Social categorization
The social categorization is a study conducted in 1971 by Henri Tajfel , MG cheap, RP Bundy and Claude Flament. The study was designed to reveal and substantiate the effects of social categorization on intergroup behavior. Neither individual interests nor hostile attitudes should be the cause of discriminatory behavior. These prerequisites were guaranteed by creating a categorization. On the basis of two experiments, the effects of the categorization could be analyzed and a connection with intergroup behavior was established.
Experiment 1
The first experiment was designed with the aim of testing the following hypothesis: A categorization with value (evaluative condition) shows more discriminatory behavior towards the other group (outgroup) than a categorization without value (neutral condition) . In the first step, the 64 male students from a school class between 14 and 15 who took part in the experiment were categorized into different groups. In the second step, the effects of the generated categorization could then be analyzed.
Generation of the categorization
To generate the categorization, the students were presented with 40 different images, each with a different number of points, which had to be assessed. After the students had given their assessment, the categorization (classification) was based on two experimental conditions:
- Neutral condition - There are overestimates and underestimates, whereby neither of the two characteristics is valued.
- value condition - There are more accurate and less accurate estimators. More precise estimators are better placed in this case.
In order to better understand the categorization generated in the experiment, it is important at this point to present the concept of social categorization and to explain it with regard to each individual.
In the social categorization is a process by which social events or objects that the pattern of behavior, ideas / standards and the value system can be viewed by individuals as equivalent in, are grouped into a category / group. This makes it clear that every individual is part of a social category and that this strongly influences the behavioral patterns of every individual.
Effects of categorization
The 64 male students were told that they were divided into four groups of 16 students each based on these experimental conditions. In reality, however, the classification was arbitrary without taking into account either the estimated number of points or the accuracy.
Following the division, students should distribute a reward or punishment in the form of money to two individuals. At no point was it possible to reward or punish oneself, and it was also not known which people were specifically rewarded or punished. This task was carried out using a questionnaire with various matrices. In each matrix, one line related to a member of its own group (ingroup) and one line to a member of the other group (outgroup). There were three different cases for the matrices. In the first case, the students had to reward or punish one member from the ingroup and one member from the outgroup. In the second case, they should reward or punish two members from the ingroup and in the third case they should reward or punish two members from the outgroup. Only one column could be chosen per matrix, which then determined how the reward / punishment was distributed between the two individuals.
Depending on the column chosen, the students opted for a fair distribution (F), which indicates the value on the matrix aimed at a fair reward or punishment between the two different individuals. Or they opted for an MJP (maximum joint payoff), in English a maximum joint profit of the two individuals, which in the example given is in every column for matrix A, since each column is the sum of 15, and for matrix B with the fair distribution, namely for the values −1 and 0; and 0 and −1.
Result
For the first experiment, it should be noted that no significant differences could be found between the groups and the various conditions, i.e. between the group with the neutral condition and between the group with the evaluating condition. The reason for this was that all groups acted in favor of their own group (ingroup) and thus exhibited discriminatory behavior towards the other group (outgroup). Accordingly, the hypothesis put forward at the beginning could not be confirmed.
Experiment 2
The aim of the second experiment was to confirm the results of the previous experiment and to investigate further variables. The MIP (Maximum Ingroup Payoff), the maximum profit of one's own group and the MD (Maximum Difference in favor of the ingroup), the maximum difference between one's own (ingroup) and another group (outgroup) in favor of one's own, were introduced.
Generation of the categorization
The subjects of this study were 48 male students from the same school aged 14 to 15 years. They were asked to express a preference between pictures by two painters (Klee and Kandinsky), and none of the test subjects knew which picture was drawn by which painter. In reality, some of the test subjects were even shown pictures by the same artist, which, as in experiment one, resulted in a fictitious division into two allegedly formed groups. One group consisted of students who favored Klee and one of those who allegedly favored Kandinsky. After submitting their preferences, the individual participants were only told which group they belonged to (either Klee or Kandinsky), but not which and how many members their own group consisted of.
Effects of categorization
In the second part of the study, as in the first experiment, the participants were to distribute rewards to two individuals in the form of money. In various matrices, the students could again indicate how much reward they wanted to give their own group (ingroup) and the other group (outgroup). The structure of the matrices corresponded to those from experiment one, except that the newly introduced variables could also be differentiated, which the students of course knew nothing about.
In matrix A, the maximum profit of one's own group (MIP) and the maximum difference between the groups (MD) coincide and are both in the first column, i.e. 19 and 1. The maximum joint profit (MJP) in matrix A is at other end at 7 and 25. With regard to matrix B, the examined variables are distributed differently. In this case, the maximum difference between the groups (MD) is in the first place in column 7 and 1. The maximum joint profit (MJP) and the maximum profit of the own group (MIP) are both in the last column at 19 and 25 to find.
If, as in the first experiment, the students would continue to favor their own group (ingroup), then the decision for matrix A of the second experiment would have to be on the first column and the decision for matrix B on the last column. The results show whether this tendency was still noticeable.
Result
The second experiment showed that the simple division into groups based on an aesthetic preference is sufficient to generate discriminatory behavior towards another group or favoring one's own group. The matrices that showed the distribution of the reward could reveal different tendencies of intergroup behavior. It was shown that the test subjects did not distribute the reward to all participants in a use-maximizing and thus rational way, but instead favored their own group significantly, as in the first experiment. At this point, it should be pointed out once again that the test subjects all belonged to the same school and already knew each other before the experiment.
Furthermore, there was a tendency that the test participants even accepted losses in the amount of their own reward if this meant that their own group (ingroup) received more in relation to the other group (outgroup). In Matrix B, the experiment participants therefore opted for the first column rather than the last, which, as before, could have maximized the maximum profit of their own group. Accordingly, the greatest possible difference to the other group was given greater importance than a high gain for one's own group.
Empirical determination of the investigation
Social categorization causes intergroup discrimination: The results of the experiments show that mere categorization, i.e. the arbitrary and purely cognitive division into groups, is already sufficient to trigger intergroup discrimination. Because the categorization creates a social identity for the participants through which they identify with their ingroup. When deciding how the reward is to be distributed among the members of the groups, the ingroup is therefore clearly favored and even separated as much as possible from the outgroup, so that intergroup conflicts arise.
Literature / sources
- Lücken, Markus: The cognitive-affective crossfire in the minority-majority context. Kiel 2002. ( http://www.gesis.org )
- Lücken, Markus / Simon, Bernd: Cognitive and affective experiences of minority and majority members: The role of group size, status, and power. In: Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Kiel 2004, pp. 396-413. ( http://www.reasearchgate.net )
- Tajfel, Henri / Billig, MG / Bundy, RP: Social categorization and intergroup behavior. In: European Journal of Social Psychology. Marseille 1971, pp. 149-178. ( http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com )
- Tajfel, Henri: Group conflict and prejudice. Origin and function of social stereotypes. Vienna 1982. ISBN 3-456-81219-1