Tajfel.Methodology

Bellringer (in journals)

Boy scouts #1-10 “The Eagles”Boy scouts #11- 20 “The Rattlers”

Sit on the side that you are assigned to!

What is discrimination? Describe a time you or someone you love were discriminated against. What grounds was the discrimination on? What are your emotions and thoughts about it today?

Robbers Cave

What was concluded after this study?

I. BackgroundA. Terminology

1. Prejudice- a. Literally the word means to pre-judge b. Prejudice is a negative, usually unjustified

attitude directed toward people simply because they are members of a specific social group.

I. Background 2. A stereotype is a "fixed" way of thinking

about people in which you classify others into specific categories without much room for individualism or variation. 

3. Discrimination is a negative behavior we exhibit toward people because of our prejudice a. Again the debate exist

between a situational

and personal attribution

for prejudice.

I. Background 4. Ethnocentrism =

a. The tendency to perceive the world from one’s own perspective such as your ethnicity

b. The belief that one’s own group is better than other groups

5. In-group Vs out-group a. In-group = “us,” our group.

Seen as better and heterogeneous

b. Out-group = “them,” the other group. Seen as worse and homogeneous. “They are all the same.”

6. Scapegoat – a. the theory states that we tend

to identify scapegoats to blame for problems that our group is dealing with.

b. For example how the Jews were blamed for the conditions in post-WWI Germany.

7. Authoritarian personality = a theory proposed by Adorno in 1950 that stated people with an authoritarian personality style (dispositional) are more likely to conform to social norms which are negative toward out-groups.

II. Tajfel’s Hypothesis

A. Hypothesis – “discriminatory intergroup

behavior can sometimes be expected even if the

individual is not involved in actual (or even

imagined) conflicts of interest and has no past

history of attitudes of intergroup hostility.”

B. Aim 1. To investigate the minimal conditions in

which prejudice and discrimination can occur.

2. To demonstrate that merely putting people into groups (categorization) is sufficient for people to discriminate in favor of their own group and against members of the other group.

C. Variables, Method and Design 1. Variables

a. IV type of allocation they were asked to make

b. DV the choices they made (either being fair or showing discrimination)

2. Method = Lab experiment.

III. The First Experiment A. The Sample

1. 64 boys who were 14-15 years old from a

comprehensive school in a suburb of Bristol.

2. The boys arrived for the experiment in groups of

eight.

3. All the boys in each group were from the same

“House”in the same “form” or grade at the school, so

that they knew each other well before the

experiment.

4. Opportunity Sample

B. The first part of the experiment served to establish an intergroup categorization

C. The second part was to assess the effects of that categorization on intergroup behavior.

D. Apparatus = the booklet to make allocations

E. Procedure 1. In the first part the boys were brought

together in a lecture room and were told that the researcher was interested in the study of visual judgments.

2. Forty clusters of varying numbers of dots were flashed on a screen.

3. The boys were asked to estimate the number of dots in each cluster and to record each estimate.

How many dots?

4. After the boys had completed their estimates they were told one of two things depending on the condition they were in (4 of the groups in each condition) a. The first group was told that in judgments

of this kind some people consistently overestimate the number of dots and some consistently underestimate the number.

b. The second group was told that some people were better and some people were worse at estimating the number of dots

5. After the judgments had been made they were “scored” by one of the experimenters.

6. Participants were told that researchers were interested in other decision making processes & were going to take advantage of their presence to investigate these concepts.

