(SIT) Tajfel and Turner (1970) Flashcards
Describe the participants.
64 adolescent boys from a Bristol comprehensive school.
How were the PPS put into groups?
Places into groups according to minimal criteria- whether when estimating the number of dots on a screen, they were under or over-estimators or, whether they liked the same paintings (Klee or Kandinsky). BUT IN REALITY they were placed in groups entirely randomly. This is so that the PPS thought what they had in common was minimal.
What did the groups have to do?
They had to allocate rewards, done by a matrix between both groups. The choice of number set in each matrix demonstrated whether each boy rewarded their own group of the other group, penalised their own or other group, or showed fairness to both groups.
What was competition like?
There was no direct competition between the 2 groups. What members thought they had in common was minimal (liking the same painting, being an under/ over estimator).
What happened with rewards in the groups?
The PPS constantly rewarded their own group, ignoring the fair alternative, therefore demonstrating in-group favouritism, regardless of the fact that the PPS had no idea who was in their group or the other group. The PPS even failed to maximise their own profit in order to ensure that the other group was sufficiently penalised.
What were the members in both groups prepared to do?
Discriminate in favour of the member of their particular group; presumably because this increased their own social standing/ self esteem by the process of social comparison.
What was the most popular points matrix and what did it mean?
Klee- 19
Kandinsky- 21
Maximise in-group profit.
What was the 2nd most popular points matrix and what did it mean?
Klee- 7
Kandinsky- 1
Maximise difference.
What was the remaining 2 points matrix and what do they mean?
Klee- 13
Kandinsky- 13
Maximise fairness.
Klee- 17
Kandinsky- 25
Maximise points.
Why did the groups chose certain things?
PPS overwhelmingly chose to favour their own group by allocating more points to members of their own group, but also favoured maximising difference in favour of the in-group, even though this meant their group achieved fewer points overall & so less chance of a prize.
People are thus prepared to discriminate..
Even before competition between groups is introduced.
What was the aim of Tajfels study?
To test whether the act of placing people into 2 clearly identifiable groups, based on minimal intra-group similarities & not in competition, would be enough to produce prejudice between groups of very similar people.
What was the method?
2 versions of experiment, 1 involving paintings by Klee and Kandinsky, and 1 involving estimating numbers on a screen (over or under estimator). The participants were initially placed into groups according to whether they were under/ over estimators of painting preferences(it was actually RANDOM).
Participants were then given the opportunity to allocate point to members of 2 groups. The PPS did not know who they were allocating point to, but did know which group they belonged to, but did not know which group they belonged to. In another variation, Tajfel manipulated the experiment to see if PPS would maximise the points given to their in-group; or maximise the difference between the in-group and out-group; or ensure each group gets the same point; or maximise the number of points achieved by both groups.
Describe the generalisability (strength) of Tajfels study.
The research has been relocated on many different social groups, not just school boys, adults in Cardiff, female adults in California, soldiers in Germany- all showed similar minimal group effects. Therefore the research does have POPULATION VALIDITY.
Describe the reliability (strength) of Tajfels study.
The study was easy to replicate because the procedure was strictly controlled & very similar results have been obtained across different cultures and groups.
Describe the applicability (strength) of Tajfels study.
In the real world we are often allocated to groups based on minimal criteria, school, workplace. Can be used to reduce prejudice.
Describe the validity (weakness) of Tajfels study.
The study lacked ecological validity because it was quite removed from the real life experiences of the participants. Furthermore, the study was carried out in a university setting which could be unfamiliar to participants. Experimental validity may be questioned because arguably there was implied competition created by the forced nature of the choice participants had to make between members of their in group or those of the out-group.
What were the results?
The PPS overwhelmingly chose to favour their own group by allocating more points to members of their own group. PPS also chose to maximise difference between both groups.
Describe the ethics (weakness)of Tajfels study.
There were no real ethical issues and the participants were not caused distress. As some of the PPS were schoolboys, informed consent and withdrawal may have been an issue as the boys had felt intimidated by the adult researchers and university setting.
Describe the ethics (strength)of Tajfels study.
The research does provide very useful insight into the mechanics of prejudice & discrimination and therefore ways of reducing prejudice and discrimination.
What can we conclude from Tajfels study?
Even when categorised into meaningless groups, PPS still chose to favour their own group rather than other groups. This shows we have the natural tendency in social situations to savour people we have identified with and discriminate against those perceived as different.
In Tajfels variation maximising the difference can be explained with SIT- the in group increase their self esteem by boosting their groups status compared with the out group.
