Minimal group paradigm

Last updated

The minimal group paradigm is a method employed in social psychology. [1] [2] [3] Although it may be used for a variety of purposes, it is best known as a method for investigating the minimal conditions required for discrimination to occur between groups. Experiments using this approach have revealed that even arbitrary distinctions between groups, such as preferences for certain paintings, [4] or the color of their shirts, [5] can trigger a tendency to favor one's own group at the expense of others, even when it means sacrificing in-group gain. [6] [7] [8] [9]

Contents

Methodology

Although there are some variations, the traditional minimal group study consists of two phases. In the first phase, participants are randomly and anonymously divided into two groups (e.g., "Group A" and "Group B"), ostensibly on the basis of trivial criteria (e.g., preference for paintings or the toss of a coin). Sometimes, these participants are strangers to one another. In the second phase, participants take part in an ostensibly unrelated resource distribution task. During this task, participants distribute a valuable resource (e.g., money or points) between other participants who are only identified by code number and group membership (e.g., "participant number 34 of Group A"). Participants are told that, after the task is finished, they will receive the total amount of the resource that has been allocated to them by the other participants.

The main purpose of the procedures in the minimal group paradigm is to exclude "objective" influences from the situation. In the context of in-group favoritism, the anonymity of participants' personal identities excludes the influence of interpersonal favoritism. The omission of the self as a recipient in the resource distribution task excludes the influence of direct personal self-interest. The absence of any link between total in-group gain and individual gain excludes the influence of realistic competition. [10] Finally, the absence of intergroup status hierarchies, together with the triviality and minimal social content of the groups, excludes the influence of normative or consensual discrimination . [11]

Minimal group experiments tend to find that, although participants show a significant degree of fairness in their allocations, [12] they also show a significant tendency to allocate more money or points to in-group members than to out-group members. [13] [14] Importantly, this strategy of maximizing relative in-group gain (maximum differentiation) occurs even when it means sacrificing absolute in-group gain ("Vladimir's choice"). [8]

Development

Henri Tajfel and colleagues originally developed the minimal group paradigm in the early 1970s as part of their attempt to understand the psychological basis of intergroup discrimination. [15] Tajfel's intention was to create groups with as little meaning as possible and then add meaning to discover at what point discrimination would occur. [16] The surprising finding was that, even in the most minimal group conditions, responses favoring the in-group occurred. [6] Although Tajfel and colleagues originally explained minimal group discrimination in terms of a generic norm for social competition that exists across societies, [6] this explanation was later thought to be "uninteresting" and not offering any real explanatory or predictive power. [7] [17] Tajfel instead developed social identity theory's motivational explanation. In social identity theory, people are thought to award more points to their own group than to the out-group in the minimal group paradigm because, in those circumstances, in-group favoritism is the only way in which to achieve positive distinctiveness.

Further uses

Researchers have recently applied the minimal group methodology to study prejudice against migrants. [18] They created two hypothetical groups, ‘Group A’ and ‘Group B’, with random assignments. Members were all fictional, sharing no distinguishing characteristics. Some members were randomly chosen to switch groups, labeled as migrants. Participants rated each member on a seven-point Likert scale for favorability, with migrants receiving significantly lower ratings. This bias is partially attributed to migrants’ exclusion from their original groups and the increased cognitive effort needed to categorize them. [18]

Additionally, the minimal group paradigm explored the out-group homogeneity. [18] Participants were split into two groups, each assigned two positive and two negative traits. They rated their own group and estimated ratings for the opposite group, including the traits’ minimum and maximum scores. Results showed that participants rated their own group more favorably on positive traits and less so on negative traits. They also perceived more variability in their own group’s negative traits and in the out-group’s positive traits, leading to a perception of their own group as both more positive and more diverse compared to the out-group.

See also

Related Research Articles

The out-group homogeneity effect is the perception of out-group members as more similar to one another than are in-group members, e.g. "they are alike; we are diverse". Perceivers tend to have impressions about the diversity or variability of group members around those central tendencies or typical attributes of those group members. Thus, outgroup stereotypicality judgments are overestimated, supporting the view that out-group stereotypes are overgeneralizations. The term "outgroup homogeneity effect", "outgroup homogeneity bias" or "relative outgroup homogeneity" have been explicitly contrasted with "outgroup homogeneity" in general, the latter referring to perceived outgroup variability unrelated to perceptions of the ingroup.

