1. Taijfel Page  http://www.holah.karoo.net/tajfel.htm http://www.holah.karoo.net/tajfel.htm

2. Tajfel H., (1970) Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination  Background  Prejudice is an attitude(thoughts) (usually negative) toward the member of some group solely on their membership in that group.  Prejudice can also be seen as part of the general process of ethnocentrism.

3.  Discrimination can be seen as the behavioural expression of prejudice.  Psychological theories which attempt to explain the origins of prejudice fall into two major categories.(personality & social theories)  Personality theories, which see the source of prejudice as being in the individual and social psychological theories, which see prejudice as a result of group membership.  Bandura’s (1961) social learning theory, argues that attitudes such as prejudices are learned from role models.

4.  Social psychological theories argue that society may be much more important than personality types in accounting for prejudice. Such theories see prejudice as a result of group membership and group interaction.  An interesting social psychological approach was demonstrated by Sherif. Sherif (1966) believes that prejudice arises out of conflict between two groups. When two groups want to achieve the same goal but cannot both have it, hostility is produced between them. http://www.simplypsychology.org/robbers-cave.html http://www.simplypsychology.org/robbers-cave.html  Increased competition between various groups during periods of economic decline, for example, may be one of the factors contributing to prejudice.

5.  Tajfel like Sherif believes that the personality approach is inadequate in explaining prejudice and he also uses a social psychological approach.  However, Tajfel et al (1971) argue that ‘competition’ is not a sufficient condition for inter-group conflict and hostility.

6.  Tajfel does not deny the importance of ‘competition’ between groups, (personality as explanations for prejudice)  but argues that mere perception of the existence of another group can itself produce discrimination.  Tajfel et al argue that, before any discrimination can occur, people must be categorized as members of an in-group or an out-group.

7.  M ore significantly the very act of categorization by itself produces conflict and discrimination.  By in-group we mean a group to which a person belongs, or thinks he or she belongs.  By out-group we mean a group to which a person does not belong, or thinks he or she does not belong.

8. AIM  The aim of Tajfel’s study was to demonstrate that merely putting people into groups (categorisation) is sufficient for people to discriminate in favour of their own group and against members of the other group.

9. Method/Procedure  The study consisted of two laboratory experiments. The independent variable was the type of allocation they were asked to make and the dependent variable was the choices they made (either being fair or showing discrimination)

10. The First Experiment (under- estimators and over-estimators)  The subjects were 64 boys, 14 and 15 years old from a comprehensive school in a suburb of Bristol.  The subjects came to the laboratory in separate groups of 8. All of the boys in each of the groups were from the same house in the same form at the school, so that they knew each other well before the experiment.  The first part of the experiment served to establish an intergroup categorisation.  At first the boys were brought together in a lecture room and were told that the experimenters were interested in the study of visual judgements. Forty clusters of varying numbers of dots were flashed on a screen and the boys were asked to record each estimate in succession on prepared score sheets.  There were two conditions in the first part of the experiment. http://www.holah.karoo.net/tajfelstudy.htm http://www.holah.karoo.net/tajfelstudy.htm

11. The Second Experiment (aesthetic preference)  The second experiment was very similar to the first. 48 new boys were used as subjects and all the subjects knew each other well.  The experiment differed in two ways.  The boys were shown slides of paintings by Paul Klee and Wassily Kandinsky, which were shown without the painter’s signature and were asked to express their preferences. http://www.holah.karoo.net/tajfelstudy.htm http://www.holah.karoo.net/tajfelstudy.htm

12. Results/Findings  The experiments carried out by Tajfel clearly demonstrate that inter-group discrimination is easy to trigger off. Tajfel demonstrates that the very act of categorisation into groups is enough to produce conflict and discrimination.  In making their intergroup choices a large majority of the subjects, in all groups in both conditions, gave more money to members of their own group than to members of the other group. Intergroup discrimination was the strategy used in making intergroup choices.  In contrast the in-group and out-group choices were closely distributed around the point of fairness.  The second experiment also clearly demonstrated that the most important factor in making their choices was maximising the differences between the two groups.

13. Evaluation of Procedure Limitations of Procedure  Tajfel’s experiment has been criticized because:  it is very artificial (not ecologically valid). The simple act of categorization may not be sufficient to create discrimination in a real life.  in everyday life, categorization does often come with some degree of competition.  it contains demand characteristics. The experiment aimed to demonstrate that competition was not a sufficient factor in the creation of intergroup discrimination, but he demonstrated that merely categorizing people into in-groups and out-groups is sufficient to create intergroup discrimination.

14.  if schoolboys are divided into groups, they will automatically interpret these groups as ‘teams’ and think in terms of competition.  criticized for the way he interpreted his results. Brown (1988), for example, suggests that the behaviour of the boys can be seen in terms of fairness as much as discrimination. Although the boys showed bias towards their own group, this bias was not very extreme and seemed to be moderated by a sense of fairness.

15. Strengths of Procedure  The procedure had a high level of control, he managed to prevent any face-to-face interaction between group members; the boys only knew of other in-group/out-group members by a code number; although the boys did not realize this.  The boys were in fact assigned randomly to the two groups.  the boys could only award points to others (either in-groupers or out-groupers) and never to themselves.  they could not know what others would do or in any way influence how others behaved.

