Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Tajfel et al (1971): Minimal group paradigm experiments (Results:…
Tajfel et al (1971): Minimal group paradigm experiments
Aim
To provide evidence that
merely belonging to one group
and
being aware another group existed
would lead to
discriminatory behaviour
.
Sample
Experiment 1
64 boys aged 14 & 15
from a Bristol comprehensive school
Came to laboratory in
groups of 8
All
knew each other well
Experiment 2
48 boys
from the same school
Arranged into
3 groups of 16
Procedure: Experiment 1
Showed
40 sets of dot clusters
to the participants
-
Neutral condition
: 4 groups of 8 boys were told that in these types of tasks,
people overestimate or underestimate the number of dots
, but these did not reflect accuracy
-
Value condition:
another 4 groups of 8 were told that
some people are more accurate than others
Tajfel told all of them
he would look at their scores and allocate them to either the 'overestimater' or 'underestimator' group
(creating group identity)
However he
didn't look at their scores
and put them into random groups
This is a
matrix
The boys, without knowing who is in the other group,
selected a pair of numbers to give to people who are in the other group.
Tajfel was interested in
the way the participants allocated the rewards
He wanted to see if the
same strategies
were being used when rewards were being given to
members of their own group compared to rewards given to members of the other group
He wanted to
'make' discrimination appear
based on meaningless tasks
The fair strategy for this matrix would be the
12/11
combination.
Evaluation
Strengths
There have been
replications
of the minimal group paradigm experiments that
all conclude social categorisation leads to out-group discrimination
Louse Lemyre and Philip Smith (1985) replicated Tajfel's findings, as well as stating that
discriminating participants improved self-esteem
, showing that personal identity ties in with social identity, and that discrimination enhances both aspects
Examines causes of prejudice and discrimination
Weaknesses
The boys were
deceived on the nature of the grouping
, as well as reasons behind the experiment
Could be considered a
biased sample
as all participants were male, of similar age and from one school in one part of the country, so results
cannot be generalised to females or other age groups
Laboratory based experiments encouraged a degree of
demand characteristics
; the boys responded in the way that was expected of them
Also can be argued that the boys' tendency to ensure rewards for their group
could be explained by competition and not favouritism
Weatherall (1982) suggests we
should not conclude that inter-group conflicts are inevitable
, based on her observation of New Zealand Polynesians where they
favoured their out-group more than showing bias towards their own group
Results: Experiment 1
When allocating points to people who were in their in-group, they were
fair by giving the 7/8 or 8/7 combination
When allocating points to people in their out-group, they were
also fair
by giving the 7/8 or 8/7 combination
When asked to allocate points to people in the in-group and out-group, there were
signs of discrimination by giving their in-group 14 and the out-group 1
This is because we do
not want people who are not 'the same' to have the same
as someone who shares a characteristic with us
Overall, a large majority of the boys, in both conditions, gave more money to members of their own group, therefore intergroup discrimination was the strategy was used in making intergroup choices
Conclusions
Inter-group discrimination was the deliberate strategy
adopted in making inter-group choices
In-group/in-group: maximum fairness
Out-group/out-group: boys gave more points to in-group than out-group members
Tajfel demonstrated in-group favouritism and out-group discrimination based on
minimal group identity
-
Prejudice and discrimination is very easy to trigger
-
People have to behave in ways considered 'appropriate', we conform to social norms
-
Two social norms are 'groupies' and 'fairness'
Procedure: Experiment 2
Set up a
second experiment due to the conditions not being adequate in the first experiment
Arranged into
3 groups of 16
and categorised into groups according to their preference of paintings of
Klee and Kandinsky, but they didn't know which artists they belonged to
Tajfel 'saw' their scores and allocated them into either a 'Klee' or 'Kandinsky' group and asked them to again
allocate points to other boys using matrices
Sat in
separate cubicles and worked through a booklet of 18 matrices
They were told that the
numbers in the matrices represented units of 1/10 of a penny and they were giving money to other boys
They were
unaware of the identity
of any member in either group
Experimenters were looking at three variables:
maximum joint profit, largest possible reward to in-group and maximum difference
Results: Experiment 2
Example of a matrix where a Kandinsky member gives an
in-group member 19 and a Klee (out-group) member 25
This was the
best strategy for maximum in-group profit and maximum joint profit
, although it did not occur much
However, a
Kandinsky member may have given their in-group member 7 points whilst giving an out-group member 1 point
Some boys went for the
fairer option
(13/13)
Overall the most important factor in making their choices was maximising the differences between the two groups
