Experiments in inter-group discrimination Henri Tajfel (1970) Tajfel is perhaps best known for his minimal groups experiments. In these studies, test subjects were divided arbitrarily into two groups, based on a trivial and almost completely irrelevant basis. Participants did not know who the other members of ‘their’ group were, and had no reason to expect that they would interact with them in the future. Still, members of both groups began to identify themselves with their group, preferring other members of their group and favouring them with rewards that maximized their own group's outcomes.

Subsequently, Tajfel and his student John Turner developed the theory of social identity. They proposed that people have an inbuilt tendency to categorize themselves into one or more in-groups, building a part of their identity on the basis of membership of that group and enforcing boundaries with other groups

Ethnocentrism (thinking your group is better than anyone else’s) occurs as soon as people are divided into groups. It doesn’t matter what the group is or how it was formed – as soon as people are in a group they perceive it as being superior to other groups and we develop what is known as ‘in-group bias’.

Tajfel (1982) suggests this comes about because we all try to give ourselves ‘positive self identity’ to increase our self-esteem. This is known as: SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY. This theory states that people actually get their identity from the group to which they perceive they belong. However to gain an identity, we need to make comparisons between our group and other groups, and in order for our identity to be positive we need to see our group as being superior to other groups.

Sherif suggests that ethnocentrism will occur where there is conflict or competition between groups. Tajfel claims that simply being in a group and being aware of the existence of another group is sufficient for the development of some kind of prejudice. Consequently discrimination in favour of the ‘in-group’ will occur.

One of the most famous pieces of research looking at in-group preferences (or ethnocentrism) was by Sherif in 1956 – known as the ‘Robbers Cave Study’. (This is one you should find out about as part of your background reading).

Aim The aim of Tajfel’s study was to provide evidence that merely belonging to one group and being aware that another group existed would lead to discriminatory behaviour in favour of your own group. Tajfel preferred to investigate DISCRIMINATION (a behaviour) rather than PREJUDICE (a belief) because discrimination is observable and therefore easier to measure objectively. Tajfel did 2 studies and you need to know BOTH of them.

Experiments in inter-group discrimination Experiment One participants: 64 boys aged 14 & 15 from a Bristol comprehensive school.64 boys aged 14 & 15 from a Bristol comprehensive school. Came to the laboratory in groups of 8.Came to the laboratory in groups of 8. All knew each other wellAll knew each other well

Question: What kind of sample did Tajfel use for his experiments into discrimination? What is the limitation of this kind of sample?

You are about to see a series of slides with various numbers of dots in on them. On the paper you will need to guess how many dots are on each of the next 5 slides. This is what he did - we are going to do it too! He told the boys they were taking part in an experiment about visual judgement. For this you will need: A pen;A pen; A sheet of paper;A sheet of paper;

Trial One

Trial Two

Trial Three

Trial Four

Trial Five

Tajfel showed 40 sets of dot clusters to the ppts. He then told the ppts, ‘when I have seen your scores you will be given a card putting you into a group’. The boys were given clear instructions DO NOT show anyone your card (it is your secret ). Phase one was designed to create ‘group’ identity ’ Phase one was designed to create ‘group’ identity ’ For example – some boys were For example – some boys were An overestimator (i.e. They were told ‘you have consistently overestimated the number of dots displayed’);An overestimator (i.e. They were told ‘you have consistently overestimated the number of dots displayed’); An underestimator (i.e. you have consistently underestimated the number of dots displayed);An underestimator (i.e. you have consistently underestimated the number of dots displayed);

In actual fact this was a lie!

This is an example of what is known as a Matrix For member no 3 of own group For member no 5 of own group The key to using this matrix is to note that the two group members you are allocating rewards for are people who are in your group (even though you don’t know who they are).

For member 3 of own group For member 5 of own group You need to allocate to points to the members of your group using the points making sure that you only allocate a pair of points. For example if you give member number (3) 11 points then member number (5) should be given 6 points. You have to allocate pairs of points.

