Further examples of discrepancies in Adorno et al's theory come in the form of 'The Robbers' Cave Field Experiment', carried out by Sherif et al in 1961. In the experiment, there were two groups of boys - the 'Eagles' and the 'Rattlers'. In the first week, these two groups were completely segregated from one another, having little or no contact with the other group while they participated in tasks within their own group. At the end of a week the two groups were brought together and proceeded to take part in activities by which each group was working against the other, with prizes for each member of the winning team. The introduction of this competitive factor brought strong feelings of in-group solidarity with clear aggression directed at the opposing group. At the end of the first week, the two groups were presented with a superordinate goal, taking precidence over previous goals, in which the two groups of boys would have to co-operate to free a truck which was bringing a film for the groups to see. With the event of this superordinate goal, inter-group relations increased as a result of the two groups working together. Within this experiment, the boys did not have authoritarian personalities. Instead they developed prejudice as a result of competition between two groups, that prejudice ebbing away as they needed to work together. This fact challanges the authoritarian personality theory.
The Social Identity Theory, formulated by Tajfel in 1978, argues that discrimination between groups can be created by the mere knowledge of another group's existance, without the presence of competition or threat. Tajfel and Turner in 1979 argued that this discrimination occurs because members of a group emphasise and exaggerate their own group's qualities (in-group favouratism) while simultaneously overemphasising and exaggerating another group's bad qualities and faults (negative out-group bias). This is done in an attempt to enhance the personal image and self-esteem of the individual members of the group as they strive to portray their group in a positive light to others who may be observing. The Social Identity Theory (Tajfel 1981) has the basis that membership of a group, whether it be a large group such as nationality or a small in-class group in school, provides those within the group with an identity. Posessed with this identity, a group member will feel that they know who or what they are and what they should do while they are in that position, feeling a sense of 'belonging' whilst they are in that social group. Through the categorisation of individuals into groups, a necessary factor in human life, there will automatically be bias and prejudice against any member of any different group.
In 1971, Tajfel conducted an experiment with which to explore his theory. Sixty-four boys aged 14 and 15 were taken from a Bristol comprehensive school and placed into groups of 8. The members of the separate groups were from the same classes in school, and therefore knew each other well before the experiment started. Informed that the experiment was about visual judgements, they were told to estimate the number of dots in each of the 40 dot-clusters that were flashed onto a screen. The boys were provided with the information that some overestimated the dots while others tended to underestimate. After making their judgements on the number of dots, the boys were randomly allocated to either the 'overestimators' group or the 'underestimators' group. The boys, with their group names in mind, were then asked to assign real monitary rewards or penalties to other paricipants, but not to themselves.. They were presented with a table by which the identies of the other participants were not clear, but their group name was. The system of choosing was as such so that the boys could pick from three courses of action: maximum joint profit, this way would ensure the boys as a collective would get the most amount of money possible from the researchers; maximum fairness, this would give each of the pair they chose an equal amount of money and finally, maximum discrimination in favour of the out-group, ensuring that only the randomly allocated group they were in got the rewards. The boys chose maximum fairness when the their choices involved two in-group or two out-group members. However, when the choice was split between one in-group member and one out-group member, they chose to discriminate in favour of the in group member. The study clearly supports Tajfel's theory that discrimination is created even when the two groups are not directly competing. However, the social identity theory does not consider outside factors such as competition for resources etc
It is clear that there is no one set theory to explain prejudice. However, if one chooses to assume there are multiple causes for prejudice then each theory mentioned has a degree of truth - it is probably true to assume people with authoritarian personalities are likely to display the characteristics described in Adorno et al's theory just as they are likely to display prejudiced when pitted against another group or even just placed in a separate group than other people. Prejudice is caused by many factors, each contributing in a different way in order to create a bias within an individual.
