Social Identity Theory

Part of an individuals self-concept derived

from his or her membership to a social
group
Hypothesis:
Discriminatory intergroup behavior can
sometimes be expected even if the
individual is not involved in a conflict of
interest and has no history of attitudes of
intergroup hostility.

Experiment 1 - 1970
Aim:
He wanted to demonstrate that merely
putting people in groups is enough for
people to discriminate in favor of their
group.

Sample:

64 Boys:
Ages14-15
School in Bristol
They arrived in group of 8 (8 groups of 8)

All boys knew each other.

Parts of the Experiment:
First part of the experiment served to
establish intergroup categorization.

The second part was to asses the effects
of that categorization (discrimination)

Part 1 - Procedure: Establish
Intergroup Categorization
Boys were brought together in a lecture room.
Procedure:
Boys were told that the study was about visual
judgment.

You will
participate in a
study of visual
judgement!
Procedure:
40 clusters of varying numbers of dots were
flashed.
Procedure:

Boys were asked to estimate the dots and
record your estimation.

Please estimate
the amount of
dots.
25
15
10
24
13
17
7
30
After the completed the task the experimenter said that:
In judgments of this kind
some people consistently
overestimate the dots and
others underestimate them.
After the judgements were made, they were scored by one of
the experimenter.
Overestimator, underestimator,
underestimator, overestimator,
overestimator, overestimatos,
overstimator
Participants were told they were going to be grouped
based on their visual judgement however this was actually
randomly assigned.










Half overestimator Half underestimator
7
30
Based on your
answer you
are.
They thought they fell on this group
Im an
underestimator
Im an
overestimator
Choice Task
You will give other participants points.
This will be converted into real money at
the end of the experiment. You will be
able to make some money for your
participation in the study.
Part 2 - Procedure: Effects of
Categorization (Discrimination)
You will not know the identity of the
individuals you will be assigning these
rewards or penalties to.
They knew a code number
#34 #45 #12 #57



Hugo Daniel Jesus
Alfredo Patrick Nelson Rodrigo
#04 #75 #39


#45
???
Each boy went to another room on their own
an received a booklet of 18 pages.
On each page, there were 14 boxes (matrix) containing
2 numbers.









The numbers on the top row were rewards and penalties
to be awarded to one person and those in the bottom
were those awarded to another.

Remember you
are not giving
money to
yourselves!

The participant had to check one column (make a
choice)





The numbers on the top row were rewards and penalties
to be awarded to one person and those in the bottom
were those awarded to another.

Choices:
Overestimator and overestimator

Underestimator and underestimator

Overestimator and underestimator
(intergroup)
At the end of the task each participant was
taken to the 1 room and were given the
amount money other boys awarded them
(each point was about a tenth of a penny).
Results:

Intergroup: They gave more money to
members in their group (In group bias).

With the ingroup and out group they were
fair.





The numbers on the top row were rewards and penalties
to be awarded to one person and those in the bottom
were those awarded to another.

Im an
overestimator
In
Group
In
Group
Out
Group
Out
Group
Conclusion:
Discrimination occurred as a result of simply
designation of in-group and out-group
membership.
IV: Type of allocation they were asked to
make:
Within in-group
Within out-group
Inter-group


DV: Choices they made:
Fair Allocation
Fair (discriminatory)
Variables:
Experiment 2 - 1971
Sample:

48 Boys:
Tested in 3 groups of 16 each
2 conditions


Procedure:
They were shown 12
slides of paintings:
6 by Kandinsky
6 by Klee



No artists signatures
Procedure:
Boys were asked to express their
preferences.

Please express
your aesthetic
preference.
This
one
This
one
This
one
This
one
This
one
This
one
This
one
This
one
They were then allocated into one of two
groups (the Kandinsky Group or the Klee
Group)









Kandinsky Klee
I like this
painting
Based on your
answer you
are.
I like this
other
one
They thought they fell on this group
Im part of the
Klee Group
Im part of the
Kandinsky
Group
Now you will be given a rewards
allocation task where you will award
points to two other boys (one from each
group) at a time.

Part 2 - Procedure: Effects of
Categorization (Discrimination)
You will not know the identity of the
individuals you will be assigning these
rewards or penalties to.
They knew a code number
#34 #45 #12 #57



Hugo Daniel Jesus
Alfredo Patrick Nelson Rodrigo
#04 #75 #39


#45
???
Each boy went to another room on their own
an received a booklet of 18 pages.
On each page, there were 14 boxes (matrix) containing
2 numbers.









The numbers on the top row were rewards and penalties
to be awarded to one person and those in the bottom
were those awarded to another.

On each page, there were 14 boxes (matrix) containing
2 numbers.









Here they would show
favoritism for their group.
Im Klee
Tajfel varied the grid to create conditions where it was
not in their best interest to show in-group favouritism.









Here they would show
favoritism for their group.
What
the.!!!
Tajfel varied the grid to create conditions where it was
not in their best interest to show in-group favouritism.









This strategy would give the
out-group more profit!
What
the.!!!









This strategy would
represent fairness!
Now way!.
This strategy maximizes the difference in
favor of the in-group








The smallest gain for my
group but the bisggest the
difference
Even if it meant they scored fewer points
for prizes overall, it was more important
to ensure their group had more points
than the out-group.