Tajfel+-+Period+2


 * Tajfel: Intergroup Discrimination**
 * (Social Psychology Unit)**


 * Relevant Background Information:**
 * Prejudice: Literally the word means to pre-judge
 * Prejudices take the form of stereotypes
 * Discrimination is a behavior that we exhibit towards people because of our prejudice
 * SIT: Social Identity Theory
 * Based on three main categories:
 * Categorization: we categorize people in order to understand our social environment (Black, White, Christian, Muslim, Bus Driver, Teacher, etc.)
 * Identification: We identify with groups to which we perceive ourselves to belong. Identification has 2 parts:Social identity: Part of who we areis made up of our group memberships.Personal Identity: part of who we are is our perception of ourselves as individuals
 * Comparison
 * In-groups: groups we are a part of
 * Out-Groups: groups that we are not a part of
 * Out-Groups: groups that we are not a part of


 * Aim:**
 * To investigate the minimal conditions in which prejudice and discrimination can occur
 * To demonstrate that just putting people into any kind of group is enought for someone to favor their own group and go against other groups

//__**This Study was made of two laboratory experiments:**__//

//__**The first experiment:**__// //__**-The first part of the experiment served to establish an intergroup categorization.**__// //__**-The second part was to assess the effects of that categorization on intergroup behavior.**__//

-64 boys who were 14-15 years old (all from a school in Bristol) -came to laboratory in separate groups of 8 -all knew each other before them experiment
 * Participant Group:**

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. (other than himself)  There were out-group choices, with both top and bottom row referred to members of the different group from the boy.  There were intergroup choices, where one row referred to the other group
 * Procedure:**
 * Brought together in a lecture room and told that the researcher was interested in the study of visual judgements
 * forty clusters of varying numbers of dots were flashed on the screen
 * the boys were asked to estimate the number of dots in each cluster and to record each estimant
 * After that, they were told that some people consistently overestimat/underestimate the dots
 * they were then "scored" by one of the experimenters
 * then they were told that the researchers were interested in other descision making processes and were going to take advantage of their prescense to investigate these
 * were told that they would be grouped on the basis of the visual judgements they had just made (half to over estimators, half to under estimators) -thy were really randomly assigned
 * Instructions they were given: they would have to give other participants points which would be converted into real money at the end of the experiment
 * they did not know the people that they were giving the money to, though they did know whether or not they were in the same grou
 * Insert PIc here

Sample: Procedure: Results
 * //__ The second Experiment: __//**
 * 48 NEW boys (3 groups of 16)
 * Boys were shown 12 slides of paintings (6 by Paul, 6 by Kandinsky) and asked to express their preference
 * They were told that they were separated by their painting preference, but it was really random
 * Told that the study was about 'decision making'
 * Required to allocate points to other students
 * Significant tendency to use the maximum difference in favor of the in-group at the expense of maximum in-group profit
 * In a situation where the choice was between two in-group members, participants choices were nearer to MJP ( when a boy could give the largest reward to members of both groups)


 * //__Observations from BOTH of the experiments:__//**

Conclusion:
 * Results:**
 * -gave more money to members of their own group**
 * -When the boys had an entirely in group or out grou choice to make, they tended towards the point of maximum fairness**
 * Discrimination occurred ad a result of simply designating groups
 * choices were not made to maximize everyones winnings but instead to maximize group profit
 * Research Method:**
 * 2 laboratory experiments


 * How was data collected:**


 * What type of data was collected:**


 * Procedure:**


 * Special equipment / materials:**


 * Results:**


 * Conclusion:**


 * Strengths:**
 * -**high levels of control-no confounding variable that may influence group membership (increases validity)

-ecological validity -lab setting -unusual task -demand characteristics -interpretation bias
 * Weaknesses:**


 * Ecological Validity:**

A ton of deception-lied to the boys about what the study was about
 * Ethics:**