7. Participants were told they were be grouped on the basis of the visual judgments they had just made, however the were actually randomly assigned: a. In condition one

• half to the 'under estimators' • half to the 'over estimators

b. In condition two • Half to the better• Half to the worse

F. The choice task 1. They were given the following

instructions:. 2. The task would consist of giving others

participants points which would then be converted into real money at the end of the experiment

3. They would not know the identity of the individuals to whom they would be assigning these rewards & penalties since everyone would have a code number

4. Each boy went to another room on their own, sat in a student cubicle and was given a booklet containing 18 pages

5. On each page there were 14 boxes containing two numbers each

6. The numbers in the top row of the matrix were the rewards and penalties to be awarded to one person and those in the bottom row were those to be awarded to another

7. They were not giving money to themselves

#74

Over

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 -1 -5 -9 -13 -17 -21 -25

#68

Under

-25 -21 -17 -13 -9 -5 -1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

The participant had to check one column e.g. 12 and –25 or –9 and 4

8. At the end of the task each boy would be brought back into the first room and would receive the amount of money the other boys had awarded him

9. The value of each point they were awarding was a tenth of a penny

10. Each row of the matrix was labeled # of over estimators # of under estimators

11. The boys were required to make three types of choice. a. There were in-group choices, where both

top and bottom row referred to members of the same group as the boy. (other than himself)

b. There were out-group choices, with both top and bottom row referred to members of the different group from the boy.

c. There were intergroup choices, where one row referred to the boys’ own group and one row referred to the other group.

IV. ResultsA. In the intergroup choices the large

majority of participants gave more money to members of their own group

#74

Over

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 -1 -5 -9 -13 -17 -21 -25

#68

Under

-25 -21 -17 -13 -9 -5 -1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

B. When the boys had an entirely in-group (or out-group) choice to make, they tended towards the point of maximum fairness (this would be 0 and –1 in our example).

#74

Over

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 -1 -5 -9 -13 -17 -21 -25

#68

Under

-25 -21 -17 -13 -9 -5 -1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

V. Conclusion A. Discrimination occurred as a result of

simply designating in-group and out-group membership (categorization)

B. Choices were not made to maximize everyone’s winnings (joint maximum profit) but instead to maximize in-group profits.

C. There was no

difference between

the two conditions

Tajfel.Evaluation

Bellringer: NPR clip

Algiers, New Orleans, LA:

Algiers: predominately black

Algiers point: Largely white

Called a “white enclave” whose residents have a “siege mentality”

Some white residents think of themselves as the oppressed minority

Bellringer

“outgroup behavior is extraordinarily easy to trigger off”.

How is that evident in this clip about Algiers?

http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/listennow.php?segment_guid=http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/npr/98640972/&width=325&height=350&segment_program_title=NPR+News&segment_title=Reporter+Chronicles+Katrina%27s+%27Hidden+Race+War%27&segment_audio_url=http%3A%2F%2Fpd.npr.org%2Fanon.npr-mp3%2Fnpr%2Fnewsnotes%2F2008%2F12%2F20081223_newsnotes_01.mp3&segment_display_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.northcountrypublicradio.org%2Fnews%2Fnpr%2F98640972%2Freporter-chronicles-katrina-s-hidden-race-war

Exit Ticket

Think of a time that you have experienced, or have

witnessed, an act of prejudice or discrimination.

Then, reflect on the question below:

Sherif (1966) believes that prejudice arises out of

conflict between two groups.  For example when two

groups want to achieve the same goal but cannot

both have it, hostility is produced between them. Do

you agree with this? Why or why not? You may be in

the middle here, but be sure to explain why.

Demand Characteristics

VI. The Second ExperimentA. Sample:

1. 48 new boys 2. tested in 3 groups of 16 each divided into

2 conditionsB. Aesthetic preference: was used as

the basis of the division into two groups

C. The boys were shown 12 slides of paintings: 6 by Paul Klee and 6 by Wassily Kandinsky & asked to express their preference.

Paul Klee

Wassily Kandinsky

The paintings were shown without any signatures so that the boys could be assigned at random to the Klee or Kandinsky group.

