H.Tajfel è il più autorevole dei ricercatori che si sono impegnati nel definire le condizioni minime in cui compare il comportamento di discriminazione tra il proprio gruppo d'appartenenza e un gruppo esterno.
Dunque, gli esperimenti a cui ci si riferisce sono quelli che hanno utilizzato il così detto paradigma dei gruppi minimali.
Il presupposto di questa formulazione è che se si dividono dei soggetti che non hanno nulla in comune (anche sulla base di criteri irrilevanti), si introduce per ciò stesso una categorizzazione intergruppo. 
Tale categorizzazione è sufficiente a produrre alterazioni significative degli orientamenti di giudizio.
In uno di questi esperimenti curati da Tajfel (1971), ai soggetti sperimentali, alunni di circa 15 anni di una stessa classe, veniva chiesto di esprimere la preferenza per l'uno o l'altro di due pittori ad essi sconosciuti (Klee o Kandisky). Si trattava tuttavia di due gruppi di cui i ragazzi non conoscevano la composizione; se per esempio un ragazzo aveva dichiarato di apprezzare maggiormente Klee, sapeva di essere stato inserito nel gruppo Klee ma non aveva nessuna informazione su chi fossero - tra gli altri compagni - quelli che avevano effettuato la sua stessa scelta. Tale categorizzazione è sufficiente a produrre alterazioni significative degli orientamenti di giudizio. In condizione di isolamento reciproco veniva a questo punto chiesto ai ragazzi di decidere la suddivisione di punti (equivalenti sums of money) between two other anonymous subjects (that they know only the group membership) from time to time referring to some different arrays of payment. 
Because of how the matrices were structured, the boys - who did not enjoy any personal benefit as a result of their decisions - could essentially adopt three different strategies for the distribution of rewards: 3. could opt for the alternative that maximizes the difference between what was given to the members of their group and what was given to the children of the other group. In this case (maximum differential advantage) obtained a lower absolute advantage (compared to the alternatives above). For example, with reference to two of the arrays to use, click on the 13/13 so before the second, the boys secured without discrimination to their classmates the same common benefit, choosing 19 / 1 on the first matrix of a comrade benefit enormously own group than the pictorial companion while the other group and obtained the best result ever possible, by choosing the 7 / 1 could confirm the advantage of 'inside' would not have offered to the partner of their group painting the best possible result (that 19/25 is achievable but it also means choosing to earn more than the guy painting the other group).
Of these strategies, the first (maximum joint profits) is found to be very little pursued, the maximum profit for the group's membership had some importance, but more often than not how to achieve a maximum difference in favor of the group membership. The results
showed that the strategy is therefore most influential decisions was to achieve a maximum relative difference in favor of group membership, even though other strategies were more 'rational' or 'useful' than the diversification of behavior in relation to membership groups.
In other words: the study of Tajfel showed that the subjects more attractive to the prospect of securing a figure higher than that of the other group instead of gaining a higher absolute but through a strategy of compensation of the external group.
It is therefore possible to infer that a minimal categorization into two groups based on irrelevant criteria can be provided sufficient to generate a behavior of discrimination between groups and therefore a favoritism towards members of their group.
In light of subsequent experimental investigations, Tajfel Notes:
"It may be useful to consider the differences between sets of results we ¬ Nuti October, and the results of previous work relatively close, in conception and method, the research described in here: Sheriff's work on intergroup conflict. Its purpose is to investigate, in a clear and explicit, the effects of a zero-sum conflict between groups [I win, you lose; ed], introduced in a clear and explicit attitudes toward the group outside and the consequent subjects' behavior. Moreover, membership of a group and against the hostility of the external group was intensified both through a prolonged intra-group interaction of the subjects themselves. In our experiments, there was a well-defined external conflict, if there was any competition (ie, acts which were aiming at a differentiation between the groups in favor of its own), it was introduced fully and actively in the situation by the subjects themselves after the investigators had their part introduced the notion of group. The subjects had never been part of a set of "group", had never interacted nor knew who and who belonged to their group to another; on them, had not been any pressure to act in clear social benefit of their group, and their individual interest was not in any way involved in the allocation of a sum of money greater than a member of their group. In contrast, a systematic use of the strategy of maximum joint profits, could ensure that all parties receive more money by the investigators. "
And this supposed need for differentiation (or indicate specific psychological between groups) that seems to produce, under certain conditions, the most important social categorization based on the sequence - social identity - social comparison.
In fact, with his experimental contribution has Tajfel dato avvio ad un inesausto dibattito sulle ragioni che portano alla discriminazione tra gli individui in quanto appartenenti a gruppi diversi. Tra le spiegazioni più significative vi è quella avanzata di Willem Doise in termini di processi di categorizzazione. Doise [1976], richiamandosi in particolare allo studio di Tajfel e Wilkes [1963], afferma che i comportamenti discriminanti e i giudizi tendenziosi sono frutto di un processo cognitivo fondamentale quale è quello della differenziazione categoriale. Tale processo, come abbiamo avuto modo di riferire, consiste in una accentuazione delle differenze intercategoriali e in una accentuazione dei fattori di somiglianza intracategoriale.
La funzione del processo di differenziazione - ben chiarisce R. Brown - Is "to refine the distinctions between the categories - and correspondingly, to confuse the differences in them - to improve the organization and structure of our physical and social world."
0 comments:
Post a Comment