Tajfel (1970) Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination

Background

We have beliefs about people before we meet them.

Stereotypes: Overall impressions based on the assumption that all members of a group possess similar attributes.

We use prejudice to determine how to interact with strangers 

                                   Discrimination is exhibited because of our prejudice

Social discrimination: behaviour toward or against a person or group is based on prejudged perceptions of their characteristics.

Social Identity Theory (SIT):

1. Categorisation – To understand our social environment. (Black, White, Christian, Muslim, student, teacher…)

Finding out things about ourselves by knowing which group we belong to.

Only able if we know who belongs to our group.

2. Identification – process of gaining significant parts of our self-identity from reference to the groups to which we belong.

• Social identity: Part of who we are is made up of our group memberships.
• Personal identity: Part of who we are is our perception of ourselves as individuals.
• In-group: Idea that we are, in some sense, identical to other people. Therefore, we treat members of our in-groups as being like ourselves.
• Out-group: Groups with which we don’t identify. Therefore, we treat the members as they were all identical and not individuals.

3. Comparison – Thinking of yourself as a group member and thinking of yourself as a unique individual are both parts of your self-concept.

To evaluate ourselves we compare ourselves with similar others.

                                           –  We can gain self-esteem – however this only happens if we see ourselves as a member of a prestigious group. = HOW DO GROUPS GET THIS PRESTIGE?

To maintain positive self-identity = Put down outgroups – Negative categorisation of outgroups.

                                                –  This creates prejudice

Aim:

To investigate the minimal conditions in which prejudice and discrimination can occur:

• To demonstrate that putting people into groups is sufficient for people to discriminate in favour of their own group and against members of the other group.

Methodology/Procedure

• Independent Variable:

Type of allocation participants were asked to make.

• Dependent variable:

The choices the participants made – being fair or showing discrimination.

• Two experiments:

1. Sample: 64 boys (aged 14-15) from a comprehensive school in a suburb of Bristol.

              Separate groups of eight people – same house in school so knew each other.

Procedure:

Boys brought in a lecture room – told researcher was interested in visual judgments.

Forty clusters of varying numbers of dots were flashed on the screen – boys asked to estimate the numbers of dots in each cluster.

                – Were told that some people overestimate/underestimate the numbers of dots.

     Afterwards, they told them they were going to take advantage and investigate further:

• Told they be grouped on basis of visual judgments.
• Randomly to under estimators and half to over estimators.
• The task would consist of giving others participants points which would then be converted into real money at the end of the experiment
• They wouldn’t know the identity of the individuals who would be assigned the rewards and penalties – everyone had a code number.
• Each boy in separate rooms – 18 pages booklet – 14 boxes containing two numbers

 

• The boys were required to make three types of choice.
  • There were in-group choices, where both top and bottom row referred to members of the same group as the boy. (other than himself)
  • There were out-group choices, with both top and bottom row referred to members of the different group from the boy.
  • There were intergroup choices, where one row referred to the boys’ own group and one row referred to the other group

Results:

• In intergroup choices – gave more money to members of their own group.
• If it was in-group or out-group, they tended to give point of maximum fairness.

Conclusion:

• Discrimination occurred because of designating in-group and out-group membership.
• Choices were not made to maximise everyone’s winnings but to maximise group

 

2. Sample: 48 new boys

3 groups of 16

The basis of division was Aesthetic preference – shown 6 paintings from Paul Klee and Wassily Kandinsky = express preference – assigned randomly

Procedure:

Put into groups named after the two painters – DID NOT FOLLOW PREFERNCE]

Told it was about decision making – allocate points to other students.

3 things assessed:

• Maximum joint profit: giving the largest reward to members of both groups.
• Maximum ingroup profit: giving the largest reward to people in his own groups regardless to the reward to the boy from the other group.
• Maximum difference: largest possible difference in gain between member of in-group and member of out-group. Favouring in-group.

Results:

• Tendency to use maximum difference in favour of the in-group at the expense of in-group profit.
• MJP no effect at all.
• MIP and MD made a stronger effect.
• Participants always tried to give more to their in-group members.
• If decision was between two in-group members = always nearer to MJP than between two out-group members.

Conclusion:

• Categorisation into groups produces in-group favouritism and discrimination towards out-group.
• Out-group discrimination is easy to create.
• Rather have out-group suffer at the expense of group loss – social distance is created.

Strengths:

• High levels of control: no external variables that could have influenced the group membership – behaviours can be explained in terms of categorisation.
• Replicable: The study can be repeated and the reliability of the results can be checked.

Weaknesses:

• Not generalizable: The boys from Bristol were not representative of the wider population, therefore the results are not applicable to the rest of us.
• Lack of ecological validity: The results may have occurred because the environment was not true to real life. Prejudice and discrimination are social phenomenon.
• Demand characteristics: Since they were divided into groups, the boys may have felt that the purpose of the study was to compete and discriminate. Therefore, they acted accordingly, which was not likely to be their behaviour outside of the experiment.

Explanation:

• Uses SIT as an explanation for intergroup discrimination.
• Suggests that participants favoured their group because it increased their self-esteem.
• Useful: It explains why prejudice is caused in society and why some people are more likely to discriminate others.
• However, cultures that do not highlight competition categorisation does not seem to lead to discrimination.