Social Psychology: Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination

1. Social Psychology: Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination • Key Study: Tajfel (1970)

2. Background • Prejudice- Literally the word means to pre-judge • We have beliefs about people before we meet them • These beliefs primarily take the form of stereotypes • Overall impressions based on the assumption that all members of a group possess similar attributes

3. Background • We all use prejudice as a mechanism by which we quickly evaluate how to interact with strangers • Discrimination is a behavior we exhibit toward people because of our prejudice

4. Background • Social discrimination: behavior toward or against a person or group is based on prejudged perceptions of their characteristics • Behavioral manifestation of prejudice

5. Example • Susan Boyle • We prejudgedher based on our belief she was a crazy cat lady • Wediscriminated against her by snickering • Stereotype:Crazy cat lady: A never married woman with no children, who uses her wasting maternal instincts on cats

6. Background • Social Identity Theory (SIT) • SIT Tajfel & Turner in 1979 • SIT involves three central ideas: • Categorization • Identification • Comparison

7. Background • Social identification: the process of gaining significant parts of our self-identity from reference to the groups to which we belong (in-groups).

8. Background-Categorization • We categorize objects in order tounderstand them • We also categorizepeople (including ourselves) in order tounderstand our social environment. • We use social categories like Black, White, Australian, Christian, Muslim, student, teacher, & bus driver because they are useful

9. Background-Categorization • SO by assigning people to a category we (believe we) know certain things about those people • SO, we can find out things about ourselves by knowing to which categories we belong

10. Background-Categorization • We define appropriate behavior by referencing the norms of groups to which we belong • BUT we can only do this if we can tell who belongs to our group

11. Background-Identification • We identify with groups to which we perceive ourselves to belong • Identification has 2 parts: • Social identity:Part of who we are is made up of our group memberships. • Personal identity:Part of who we are is our perception of ourselves as individuals

12. Background-Identification • Sometimes it is “Us & them” • Other times it is “me & you” • Thinking of yourselves as a group member and thinking of yourself as a unique individual are both parts of your self-concept

13. Background • In-group-Implied by this concept of identity is the idea that we are, in some sense, the same, or identical to other people • We treat members of our in-groups as being similar to ourselves in some relevant way

14. Background-Identification • Out-groups are groups with which we don't identify • We treat members of the out-groups as if they were all identical & not individuals

15. BackgroundSocial Comparison • Positive self-concept is a part of normal psychological functioning • To deal effectively with the world we need to feel good about ourselves • The idea of social comparison is that in order to evaluate ourselves we compare ourselves with similar others.

16. BackgroundSocial Comparison • We can gain self-esteem by comparing ourselves with others in our group (ingroup) • But this only happens IF we see ourselves as a member of a prestigious group • The question is, how do groups get this prestige?

17. Background • To maintain a positive self-identity we will tend to ‘put-down’ outgroups, therefore boosting our ingroups status. • This process involves the negative categorization of outgroups and negative comparison with the ingroup. This is how prejudice is created. • Discrimination will occur if we need to compete in some fashion with the out-group.

18. Review • Prejudice • Discrimination • In-group • Out-group • SIT • Categorization • Identification • Comparison

19. Discrimination • Sneeches

20. Background • Tajfel’s SIT attempts to explain: • Intergroup discrimination • Prejudice on the basis of group membership and self-identity

21. Background • Henri Tajfel , along with many other social psychologists, is interested in the psychological processes that underlie prejudice and discrimination.

22. Aim • To investigate the minimal conditions in which prejudice and discrimination can occur. • To demonstratethat merely putting people into groups (categorization)is sufficient for people todiscriminate in favor of their own group and against members of the other group.

23. Method/Procedure • 2 laboratory experiments • IV type of allocation they were asked to make • DV the choices they made (either being fair or showing discrimination)

24. The First Experiment • Sample: 64 boys who were 14-15 years old from a comprehensive school in a suburb of Bristol. • They came to the laboratory in separate groups of eight. • All the boys in each group were from the same 'House' in the same form at the school, so that they knew each other well before the experiment.

25. 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.

26. Procedure • In the first part the boys were brought together in a lecture room and were told that the researcher was interested in the study of visual judgments.

27. Procedure • Forty clusters of varying numbers of dots were flashed on a screen. • The boys were asked to estimate the number of dots in each cluster and to record each estimate.

28. Procedure • After the boys had completed their estimates they were told that in judgments of this kind some people consistently overestimatethe number of dots and some consistently underestimate the number.

29. Procedure • After the judgments had been made they were “scored” by one of the experimenters. • Participants were told that researchers were interested in other decision making processes & were going to take advantage of their presence to investigate these

30. Procedure • Participants were told they were be grouped on the basis of the visual judgments they had just made. • Randomly assigned: • half to the 'under estimators' • half to the 'over estimators

31. Procedure • They were given the following instructions:. • The task would consist of giving others participants points which would then be converted into real money at the end of the experiment

32. Procedure • They would not know the identity of the individuals to whom they would be assigning these rewards & penalties since everyone would have a code number

33. Procedure • Each boy went to another room on their own, and was given a booklet containing 18 pages • On each page there were 14 boxes containing two numbers each

34. Procedure • The numbers in the top row of the matrix were the rewards and penalties to be awarded to one person and those in the bottom row were those to be awarded to another • They were not giving money to themselves

35. Procedure The participant had to check one column e.g. 12 and –25 or –9 and 4

36. Procedure • At the end of the task each boy would be brought back into the first room and would receive the amount of money the other boys had awarded him

37. Procedure • The value of each point they were awarding was a tenth of a penny • Each row of the matrix was labeled • # of over estimators • # of under estimators

38. Procedure • 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 boys’ own group and one row referred to the other group.

39. Results • In the intergroup choices the large majority of participants gave more money to members of their own group

40. Results • When the boys had an entirely in-group (or out-group) choice to make, they tended towards the point of maximum fairness (this would be 0 and –1 in our example).

41. Conclusion • Discrimination occurredas aresult of simply designating in-group and out-group membership (categorization) • Choices were not made to maximize everyone’s winnings (joint maximum profit) but instead to maximize groupprofits.

42. The Second Experiment • Sample:48 new boys • 3 groups of 16 • Aesthetic preference: as the basis of the division into two groups • The boys were shown 12 slides of paintings: 6 by Paul Klee and 6 by Wassily Kandinsky & asked to express their preference.

43. Wassily Kandinsky Paul Klee The paintings were shown without any signatures so that the boys could be assigned at random to the Klee or Kandinsky group.

44. Procedure • After they had judged the paintings they were then told that they were being divided into groups • They were classified as the 'Klee group' or the 'Kandinsky group' named after the actual painters whose work had been shown. • But really this was random

45. Procedure • They were told that the study was about 'decision making' • Required them to allocate points to other students • To make their allocations the participants were shown a matrix & asked to choose a pair of numbers from the same column

46. Procedure • Tajfel wanted to assess 3 things: • Maximum joint profit(MJP): a boy could give the largest reward to members of both groups • Maximum ingroup profit(MIP): a boy could choose the largest reward for the member of his own group regardless of the reward to the boy from the other group

47. Procedure • Tajfel wanted to assess 3 things: • Maximum difference(MD): largest possible difference in gain between a member of in-group and a member of out-group, in favor of the in-group

48. Procedure • Different matrices were designed

49. You are in the Klee group • MJP =19-25 (adding) • MIP =19-25 (largest # for your group) • MD =7-1 (biggest difference between the groups, favoring yours)

50. Results • Significant tendency to use maximum difference in favor of the in-group at the expense of maximum in-group profit • even if this meant that the ingroup lost out on points