Using the matrix below (see your sheet) For member 4 of own group For member 7 of own group Without knowing who is in your group (as this may affect how much you give to them) - you will need to select a pair of numbers to give to people who are in your group.

Using the matrix below: For member 5 of other group For member 8 of other group Without knowing who is in the other group (as this may affect how much you give to them) - you will need to select a pair of numbers to give to people who are in the other group.

Using the matrix below For member 01 of own group For member 02 of other group Here the task is to allocate points to someone in your group (i.e. the top row) as well as to someone who is in the other group (i.e. the bottom row). Remember, you still have to follow the rule – you must allocate a pair of points!

Strategies? Tajfel was interested in looking at the way the participants allocated the rewards. He wanted to see if the same strategies were being used when rewards were being allocated to members of your own group verses when rewards were being allocated to members of the ‘other’ group.

Tajfel wanted to see if he could ‘make’ discrimination appear based on meaningless tasks. Where the boys were asked to allocate points to people who were in their in-group they were fair to them by giving them the 7/8 or 8/7 combination. For member 01 of own groupted For member 02 of own group

Results Where they were asked to allocate points to people who were in their out-group they were also fair to them by giving them the 7/8 or 8/7 combination.Where they were asked to allocate points to people who were in their out-group they were also fair to them by giving them the 7/8 or 8/7 combination. For member 01 of out group For member 02 of out group

Results Where they were asked to allocate points to people who were in the in-group & the out-group they tended to have discriminated by giving their in-group 14 & their out-group 1 (or maybe 13/2).Where they were asked to allocate points to people who were in the in-group & the out-group they tended to have discriminated by giving their in-group 14 & their out-group 1 (or maybe 13/2). For member 01 of own group For member 02 of other group Why did we do this? Simply, we do not want people who are not ‘the same as us’ (over- or under-estimators) to have the same as someone who shares a characteristic with us – i.e. we discriminate.

You are about to see series of art works by two different artists. The artists are Kandinsky and Klee. The task that you will be asked to complete is to note whether you like or dislike the piece of art work. Task Two Task Two On the worksheet there are numbers 1-8 and simply tick or cross to indicate whether you liked the picture or not. Ready… To clarify what strategies were being used he conducted a second experiment using a different group of Bristol school boys

Yet again, once Tajfel ‘saw’ the scores the boys were given a card putting them into a group. Again they were told DO NOT show anyone your card (it is your secret ). They were told they were a member of one of two groups. A Kandinsky (i.e. your answers have shown that you prefer the Kandinsky paintings);A Kandinsky (i.e. your answers have shown that you prefer the Kandinsky paintings); A Klee (i.e. your answers have shown that you prefer the Klee paintings);A Klee (i.e. your answers have shown that you prefer the Klee paintings);

Experiments in inter-group discrimination Experiment Two The boys were presented with a series of matrices in which they had to award points in a similar manner to the previous experiment. The boys were required to select a pair of numbers to award to members of their in-group and out-group. On the next slide is an example of one of the matrices that would have been presented to the participants.

This is another example of a Matrix Award a pair of rewards one for the Kandinsky group member on the top row and one for the Klee group member on the bottom row. Points allocated to Kandinsky member number Points allocated to Klee member number Remember – you have to allocate a pair of points.

the following may have happened: If you are a Kandinsky member you may have given your fellow Kandinsky group member 19 points and the Klee member 25 point. This did not happen that often – but it was the best strategy for maximum in-group profit and maximum joint profitIf you are a Kandinsky member you may have given your fellow Kandinsky group member 19 points and the Klee member 25 point. This did not happen that often – but it was the best strategy for maximum in-group profit and maximum joint profit Points allocated to Kandinsky member number Points allocated to Klee member number Why would this result happen?

On the other hand, some boys went for the fairness option ! BUT If you are a Kandinsky member you may have given your group member 7 points and the Klee member 1 point;BUT If you are a Kandinsky member you may have given your group member 7 points and the Klee member 1 point; Points allocated to Kandinsky member number Points allocated to Klee member number Why did so many of Tajfel’s ppts choose this strategy?

