Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination Henri Tajfel PDF – Free download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read online for free. Experiments in Intergroup Discriminati. ON. MATRIX by Henri Tajfel. B. MATRIX 3. MATRIX 4. U. Intergroup discrimination is a feature logical causation. In The. Exp eriments in Intergroup Discrimination. Can cliscrimination be trctced to by Flenri Tajfel .. problem lvas to create experimental con- didons that would.
|Published (Last):||26 August 2009|
|PDF File Size:||9.29 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||18.57 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
A web site full of stuff that should be useful. Vasily Kandinsky ‘Composition 8’ Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination. Prejudice is an attitude usually negative toward the member of some group solely on their membership in that group. Prejudice can also bee seen as part of the general process of ethnocentrism.
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 theorieswhich see the source of prejudice as being in the individual and social psychological theorieswhich see prejudice as a result of group membership.
Many 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 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. Increased competition between various groups during periods of economic decline, for example, may be one of the factors contributing to prejudice. Tajfel like Sherif believes that the personality approach is inadequate in explaining prejudice and he also uses a social psychological approach.
Tajfel et al argue that, before any discrimination can occur, people must be categorised as members of an in-group or an out-group, but more significantly the very act of categorisation 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. 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 disscrimination made either being fair or showing discrimination. The First Experiment under-estimators and over-estimators. Discriminaation subjects were 64 boys, 14 and 15 years old from a comprehensive school in interrgroup 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 herni 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 disrimination conditions in the discrimintaion part of the experiment. In one condition, after the boys had completed their estimates they were told that in judgements of this kind some people consistently overestimate the number of dots and some consistently underestimate the number, but that these tendencies are in no way related to accuracy.
In the other condition the boys were told that some people are consistently more accurate than others. Four groups of 8 served in each of the two conditions. After the judgements had been made and scored by the experimenter the boys were told that they were going to be grouped on the basis of the visual judgements they had just made.
The subjects were actually assigned to groups at random. The second part of the experiment aimed to assess the effects of categorisation on intergroup behaviour. The subjects were taken to separate cubicles and told which group they were in. The students were given a booklet of matrices and told that the task would consist of giving to others rewards and penalties in real money.
The boys would not know the identity of the individuals to whom they would be assigning these rewards and penalties since everyone would be given a code number. The value of each point they were rewarding was a tenth of a penny.
Intergroup Discrimination and the Henri Tajfel Experiments
The subjects had to indicate their choices by ticking one box in each matrix. 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. There were out-group choices, with both top and bottom row referred to members of the different group from the boy. The important choice for Tajfel is the intergroup choice. The Second Experiment aesthetic preference.
The second experiment was very similar to the first. The experiment differed in two ways. The other major difference was in the type of matrices used. In this experiment matrices were employed which allowed the experimenters to investigate three variables.
The three variables were: If we look at an example below of one of the matrices we can see how the three variables can be measured.
Maximum joint profit and giving the largest reward to the in-group would both be achieved by choosing the last pair in the row, giving 19 to a member of your own group, and 25 to a member of the other group. However, to maximise your own rewards while also maximising the differenceyou might well choose one of the middle boxes and give experi,ents to a member of your own group and 11 to a member of the other group. 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 experimdnts.
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 tajfle making their choices was maximising the differences between the two groups. Would the simple act of categorisation be sufficient to create discrimination in a more ecologically valid situation?
In everyday life categorisation does often come with intrgroup degree of competition.
exxperiments The experiment aimed to demonstrate that competition was not a sufficient factor in the creation of intergroup discrimination. Tajfel demonstrated that merely categorising people into in-groups and out-groups is sufficient to create intergroup discrimination. Tajfel has also been criticised for the way he interpreted his results. Brownfor example, suggests that the behaviour of the boys can be seen in terms of fairness as much as discrimination.
Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223, 96-102.
dicsrimination 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. A major strength of the procedure was the high level of control Tajfel managed to employ. Social identity theory argues that the boys favoured their own group because it increases their self-esteem.
Tajfel’s social identity theory has become one of the main theories in European social psychology. The theory is useful because as well as explaining the social causes tamfel prejudice it may also be able to explain individual differences, i.
Some individualsfor example, may be more prone to prejudice hfnri they have an intense need for acceptance by others.
For such individuals, personal and social identity may be much more interlinked than for those with a lesser need for social acceptance. This need for a sense of security and superiority can be met by belonging to a favoured in-group and showing hostility towards out-groups. It is possible to criticise Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory. Tajfel maintained that competition was not a sufficient factor in the creation of intergroup discrimination. Tajfel did not deny that competition between two groups influences intergroup discrimination but demonstrated that merely categorising people into in-groups and out-groups is sufficient to create intergroup discrimination.
Similar findings have been replicated using a wide expegiments of subjects in a wide range of cultures. However, many psychologists have demonstrated that conflict is not inevitable.
In cultures which do not emphasise competition, as much as perhaps the West does, categorisation does not always seem to lead to discrimination. This is not to say that Social Identity Theory does not work but suggests that within societies which emphasise co-operation and fairness intergroup discrimination will be less likely to happen.
Scientific American, A web site full of stuff that should be useful AS Psychology.
Below is an example of a matrix.