“This presentation contains copyrighted material under the educational fair use exemption to the U.S. copyright law” Tajfel Discrimination Study AICE AS Level Psychology Lecture 1

I. Background A. 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

I. Background 4. Ethnocentrism = a. Again the debate exist between a situational and personal attribution for prejudice. 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 6. Scapegoat – 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.

B. Theoretical Background 1. Sherif and Sherif 1956– Robbers Cave experiment Boys (22 white) were separated into two groups Boys first built a group identity and cohesion naming themselves the “Rattlers” and the “Eagles”

Things went downhill quickly including Then put into “staged” or “manipulated” competitions between the two groups Things went downhill quickly including Food fights Night time raids Fist fights (even built weapons out of socks filled with rocks)

Then they tried to ease the tension between the groups by Broken water pipe Raising money to go see a movie Pulling one of the busses out of the mud On the last day the boys asked to ride home together on the same bus and sat in mixed groups. Their conclusion was that competition alone was enough to foster discrimination

2. Tyerman and Spenser 1970 contradicted this finding when they recreated the Robber’s cave experiment and found that the competition was not sufficient to create discrimination

Cue 1: - Write 2 M/C questions that distinguish between the key vocab in the previous slides Cue 2: Think back to all of the social psychology studies we have examined, and identify what problems may occur when trying to study socially sensitive issues?

 “This presentation contains copyrighted material under the educational fair use exemption to the U.S. copyright law” Tajfel Discrimination Study AICE AS Level Psychology Lecture 2

II. Tajfel’s Hypothesis A. Hypothesis – “Discriminatory intergroup behavior can sometimes be expected even if the individual is not involved in actual or even imaginary conflicts of interest and has no 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 1. IV type of allocation they were asked to make 2. DV the choices they made (either being fair or showing discrimination)

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.

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. 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.

4. After the boys had completed their estimates they were told that in judgments of this kind some people consistently overestimate the number of dots and some consistently underestimate the number. 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. half to the 'under estimators' b. half to the 'over estimators

E. 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, 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

The participant had to check one column e.g. 12 and –25 or –9 and 4 #74 Over 12 10 8 6 4 2 -1 -5 -9 -13 -17 -21 -25 #68 Under 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. Results A. 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 -1 -5 -9 -13 -17 -21 -25 #68 Under

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 -1 -5 -9 -13 -17 -21 -25 #68 Under

V. Conclusion A. Discrimination occurred as a result of simply designating in-group and out- group membership (categorization) . Choices were not made to maximize everyone’s winnings (joint maximum profit) but instead to maximize in-group profits.

Cue 3: Refer to the actual study and the video to explain what is meant by minimal conditions. Cue 4:Compare the use of deception in this study to that used in the 3 other studies we covered in this unit. Was the deception justifiable? Cue 5. What were the 3 types of allocations the boys were asked to make in study 1? Cue 6: How did intergroup decisions differ from either in-group or out-group decisions? Cue 7: How do these results support Tajfel’s hypothesis?

“This presentation contains copyrighted material under the educational fair use exemption to the U.S. copyright law” Tajfel Discrimination Study AICE AS Level Psychology Lecture 3

VI. The Second Experiment A. Sample: 1. 48 new boys 2. tested in 3 groups of 16 each divided into 2 conditions B. 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.

Wassily Kandinsky Paul Klee 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: Maximum joint profit (MJP): a boy could give the largest reward to members of both groups 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 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 21 23 25

VII. Results A. 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

B. In a situation where the choice was between two in-group members 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. Conclusions A. 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.

B. Out-group discrimination is easy create 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 8: How do experiment 1 and experiment 2 differ from each other? Cue 9: What is meant by the statement MJP had “almost no effect at all?” Cue 10: How do Tajfel’s results differ from those of Sherif?

“This presentation contains copyrighted material under the educational fair use exemption to the U.S. copyright law” Tajfel Discrimination Study AICE AS Level Psychology Lecture 4

IX. Evaluation A. Strengths 1. Minimal Groups a. Minimal groups are groups that have little to no contact with each other and no basis for their existence. This experiment meets the criteria for minimal groups   

c. This Increases validity of this study b. Lab setting which may diminish mundane realism, but in this case the benefits of control out weighed the concerns for this type of ecological validity There was no social interaction so no confounding variables) Therefore the behaviors could be explained just in terms of categorization c. This Increases validity of this study 

B. Weakness 1. 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 2. Unusual task that may have been difficult to understand

3. Demand Characteristics a. During an experiment, a participant might pick up on some clue or bias from the researcher, the situation, or something about the experiment that gives the participant and idea of what type of response the researcher is looking for.

b. They were divided into groups the participants may have felt that the purpose of the study was to compete and discriminate and so acted accordingly 4. Interpretation bias a. Other research suggests that the behavior of the boys can be seen in terms of fairness instead of discrimination b. Group membership is rarely so meaningless & is influenced by other factors

5. 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. 6. Sample bias – the sample is hardly representative of the general population

X. Explanation for Findings A. 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

Cue 12: Was this a repeated measures design, independent groups design or a matched pairs design? Cue 13: This was a lab study what are two strengths of a lab study? Cue 14: What ethical weaknesses do you see in this study?

Sources http://www.holah.karoo.net/zimbardostudy.htm Henri Tajfel (1970) Experiments in intergroup discrimination Scientific American, 223, 96-105. BANYARD, P. AND GRAYSON, A. (2000) Introducing Psychological Research; Seventy Studies that Shape Psychology, 2nd Edition. London: Macmillan GROSS, R. (1999) Key Studies in Psychology, 3rd Edition. London: Hodder and Stoughton HILL, G. (2001). As level psychology through diagrams. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Discrimination Sneeches