In-group favoritism, sometimes known as in-group–out-group bias, in-group bias, intergroup bias, or in-group preference, is a pattern of favoring members of one's in-group over out-group members. This can be expressed in evaluation of others, in allocation of resources, and in many other ways.

Social dominance orientation (SDO) is a personality trait measuring an individual's support for social hierarchy and the extent to which they desire their in-group be superior to out-groups. SDO is conceptualized under social dominance theory as a measure of individual differences in levels of group-based discrimination; that is, it is a measure of an individual's preference for hierarchy within any social system and the domination over lower-status groups. It is a predisposition toward anti-egalitarianism within and between groups.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">In-group and out-group</span> Sociological notions

In social psychology and sociology, an in-group is a social group to which a person psychologically identifies as being a member. By contrast, an out-group is a social group with which an individual does not identify. People may for example identify with their peer group, family, community, sports team, political party, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or nation. It has been found that the psychological membership of social groups and categories is associated with a wide variety of phenomena.

System justification theory is a theory within social psychology that system-justifying beliefs serve a psychologically palliative function. It proposes that people have several underlying needs, which vary from individual to individual, that can be satisfied by the defense and justification of the status quo, even when the system may be disadvantageous to certain people. People have epistemic, existential, and relational needs that are met by and manifest as ideological support for the prevailing structure of social, economic, and political norms. Need for order and stability, and thus resistance to change or alternatives, for example, can be a motivator for individuals to see the status quo as good, legitimate, and even desirable.

In social psychology, superordinate goals are goals that are worth completing but require two or more social groups to cooperatively achieve. The idea was proposed by social psychologist Muzafer Sherif in his experiments on intergroup relations, run in the 1940s and 1950s, as a way of reducing conflict between competing groups. Sherif's idea was to downplay the two separate group identities and encourage the two groups to think of themselves as one larger, superordinate group. This approach has been applied in many contexts to reduce intergroup conflict, including in classrooms and business organizations. However, it has also been critiqued by other social psychologists who have proposed competing theories of intergroup conflict, such as contact theory and social categorization theory.

Social dominance theory (SDT) is a social psychological theory of intergroup relations that examines the caste-like features of group-based social hierarchies, and how these hierarchies remain stable and perpetuate themselves. According to the theory, group-based inequalities are maintained through three primary mechanisms: institutional discrimination, aggregated individual discrimination, and behavioral asymmetry. The theory proposes that widely shared cultural ideologies provide the moral and intellectual justification for these intergroup behaviors by serving to make privilege normal. For data collection and validation of predictions, the social dominance orientation (SDO) scale was composed to measure acceptance of and desire for group-based social hierarchy, which was assessed through two factors: support for group-based dominance and generalized opposition to equality, regardless of the ingroup's position in the power structure.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Henri Tajfel</span> Polish-born British psychologist (1919–1982)

Henri Tajfel was a Polish social psychologist, best known for his pioneering work on the cognitive aspects of prejudice and social identity theory, as well as being one of the founders of the European Association of Experimental Social Psychology.

Social identity is the portion of an individual's self-concept derived from perceived membership in a relevant social group.

Realistic conflict theory (RCT), also known as realistic group conflict theory (RGCT), is a social psychological model of intergroup conflict. The theory explains how intergroup hostility can arise as a result of conflicting goals and competition over limited resources, and it also offers an explanation for the feelings of prejudice and discrimination toward the outgroup that accompany the intergroup hostility. Groups may be in competition for a real or perceived scarcity of resources such as money, political power, military protection, or social status.

