Tajfel+-+Period+1

= TAJFEL'S STUDY ON INTERGROUP DISCRIMINATION = Dorina Bernard, Marcie Lucia, Tyler Patterson, Karoline Stadelmann


 * BACKGROUND INFORMATION**
 * Prejudice - preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience
 * Discrimination - the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things
 * Social discrimination - behavior toward or against a person or group based on prejudged perceptions of their characteristics
 * Stereotype - a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing
 * Identification - thinking of yourselves as a group member and thinking of yourself as a unique individual are both part of your self-concept
 * Social Identity - part of who we are is made up of our group memberships
 * Categorization
 * Identification
 * Comparison
 * Personal identity - part of who we are is our perception of ourselves as individuals
 * Social identification - the process of gaining significant parts of our self-identity from reference to the groups in which we belong to (called in-groups)
 * Categorize - place in a particular class or group
 * Objects
 * People
 * In-group - implied by this concept of identity is the idea that we are in some sense, the same or identical to other people
 * Treat members as being similar to ourselves in some relevant way
 * Out-group - groups in which we don't identify
 * Treat members of the out-groups as if they were all identical and not individuals
 * Social comparison - in order to evaluate ourselves we compare ourselves with similar others, but this only happens if we see ourselves as a member of a prestigious group




 * AIM**
 * To investigate the minimal conditions in which prejudice and discrimination can occur
 * To demonstrate that merely putting people into groups is sufficient for people to discriminate in favor of their own group and against members of the other group


 * PARTICIPANT GROUP **
 * 1st Experiment: 64 boys (between the ages of 14 and 15), who attended a comprehensive school in a suburb of Bristol.
 * 2nd Experiment: 48 new boys


 * MATERIALS**
 * Booklets
 * Computers that they used to show the dots and paintings


 * PROCEDURES**
 * Experiment 1
 * 64 boys (14-15 years old) who attended a comprehensive school in a suburb of Bristol.
 * Came to the lab in separate groups of eight.
 * All were from the same ‘House’ in their school so they all knew each other.
 * In the first part of the experiment the boys were brought together into a lecture room and were told that the researchers were interested in the study of visual judgement
 * Forty different clusters of dots were flashed on a screen and the boys were asked to estimate the number of the dots and then record it.
 * Afterwards, they were told they were being grouped into ‘over-estimators’ and ‘under-estimators,’ although their grouping was really random.
 * They were given the following task: they would have to give the other participants (although they would no know the identity of the other participants; they were all given a code number) points which would then which would then be converted into real money at the end of the experiment
 * They were brought into a room (separately) where they were given a booklet. On each page there were two rows with 14 boxes each (the two rows were for two different people). One row was labeled # of over estimator, the other # of under estimator.
 * They were not giving money to themselves
 * The participants had to check one column
 * After they were finished, they were brought back into the first room where they were awarded the points the other people had given them
 * The value of each point was a tenth of a penny.
 * They then had to make three types of choice. In-group: both rows represented members of the same group as the boy. Out-group: both rows represented members of a different group of the boy. Inter-group: one row represented a member of the same group, the other row represented a member of a different group.
 * Experiment 2
 * 48 new boys broken into three groups of 16
 * They were shown 12 slides of paintings (6 by Paul Klee, 6 by Wassily Kandinsky) and asked to say which one they preferred, although they didn’t know which was which
 * Afterward, they were told that they were being divided into those who preferred Klee and those who preferred Kandinsky, but it was really random.
 * They were told to allocate points again using the matrix, by picking one of the columns.
 * Tajfel wanted to assess three things: Maximum joint profit, which gives the largest profit to both groups, maximum in-group profit, which gave the largest profit for the in-group, and maximum different, which gave the largest possible difference in gain between the two groups, in favor of the in-group.


 * DATA**
 * The data collected in the study was quantitative and was gathered through the self-reports done by the participants when they were asked to record their answers.


 * RESULTS**
 * Experiment 1:
 * With the inter-group choices most of the participants awarded more points to members of their own group.
 * When the choices were all in-group or out-group points were awarded according to maximum fairness.


 * Experiment 2:
 * Tendency to use the maximum difference technical in favor of in-group profit.
 * Maximum joint profit had little to no effect on the points.
 * Maximum In-group Profit and Maximum difference showed a strong effect on the points awarded.
 * Participants gave the in-group members as much points as possible while costing the out-group.
 * For choices between two in-group members maximum joint profit was displayed more than when the choice was between two out-group members.


 * CONCLUSIONS**
 * First study
 * Discrimination occurred due to the simple designating of in and out group membership. (categorization)
 * Choices between both groups(inter-group) were not made to maximize everyone’s winnings, but instead the increase the group profit.
 * Second study
 * The process of categorizing participants into groups caused in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination.
 * This study showed that discrimination was easy to create.
 * People would much rather show out-group discrimination and suffer at the expensive of in group gain. Therefore creating social distance among the groups. Taijfel uses the Social Identity Theory to explain this inter-group discrimination displayed.

Strengths Weaknesses Ecological Validity Ethics
 * EVALUATION**
 * There was high levels of control in this study.
 * There was no confounding variables that would affect group membership.
 * There was no social interaction.
 * The behaviors could be attributed to categorization and not pre existing prejudice.
 * This study was in a lab setting, while prejudice is a social phenomenon
 * The tasks asked to be completed were unusual.
 * Bias may be present. This is because they were divided into groups the participants may have felt they were suppose to discriminate.
 * The validity is low because it was conducted in a lab setting.
 * While prejudice is a social phenomenon, it is hard to study accurately in a lab.
 * While also the tasks asked to be completed were unusual.
 * Deception was used when categorizing the participants in order to create the in and out-group and study discrimination.