Minimal group paradigm
The Minimal group paradigm (MGP) is a methodology employed in social psychology (e.g. Tajfel, 1970)[1] to investigate the minimal conditions required for discrimination to occur between groups. Experiments using this approach[2] have revealed that even arbitrary and virtually meaningless distinctions between groups (e.g. the colour of their shirts)[3] can trigger a tendency to favour one's own group at the expense of others.[4][5][6]
Contents |
[edit] Methodology
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). 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. The anonymity of participants’ personal identities excludes the influence of interpersonal favouritism. The omission of the personal 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 (Sherif, 1967)[7]. 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 (Rubin & Hewstone, 2004)[8].
Typically, minimal group experiments find that, although participants show a significant degree of fairness in their allocations, they also show a significant tendency to allocate more money or points to in-group members than to out-group members (for reviews, see Brewer, 1979; Mullen, Brown, & Smith, 1992)[9][10]. Importantly, this strategy of maximizing relative in-group gain (maximum differentiation) occurs even when it means sacrificing absolute in-group gain.
[edit] Explanation
Tajfel et al. (1971) originally explained minimal group discrimination in terms of a generic norm for social competition that exists across societies. However, this explanation was later thought to be uninformative and “uninteresting” (Tajfel, 1978, p. 79)[11] and was replaced by social identity theory’s motivational explanation.
Social identity theory and self-categorization theory explain a process in which ingroup members seek to build collective esteem by making social comparisons with other groups. People are thought to award more points to their own group than to the out-group in the minimal group paradigm because they wish to make their own group better than the other group and, consequently, make their social identity as a group member relatively positive. Notably, however, there is mixed evidence for this so-called self-esteem hypothesis (for a review, see Rubin & Hewstone, 1998).[12]
The in-group bias effect has been shown to influence several other judgements. For example, ingroup members often attribute the achievements of outgroups to luck or circumstance. On the other hand, their own successes are seen as reflecting their inherent qualities and as a validation of their ethos. This process of attributing one's own group's achievements to internal causes and the outgroup's achievements to external causes is related to the fundamental attribution error. Ingroup members also make biased comparisons with less fortunate outgroups to support the validity and legitimacy of their beliefs, values and behaviours. This allows them to distinguish themselves from outgroup members by exaggerating their differences and enhancing intergroup boundaries. Threats to distinctiveness in minimal groups are often overcome by making more biased social comparisons, expelling black sheep and re-categorizing the ingroup to exclude members that share outgroup values.(reference?)
[edit] Other Minimal Group Effects
Rubin, Paolini, and Crisp (2010) have applied minimal group methodology to investigate prejudice against migrants.[13] In addition, the minimal group paradigm has been used to investigate the out-group homogeneity effect.[14][15]
[edit] References
- ^ Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223, 96-102 (abstract).
- ^ Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149 178.
- ^ Frank, M. G. & Gilovich, T. (1988). The dark side of self and social perception: Black uniforms and aggression in professional sports. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 74-83
- ^ Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination.
- ^ Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination.
- ^ Tajfel, H. (1974). Social Identity and Intergroup Behavior.
- ^ Sherif, M. (1967). Group conflict and co-operation. London: Routledge.
- ^ Rubin, M., & Hewstone, M. (2004). Social identity, system justification, and social dominance: Commentary on Reicher, Jost et al., and Sidanius et al. Political Psychology, 25, 823-844.
- ^ Brewer, M. B. (1979). Ingroup bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive motivational analysis. --~~~~Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307 324.
- ^ Mullen, B., Brown, R., & Smith, C. (1992). Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status: An integration. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 103-122.
- ^ Tajfel, H. (1978). The achievement of group differentiation. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 77-98). London: Academic Press.
- ^ Rubin, M., & Hewstone, M. (1998). Social identity theory’s self-esteem hypothesis: A review and some suggestions for clarification. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 40-62.
- ^ Rubin, M., Paolini, S., & Crisp, R. J. (2010). A processing fluency explanation of bias against migrants. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 21-28.
- ^ Rubin, M., Hewstone, M., & Voci, A. (2001). Stretching the boundaries: Strategic perceptions of intragroup variability. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 413-429.
- ^ Rubin, M., & Badea, C. (2007). Why do people perceive in-group homogeneity on in-group traits and out-group homogeneity on out-group traits? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 31-42.
 |
This psychology-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