Optimal distinctiveness is a social psychological theory seeking to understand ingroup–outgroup differences. It asserts that individuals desire to attain an optimal balance of inclusion and distinctiveness within and between social groups and situations. These two motives are in constant opposition with each other; when there is too much of one motive, the other must increase in order to counterbalance it and vice versa. The theory of optimal distinctiveness was first proposed by Dr. Marilynn B. Brewer in 1991 and extensively reviewed in 2010 by Drs. Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Cynthia L. Pickett, and Marilynn Brewer.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stereotype</span> Generalized but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing

In social psychology, a stereotype is a generalized belief about a particular category of people. It is an expectation that people might have about every person of a particular group. The type of expectation can vary; it can be, for example, an expectation about the group's personality, preferences, appearance or ability. Stereotypes are often overgeneralized, inaccurate, and resistant to new information. A stereotype does not necessarily need to be a negative assumption. They may be positive, neutral, or negative.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social identity approach</span> Research and theory pertaining to two intertwined, but distinct, social psychological theories.[

"Social identity approach" is an umbrella term designed to show that there are two methods used by academics to describe certain complex social phenomena- namely the dynamics between groups and individuals. Those two theoretical methods are called social identity theory and self-categorization theory. Experts describe them as two intertwined, but distinct, social psychological theories. The term "social identity approach" arose as an attempt to mitigate against the tendency to conflate the two theories, as well as the tendency to mistakenly believe one theory to be a component of the other. These theories should be thought of as overlapping. While there are similarities, self categorisation theory has greater explanatory scope and has been investigated in a broader range of empirical conditions. Self-categorization theory can also be thought of as developed to address limitations of social identity theory. Specifically the limited manner in which social identity theory deals with the cognitive processes that underpin the behaviour it describes. Although this term may be useful when contrasting broad social psychological movements, when applying either theory it is thought of as beneficial to distinguish carefully between the two theories in such a way that their specific characteristics can be retained.

The common ingroup identity model is a theoretical model proposed by Samuel L. Gaertner and John F. Dovidio that outlines the processes through which intergroup bias may be reduced. Intergroup bias is a preference for one's in-group over the out-group. Derived from the social identity approach to intergroup behaviour, the common ingroup identity model is rooted in the process of social categorization, or how people conceive of group boundaries. The model describes how intergroup bias can be reduced if members of different groups can be induced to conceive of themselves to be part of the same group, then they would develop more positive attitudes of the former outgroup members. An individual will change the way they view the out-group through a social categorization process called recategorization where former out-group members become incorporated into individual's representations of the in-group.

There is a great deal of research on the factors that lead to the formation of prejudiced attitudes and beliefs. There is also a lot of research on the consequences of holding prejudiced beliefs and being the target of such beliefs. It is true that advances have been made in understanding the nature of prejudice. A consensus on how to end prejudice has yet to be established, but there are a number of scientifically examined strategies that have been developed in attempt to solve this social issue.

Intergroup relations refers to interactions between individuals in different social groups, and to interactions taking place between the groups themselves collectively. It has long been a subject of research in social psychology, political psychology, and organizational behavior.

In social psychology, a metastereotype is a stereotype that members of one group have about the way in which they are stereotypically viewed by members of another group. In other words, it is a stereotype about a stereotype. They have been shown to have adverse effects on individuals that hold them, including on their levels of anxiety in interracial conversations. Meta-stereotypes held by African Americans regarding the stereotypes White Americans have about them have been found to be largely both negative and accurate. People portray meta-stereotypes of their ingroup more positively when talking to a member of an outgroup than to a fellow member of their ingroup.

Felicia Pratto is a social psychologist known for her work on intergroup relations, dynamics of power, and social cognition. She is Professor of Psychological Sciences at the University of Connecticut. Pratto is a Fellow of the Association for Psychological Science.

Diversity ideology refers to individual beliefs regarding the nature of intergroup relations and how to improve them in culturally diverse societies. A large amount of scientific literature in social psychology studies diversity ideologies as prejudice reduction strategies, most commonly in the context of racial groups and interracial interactions. In research studies on the effects of diversity ideology, social psychologists have either examined endorsement of a diversity ideology as individual difference or used situational priming designs to activate the mindset of a particular diversity ideology. It is consistently shown that diversity ideologies influence how individuals perceive, judge and treat cultural outgroup members. Different diversity ideologies are associated with distinct effects on intergroup relations, such as stereotyping and prejudice, intergroup equality, and intergroup interactions from the perspectives of both majority and minority group members. Beyond intergroup consequences, diversity ideology also has implications on individual outcomes, such as whether people are open to cultural fusion and foreign ideas, which in turn predict creativity.