16. Explanation for Findings  In a later study Tajfel uses Social Identity Theory (SIT) as an explanation for intergroup discrimination. Social identity theory argues that the boys favoured their own group because it increases their self-esteem. Even though the boys were never giving points to themselves they knew that if they gave less to the other group and more to their own group that they would be in the group which gained most points therefore improving their self esteem because they belonged to the ‘best’ group.

17. Evaluation of Explanation  Tajfel's social identity theory (SIT) has become one of the main theories in European social psychology and  is useful in explaining the social causes of prejudice.  it may also be able to explain individual differences, i.e. why some people are more likely to discriminate than others. (for ex. Some may be more prone to prejudice because they have a need for acceptance by others, so that personal and social identity may be more interlinked than those with a lesser need for social acceptance).  This need for a sense of security and superiority can be met by belonging to a favored in-group and showing hostility towards out-groups.

18. Cont.  Tajfel's SIT maintained that competition was not a sufficient factor in the creation of intergroup discrimination and he did not deny that competition between two groups influences intergroup discrimination but demonstrated that merely categorizing people into in-groups and out-groups is sufficient to create intergroup discrimination.  Similar findings have been replicated using a wide range of subjects in a wide range of cultures.  However, many studies have demonstrated conflict is not inevitable. In cultures, which do not emphasize competition, as much as perhaps the West does, categorization does not always seem to lead to discrimination, not to say that SIT does not work but suggests it may be culturally related and sampling flawed.  References  Tajfel, H. (1970) Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223, 96-102

19. Describe the Role of Situational and Dispositional Factors in Explaining Behaviour

20. Background of Attribution theory  Heider(1958) -  Then explain situational and dispositional factors.  http://joeibpsychology.weebly.com/2-describe-the-role- of-situational-and-dispositional-factors-in-explaining- behaviour.html http://joeibpsychology.weebly.com/2-describe-the-role- of-situational-and-dispositional-factors-in-explaining- behaviour.html

21. Attribution Theory  A theory by Heider (1958) is based on the assumption that people are naive scientists who try to explain observable behaviour. An important feature of the original attribution theory is a fundamental distinction about internal and external causes of behaviour. What causes attribution errors? - People tend to look for causes and reasons for other people's behaviour, and those are often assumptions. People do this because they feel that there are motives behind most of the their own behaviour. - People are "intuitive psychologists". We construct our own causal theories of human behaviour. - People construct their causal theories because they want to be able to understand, control, and predict the environment around them.

22. Attribution Theory- cont.  Why do we do this? - Because people seem to have a pervasive need for causal explanation because this makes the world more predictable. - Most cultures have constructed causal explanations for the origin and meaning of life (for example, myths and religion). - There is a tendency in human to see motives and dispositions behind human actions, this may be so automatic that people sometimes find it difficult to override it even when motives dispositions don't really apply (for example, when people attribute motives to objects in computer games or believe in fate).

23. Dispositional and Situational Factors of Behavior  Dispositional factors of behavior: The cause of behavior are factors occuring inside the individual (e.g. personality, childhood experience, cognitive schemas, biological factors)  Situational factors of behavior: The cause of behavior are factors occuring outside the individual (e.g. The situation and context)

24. Clarification from IB regarding this learning objective Situational will be interpreted as environment; particularly the social environment. In attribution theory, people will make an external attribution for a behavior even if there are clear, compelling situational (environmental) reasons for the behavior (this is the "discounting principle"). In bystander studies, whether there is no one else present, a few people present, or many people present - which are all situational factors, these variables all have a significant impact on behavior (e.g. will someone go to the aid of a person in need?).

25. Dispositional usually means personality - a person's stable characteristics. In attribution theory, most people most of the time make an internal (personality) attribution for a stranger's behavior. This is the fundamental attribution error. In conformity studies, Asch highlighted the importance of situational variables, e.g. how many stooges were used, were the stooges unanimous in their judgment, the position in which the genuine subject responded, etc. Whereas Crutchfield focused on personality (dispositional) factors, such as a person's competence, ego strength, narrow mindedness, etc.

26. Dispositional factors are relatively stable traits and behaviors, consistent across situations.

27. Empirical research Simmel (1944) Evans-Pritchard (1976)(not to be confused with Festinger (1956) covert observation)

28. Simmel (1944)  Simmel performed an experiment where he showed moving geometric figures to participants and asked them to describe the movements of the figure. The participants all described them as if the geometric figures had intentions to act in the way they did. This shows that people think that there are reasons (motives) behind everything that happens. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTNmLt7QX8E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTNmLt7QX8E

29. Evans-Pritchard (1976)  described how the Azande people of central Africa believed that it was witchcraft that killed people when a granary doorway collapsed. The door had been eaten through by termites but the Azande believed that it was fate that made those people sit in the doorway just when it collapsed. This shows the tendency in human to see motives and dispositions behind human actions, this may be so automatic that people sometimes find it difficult to override it even when motives dispositions don't really apply.