Tajfel et al (1971): Minimal group paradigm experiments

Aim

Sample

Procedure: Experiment 1

Evaluation

Results: Experiment 1

Conclusions

To provide evidence that merely belonging to one group and being aware another group existed would lead to discriminatory behaviour.

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.

  • 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

Procedure: Experiment 2

Results: 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
  • 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


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)

  • 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'

Overall the most important factor in making their choices was maximising the differences between the two groups

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

Strengths

Weaknesses

  • 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
  • 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