Social identity threat is a theory in social psychology derived from social identity theory to explain the different types of threats that arise from group identity being threatened as opposed to personal identity. This theory distinguishes between four distinct types of social identity threats: categorization threat, distinctiveness threat, threats to the value of social identity, and acceptance threat. Each type is associated with particular social contexts that make the threats more or less likely to occur. This theory emphasizes how the level of commitment with the social identity shapes the nature of the threat experienced.

References

  1. ↑ Tajfel, H. (1970). "Experiments in intergroup discrimination (abstract)". Scientific American . 223 (5): 96–102. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1170-96. JSTOR   24927662. PMID   5482577.
  2. ↑ Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination = Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination.
  3. ↑ Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination.
  4. ↑ See "Kandinsky versus Klee experiment", Tajfel et al. (1971) in Tajfel, H. (1970).
  5. ↑ Frank, M. G.; Gilovich, T. (January 1988). "The dark side of self and social perception: Black uniforms and aggression in professional sports". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . 54 (1): 74–85. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.554.8573 . doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.1.74. PMID   3346809.
  6. 1 2 3 Tajfel, H.; Billig, M. G.; Bundy, R. P. & Flament, C. (April–June 1971). "Social categorization and intergroup behaviour". European Journal of Social Psychology . 1 (2): 149–178. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420010202.
  7. 1 2 Tajfel, H. (1974). Social Identity and Intergroup Behavior Archived 2012-01-06 at the Wayback Machine .
  8. 1 2 Sidanius, Jim; Haley, Hillary; Molina, Ludwin; Pratto, Felicia (April 2007). "Vladimir's choice and the distribution of social resources: A group dominance perspective" (PDF). Group Processes & Intergroup Relations . 10 (2): 257–265. doi:10.1177/1368430207074732. S2CID   143850748.
  9. ↑ Sidanius, Jim; Pratto, Felicia (2001) [1999]. Social Dominance. An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression. Cambridge University Press. p.  18. ISBN   978-0-521-80540-7. Vladimir's choice [is] based on a well-known Eastern European fable. Vladimir was a dreadfully impoverished peasant. One day God came to Vladimir and said, "Vladimir, I will grant you one wish; anything you wish shall be yours!" Naturally, Vladimir was very pleased at hearing this news. However, God added one caveat: "Vladimir, anything I grant you will be given to your neighbor twice over." After hearing this, Vladimir stood in silence for a long time, and then said, "OK, God, take out one of my eyes.
  10. ↑ Sherif, M. (1967) Group conflict and co-operation. London: Routledge.
  11. ↑ Rubin, M.; Hewstone, M. (December 2004). "Social Identity, System Justification, and Social Dominance: Commentary on Reicher, Jost et al., and Sidanius et al". Political Psychology . 25 (6): 823–844. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00400.x. hdl: 1959.13/27347 .
  12. ↑ Rubin, M.; Badea, C.; Jetten, J. (September 2014). "Low status groups show in-group favoritism to compensate for their low status and to compete for higher status". Group Processes & Intergroup Relations . 17 (5): 563–576. doi:10.1177/1368430213514122. S2CID   144009575.
  13. ↑ Mullen, B.; Brown, R.; Smith, C. (March–April 1992). "Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status: An integration". European Journal of Social Psychology . 22 (2): 103–122. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420220202.
  14. ↑ Brewer, M. B. (March 1979). "Ingroup bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive motivational analysis". Psychological Bulletin . 86 (2): 307–324. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.307.
  15. ↑ Haslam, A. S. (2001). Psychology in Organizations. London, SAGE Publications.
  16. ↑ Tajfel, H. (1978). Tajfel, Henri (ed.). "Interindividual behaviour and intergroup behaviour". Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations: 27–60.
  17. ↑ Wetherell, M. (1982). Tajfel, H. (ed.). "Cross-cultural studies of minimal groups: Implications for the social identity theory of intergroup relations". Social Identity and Intergroup Relations: 207–240.
  18. 1 2 3 Rubin, M.; Paolini, S.; Crisp, R. J. (January 2010). "A processing fluency explanation of bias against migrants". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology . 46 (1): 21–28. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.09.006. hdl: 1959.13/930247 .
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.