Social Psychology
Lecture 12
Inter-group relations
Jane Clarbour Room: PS/B007
email: jc129
Objectives
• Give an account of the role of social
categorization in group behaviour
• State significance of what is termed the
‘maximum difference’ in favour of the ingroup
• Demonstrate an understanding of the basic
principles of Self-Categorization Theory
• Consider the implications of Social Identity
Theory for wage bargaining
• Discuss the role of social categorization in
defining what is meant by a social group.
THE SHERIF EXPERIMENTS
• Competition as a ‘key’ element in group
differentiation
– Observations were divided into different
stages:
•
•
•
•
Stage 1: acquaintanceship
Stage 2: group differentiation
Stage 3: competition
Stage 4: cooperation (for later study)
Sherif’s findings
• Results
– Cooperation
friendships
increases
• not occurred since
acquaintanceship)
cross-group
Stage
1
(Group
Conclusions
– Competitive goals cause inter-group
conflict
– Superordinate goals cause inter-group
co-operation.
Social categorisation
• Social categorisation can lead to
intergroup discrimination
– Them vs. us
• Discrimination against outgroup
– Favour the ingroup
Bristol inter-group relations project
Tajfel et al (1971) Experiment 1: Dots
‘Minimum group’ effects of categorisation
on inter-group behaviour
– (i) Neutral condition
– (ii) Evaluative condition
• Nature of choices (reward/penalty):
– Ingroup: 2 members (own group)
– Outgoup: 2 members (other group)
– Intergroup: 1 member (own) / 1 member (other group)
Group classification
Ss then told they will:
– allocate rewards (real money) to other Ss.
– and other Ss will allocate rewards to them
• They were not told the names of the Ss but
they were told the groups
• At no time would they allocate money to
themselves
Findings
No difference between the value and neutral
conditions.
– But striking differences over 3 choices:
• For ingroup and outgroup choices
– principle of maximum fairness was observed.
• For differential choices
– strong ingroup preference.
This is a striking result in that we might have expected Ss
simply to have tried to make as much money out of the
experiments as possible.
Maximum difference Tajfel et al (1971)
Experiment 2: Klee & Klandinsky
• Maximum joint payoff
– Maximum common benefit
(10p/10p cf. 8p/5p).
• Maximum ingroup payoff
– highest points to the ingroup member
(10p/5p cf. 7p/7p).
• Maximum ingroup difference
– greatest difference in favour of ingroup. (10p/5p
cf.12p/10p).
Conclusions
• Minimal ingroup-outgroup social situation
created without even group interaction
• And, when categorised on trivial defining
attribute
• Ss still preferred to assist their own group
rather than gain maximum profit for all.
– So, intergroup bias can be explained in terms of
group similarity effects
More minimal group experiments…
BILLIG & TAJFEL (‘73)
• Was cause similarity?
– Varied group similarity with categorisation
• (4 groups)
– Subjects were told of random placement into
group
– Ingroup bias regarding distribution of reward still
evident towards ingroup even when Ss were
dissimilar
Experimental bias?
BILLIG (1976)
Increases in ingroup favouritism found with
expectation of both:
 competitive interaction
 Cooperative interaction
 Increased most with existing and
meaningful categories
Social Identity Theory (SIT)
• Based on Festinger’s theory of social
comparison processes:
– Individuals have a drive to compare
themselves with others
– This generates information for selfevaluation
Positive social identity
• Social groups strive to develop positive social
identity
– Positive social group identity is achieved at
expense of outgroup
Re: the Bristol matrix studies• Ingroup bias is a means for Ss to achieve
positively valued group distinctiveness
– Not a product of group distinctiveness.
– Positive ingroup identity only achieve by awarding
more money to the ingroup than to the outgoup
Real life parallels –
Generality of Tajfel’s findings
• Domingo £1 paid more than Pavorotti at
Wembley
• Brown’s (1978) Factory worker study
– Study of industrial relations in engineering factory
(aircraft engines).
– Studied 3 groups of workers
• Toolroom
• Development
• Production
(By order of status)
Pay-roll negotiations
• Shop stewards selected randomly
from all parts of factory to negotiate
wage increases
– Presented matrices like Tajfel’s experiment
• Toolroom – vs- Production & Development
• Development – vs- Toolroom & Production
• Production – vs - Development & Toolroom
Results of pay-roll negotiations
• Production stewards (lowest status)
– aimed for parity with development (next one up)
• Development stewards
– aimed for maximum difference from production
workers (one below)
• Toolmen (highest status)
– also aimed for maximum difference even to
extent of taking £2 per week cut in salary!
Conclusions from pay-roll
negotiations
• Rewards are used to establish positive
ingroup identity
• Preferred strategy is the differential
• Supports Tajfel’s findings on ingroup
bias
Social implications
• Categorisation defines people as a
group
• Categorisation is necessary condition
to produce discriminatory behaviour
between groups
Emerson (1960) quote:
“A nation is a body of people who feel that they
are a nation”.
If people think of themselves as a group,
then they are a group…
So, at the next
group meeting
we’ll discuss
this further….
Self-Categorization Theory TURNER et al.
(1987)
• Shared social categorization of
themselves in contrast to others
– Forms basis of attitude & behaviour
• Cognitive process
• Depends upon social situation
When categorise self as:
individual
personal goal
group
group goal
People standing at bus stop not a psychological
group – unless think so!
Criticism of Social Identity Theory
MUMMENDEY (1995)
– Inter-group research principally focused on
distribution of positive resources
• (i.e. points or money)
Social treatment of groups
• Stereotype
– a perception that most members of a category
share some attribute due to:
• ‘Outgroup homogeneity’
– the tendency to see outgroup members as all alike
• Prejudice
– negative attitude, emotion or behaviour towards
members of a group on account of their
membership of that group
•
•
•
•
Religion
Gender
Football supporters
Disabled
Black sheep effect
– ingroup members judged more
harshly than outgroup in order to
maintain positive social identity
• When the ‘black sheep’ strays too far
from group norms - becomes excluded
(Marques & Paez, 1994)
Social cohesion
• The extent that group members view
one another as matching group
prototype (Hogg, 1987).
SUMMARY
• Social Identity Theory
– Groups seek to achieve a positive social identity typically at the expense of other groups.
• Maximum difference in favour of the ingroup/differentials
– A way of establishing a positive identity
• Self-Categorisation Theory
– Individuals who share a common categorisation of
themselves in contrast to others may be regarded
as a group.
Key reading
• Baron et al (1992)
– Group process, group decision, group action –
Chapter 8: Group aggression and intergroup
conflict
• Brown (1978)
– Divided we fall: An analysis of relations between
sections of a factory workforce
• Mummendey (1995)
Tutorial 4
– Positive distinctiveness and social discrimination
• Tajfel (1971)
Tutorial 4
– Social categorisation and intergroup behaviour.