Site Overlay

EXPERIMENTS IN INTERGROUP DISCRIMINATION HENRI TAJFEL PDF

Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination Henri Tajfel PDF – Free download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read online for free. Experiments in Intergroup Discriminati. ON. MATRIX by Henri Tajfel. B. MATRIX 3. MATRIX 4. U. Intergroup discrimination is a feature logical causation. In The. Exp eriments in Intergroup Discrimination. Can cliscrimination be trctced to by Flenri Tajfel .. problem lvas to create experimental con- didons that would.

Author: Zulkijin Gojin
Country: Central African Republic
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Travel
Published (Last): 16 December 2012
Pages: 490
PDF File Size: 19.12 Mb
ePub File Size: 18.27 Mb
ISBN: 760-4-65031-412-6
Downloads: 44454
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Kigacage

The boys would not know the identity of the individuals to whom they would be assigning these rewards and penalties since intervroup would be given a code number.

It was also found that the boys were more concerned in creating as much difference as possible between the amounts allocated to each group than consolidating a greater amount for everyone altogether; of course favouring their own respective groups. Tajfel maintained that competition was not a sufficient factor in the creation of intergroup discrimination. This need for a sense of security and superiority can be met by belonging to a hdnri in-group and showing hostility towards out-groups.

This page has been accessed 26, times.

Intergroup Discrimination and the Henri Tajfel Experiments

The independent variable was the type of allocation they were asked to make and the dependent variable was the choices they made either being fair or showing discrimination. In the test, each of the participants was to allocate amounts to another group member without awarding any money to himself. Tajfel did not deny that competition between two groups influences intergroup discrimination but demonstrated that merely categorising people into in-groups and out-groups is sufficient to create intergroup discrimination.

The First Experiment under-estimators and over-estimators. Many social psychological theories argue that society may be much more important than personality types in accounting for prejudice. This article is a part of the guide: The results later on showed whether subjects ended up discriminating against the out-group or not. Most of this article is based on this article: The boys were required to make three types of choice.

The Research Council of Norway. In the centre of the matrices was a box with either 13 or 17 points in both the top and bottom rows, allowing for an equal allocation. The theory is useful because as well as explaining the social causes of prejudice it may also be able to explain individual differences, i. In the second experiment, the experimenters are interested in the strategy adopted by the boys, when allocating points.

  CATIA PRISMATIC MACHINING PDF

This time the matrices consisted of 13 boxes, and were designed to facilitate the use of any one of the three strategies, mentioned above. The subjects were 64 boys, 14 and 15 years old from a comprehensive school in a suburb of Bristol.

Human Psychology

At first the boys were brought together in a lecture room hfnri were told that the experimenters were interested in the study of visual judgements. Want to stay up to date? In one condition the top row of the matrices represented the amounts that could be allocated to a fellow group member.

Take it with you wherever you go.

These boys already knew each other to some extent as the all attended the same school and indeed were members of the same year group and school “house.

In the first part of the experiment, the group was randomly divided into two where each group consisted of 8 participants. The subjects in the study were presented with a clear alternative to discriminating against the outgroup. For example when two groups want to achieve the same goal but cannot both have it, hostility is produced between them.

Note that each box within a matrix forces the subject to favour one boy over another; there is no box that allows equal amounts to be given. It is possible to criticise Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory. Even more interestingly though, the boys were found to be more concerned with creating as large a difference as possible between the amounts allocated to each group in favour of their own groupthen in gaining a greater amount for everybody, across the two groups.

Henri Tajfel, experiments Intergroup Discrimination. It also follows that since we instantly discriminate against the outsiders, we can also discriminate against others for no apparent reason aside from developed prejudice.

Scientific American, The important choice for Tajfel is the intergroup choice. Results The primary aim given to the boys was to maximise the profit. Privacy policy About PsychWiki Disclaimers. Navigation Main Page Recent changes help! The experiment differed in two ways.

  C2026 DATASHEET PDF

The Henri Tajfel Experiments Intergroup discrimination refers to the phenomenon where factions of a single group develop conflicts against each other as by-products of competition and prejudice. The results showed that a significant majority chose to allocate money for the good of only their own group. In this experiment, the groups were randomly allocated to two groups after the boys had judged 12 paintings by two “foreign painters. In the other condition the boys were told that some people are consistently more accurate than others.

The list did not indicate any personal identifiers e. Save this course for later Don’t have time for it all now? There were out-group choices, with both top and bottom row referred to members of the different group from the boy.

It should be noted that for each box, within the matrix, there was another that held its inverse. Emerson’s “Transcendental” approach to History. Tajfel ij also been criticised for the way he interpreted his results. From the first part of the experiment, it was found that majority of the participants significantly allocated greater amounts to members of their own group compared to the outsiders.

Tajfel points out that this last finding is blatant discrimination caused by categorising the boys into meaningless groups. The experimenters however told the participants that they were categorised according to their scores in tests they just previously took.

The results demonstrated that when the boys had the choice between maximising the profit for all and maximising the profit for their own group, they chose the latter. The paper questions the reasons that attributed to these negative stereotypes.

Tajfel examined whether particpants would discriminate against outgroup members when their group was defined by minimal information. The students were given a booklet of matrices and told that the task would consist of giving to others rewards and penalties in real money.

There were two conditions in the first part of the experiment.