
Weiner and Wright found that third graders who experienced arbitrary discrimination in a similar exercise later expressed less prejudice than a comparison class.
Where can I find a free EDP 814 Module 7 sample paper?
This page holds the whole paper: two classic studies with their critiques, evidence on intergroup contact and an application to rival departments.
Does contact between groups reduce prejudice?
Pooling over five hundred studies, Pettigrew and Tropp found that contact between groups usually lowers prejudice, especially under supportive conditions.