Social identity theory (SP) Flashcards
Outline Tajfel’s Study (1971): minimal group paradigm experiment 2
Tajfel wanted to investigate the human tendency to form social identities and produce prejudice.
48 boys from a Bristol comprehensive school were arranged into 3 groups of 16. The boys were categorised into groups according to what they thought was their preference for paintings. The boys were shown various paintings by Klee and Kandinsky. They told the boys their groups were based on those preferences. In reality, the group assignment was random.
The boys then had to do a point allocation task using the matrix below. The top row represented how many points they’d assign to someone in their group. The bottom row represents the corresponding points the other group would get.
Tajfel found that the boys would consistently choose to reward their own group a small amount, just so they can give the other group a smaller points value. Ignoring the fair alternatives in the centre.
The boys failed to maximise the points their own group would get. Just so the other group had a smaller points value. This demonstrates that even with randomly assigned groups, there was in-group favouritism behaviours and out-group discrimination.
What does Tajfel’s 2nd experiment conclude about social groups and prejudice? (Minimal group paradigm experiment 2)
Prejudice doesn’t just occur from completion but the idea and reality of being in different groups (in-groups and out-groups) is enough for people to create bias and prejudice. We have norms of behaviour for out-groups which include discriminating against them
Evaluate a strength of Tajfel’s Study (minimal group paradigm experiment 2)
I: A strength of the theory is that Tajfel’s research supports it as an explanation for prejudice
J: The boys were told they were places in three groups and that each of them had to give a point to their own group and then points for the other group. It was seen that the boys would give low points to themselves so the other group would receive even lower points. Hence, even though there wasn’t competition the presence and idea of another group was enough to cause prejudice point giving behaviour in the boys
E: Suggesting that simple group identity is enough to lead prejudiced behaviour against another group, and favourable behaviours within a group
Counter argument: The task of assigning points lacks mundane realism. Prejudice in real life involves more significant benefits for the in-group, such as promotions or special treatment. The allocation of points in this study does not adequately reflect the complexity of prejudice, this study in support of the theory can be questioned.
Evaluate a weakness of Tajfel’s Study (minimal group paradigm experiment 2)
I: The theory on attitudes towards out-groups however may be ethnocentric to Western cultures. (focusing or only applicable to western culture)
J: Wetherell (1982) found that in her replication of Tajfel’s experiment with 8-year-old schoolchildren in New Zealand, indigenous Polynesian students were more generous with their points allocations to the out-group as compared to their Caucasian peers
E: This suggests that SIT may be ethnocentric, as it fails to predict the non-prejudiced behaviours of collectivist cultures when being split into different groups.