D. Procedure 1. Assignment

a. After they had judged the paintings they were then told that they were being divided into groups

b. They were classified as the 'Klee group' or the 'Kandinsky group' named after the actual painters whose work had been shown.

c. But really this was random

2. Instructions a. They were told that the study was about

“decision making.” b. Required them to allocate points to other

students c. To make their allocations the participants

were shown a matrix & asked to choose a pair of numbers from the same column

E. AIM - Tajfel wanted to assess 3 things:

1. Maximum joint profit (MJP): a boy could give the largest reward to members of both groups

2. Maximum in-group profit (MIP): a boy could choose the largest reward for the member of his own group regardless of the reward to the boy from the other group

3. Maximum difference (MD): largest possible difference in gain between a member of in-group and a member of out-group, in favor of the in-group

Different matrices were designed from the first study

Rewards # 36 of Klee

group 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Rewards for member 15 of Kandinsky group 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25

For example if you are in the Klee group MJP =19-25 (adding) MIP =19-25 (largest # for your group) MD =7-1 (biggest difference between the groups,

favoring yours)Rewards

#36 of Klee

group 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Rewards # 15

Kandinsky group 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25

VII. ResultsA. Maximum difference was most often

chosen 1. Significant tendency to use maximum

difference in favor of the in-group at the expense of maximum in-group profit

2. even if this meant that the in-group lost out on points

3. MJP almost no effect at all 4. But MIP and MD exerted a strong effect. 5. Participants always tried to give their in-

group members the best deal at the cost of the out-group member.

B. In a situation where the choice was between two in-group members 1. participants’ choices were nearer the

MJP then when the choice was between two out-group members

VIII. ConclusionsA. Tajfel believed the study showed 3

things 1. There can be discrimination even when

there is no reason for it. 2. This discrimination can occur without

any previous hostility between groups 3. May result in discriminatory behavior

before any prejudice or hostility has developed.

4. The findings demonstrate that mere categorization into groups produces in-group favoritism and discrimination towards the out-group 

B. Out-group discrimination is easy create 1. Previous studies(Sherif) have shown how

conflict or earlier hostility can act as the basis for intergroup discrimination.

2. But here neither of those had any relevance to what the participants were asked to do in this experiment

C. People would rather have the out-group suffer at the expense of in-group loss so that social distance is created between the groups

Cue 9: From the study explain the difference between Type A an Type B matrices.

Cue 10: How do experiment 1 and experiment 2 differ from each other?

Cue 11: What is meant by the statement MJP had “almost no effect at all?”

“This presentation contains copyrighted material under the

educational fair use exemption to the U.S. copyright law”

Tajfel Discrimination StudyAICE AS Level Psychology

Lecture 4

IX. EvaluationA. Lab Experiment

1. Strengths = High degree of control a. Example of controls would be

• 1. There was no social interaction so no confounding variables)

• 2. Minimal conditions were maintained

2. Weaknesses = lacks ecological validity a. Experiment was in a lab setting which takes

away some of validity b. Prejudice & discrimination are social

phenomenon they are being studied in a lab c. Unusual task that may have been difficult to

understand d. Are the results do to DEMAND

CHARACTERISTICS, that is to say did the boys figure out the idea of the game and just play along?

B. Issues and Debates 1. Reductionism vs Holism

a. Because Tajfel is attempting to explain discrimination in terms of simple categorization this is a reductionist explanation

b. One may argue that trying to reduce a complex social behavior such as prejudice and discrimination to one factor is a major weakness.

2. Situational vs Dispositional a. Did the situation created by Tajfel

cause the boys to act in a certain way b. Or was this due to some

dispostional characteristic within the boys

X. Explanation for FindingsA. Social Identity Theory (SIT) as an

explanation for intergroup discrimination. 1. SIT suggests that the participants

favored their own group because it increases their self-esteem.

2. SIT has become one of the main theories in social psychology

3. SIT is useful because it explains the social causes of prejudice & it may also explain individual differences ( why some people are more likely to discriminate than others)

4. BUT in cultures that do not emphasize competition categorization does not always seem to lead to discrimination.

B. Social Categorization 1. We categorize objects in order to

understand them 2. We also categorize people (including

ourselves) in order to understand our social environment.

3. We use social categories like Black, White, Christian, Muslim, student, & teacher because they are useful.

4. By assigning people to a category we (believe we) know certain things about those people

5. Thus we can find out things about ourselves by knowing to which categories we belong

6. We define appropriate behavior by referencing the norms of groups to which we belong but we can only do this if we can tell who belongs to our group