Experiments in inter-group discrimination Recap procedure for experiment 1: Part 1: Categorisation into groups (estimating dots) There were forty trials of varying sizes of dot clusters presented to the boys. An example of the dots trial… What did Tajfel call the kind of group identity he created?

Experiments in inter-group discrimination Part 2: Once the boys had seen all the forty trials they were (randomly)assigned to a group and asked to allocate points to other boys using matrices. They were sat in separate cubicles and worked through a booklet of 18 matrices singular = matrix but the plural = matrices Some times penalty matrices were used with minus numbers -10

For member 04 of own group For member 03 of own group For member 04 of own group For member 03 of other group For member 04 of other group For member 03 of other group

Experiments in inter-group discrimination Never could a boy award money to himself. The boys also did not know the identity of any member of either group. The boys were told that the numbers in the matrices represented units of 1/10 of a penny and that they were giving money to the other boys.

Inter-group discrimination was the deliberate strategy adopted in making inter-group choices in-group/in-group: maximum fairness;in-group/in-group: maximum fairness; out-group/out-group: maximum fairness;out-group/out-group: maximum fairness; in-group/out-group: boys gave more points to in-group members than out group members;in-group/out-group: boys gave more points to in-group members than out group members; These were very significant results! The boys were divided on a totally random and meaningless basis (estimating dots). Tajfel was able to demonstrate in- group favouritism and out-group discrimination based on MINIMAL GROUP IDENTITY

Tajfel decided to use a different way of categorising boys into groups for experiment 2. Participants: 3 groups of 16 boys (48 boys altogether).

Below are examples of Klee and Kandinsky – Klee art Kandinsky art Part 1: Boys were shown 12 slides: 6 Kandinsky;6 Kandinsky; 6 Klee;6 Klee;

Method: Experiment Two Boys had to express their preference for pictures but were grouped randomly to “Kandinsky group” and “Klee group”. Then Tajfel analysed results for 3 variables:

Experiments in inter-group discrimination Method: Experiment Two The three variables being examined were: MJP – maximum joint profit – largest possible joint award for both people, i.e. points add up to the most;MJP – maximum joint profit – largest possible joint award for both people, i.e. points add up to the most; MIP – maximum in-group profit – largest possible award to member of in-group, regardless of what out-group gets;MIP – maximum in-group profit – largest possible award to member of in-group, regardless of what out-group gets; MD – maximum difference – largest possible difference in gain between a member of the in-group & member of the out-group (in favour of the in-group).MD – maximum difference – largest possible difference in gain between a member of the in-group & member of the out-group (in favour of the in-group).

How does it work? An example… Choice number12345 in-group member out-group member Maximum joint profit can be achieved with choice 5, giving 16 to the in-group and 19 to the other group.

How does it work? An example… Choice number12345 in-group member out-group member Maximum in-group profit can be achieved with choice 5, giving 16 to the in-group – remember it does not matter what the out-group gets MIP is not looking at this variable.

How does it work? An example… Choice number12345 in-group member out-group member Maximum difference (to maximise your own rewards while also maximising the difference), you might choose pair number 2 giving 11 to your own group & just 6 to the other group.

Experiment Two Klee and Kandinsky in-group vs. out-group Maximum joint profit not really used at all. The most important factor in their choices was maximising the difference between the two groups. This surprised Tajfel because it actually meant the boys left with less money than if they had all given each other the most amount of money available.

Conclusions Prejudice and discrimination is very easy to trigger.Prejudice and discrimination is very easy to trigger. People like to behave in ways considered ‘appropriate’ – i.e. we conform to social norms. Two social norms are ‘groupness’ and ‘fairness.’People like to behave in ways considered ‘appropriate’ – i.e. we conform to social norms. Two social norms are ‘groupness’ and ‘fairness.’ Tajfel felt that ‘groupness’ is stronger than fairness.Tajfel felt that ‘groupness’ is stronger than fairness.