Interpreting in‐group‐favouring allocations in the minimal group paradigm

Abstract

Within social identity theory, in-group-favouring allocations in the minimal group paradigm are interpreted as strivings to differentiate positively one's in-group from an outgroup (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). An alternative interpretation, derived from equity theory (Adams, 1965), suggests that in-group-favouring allocations represent the perceived worth of one's in-group relative to an out-group (Bruins, Platow & Ng, 1995). We evaluated predictions based on these two interpretations in two studies. In Study 1 ( N = 73), relative in-group and out-group worth were directly manipulated. A main effect for out-group worth obtained, with participants making in-group-favouring allocations when the out-group had high but not low worth. In Study 2 ( N = 42), participants were categorized into conditions based on median splits of their apriori reported levels of perceived in-group worth and personal self-esteem. In-group-favouring allocations were made by participants with high personal self-esteem and low perceived in-group worth, and low personal self-esteem and high perceived in-group worth. Overall, the data from these two studies are more consistent with a social identity analysis than the relative ingroup worth hypothesis. Implications for social identity and equity theoretical interpretations of minimal intergroup allocations are discussed.

Psychological group memberships as outcomes of resource distributions

“…Initial level of social identification may moderate subsequent group-based behaviour (Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 1999b), and this manipulation allowed us to explore this possibility in the current context (given the absence of such moderation in Experiment 2). We expected that our psychology-student participants would place greater value on being a member of a supposed experimental group than a supposed control group (see Platow, Harley, Hunter, Hanning, Shave, & O'Connell, 1997a), and would, thus, have higher social identification with the former than the latter.…”

“…Participants assigned to the supposed experimental group were told that (see Platow et al, 1997a): Your class will be an experimental group for the study. The procedure you will follow is a new procedure, a procedure that has been changed from prior research.…”

Collective Identity and Intergroup Discrimination: Outcomes in Contexts that Emphasize and do not Emphasize Intergroup Relations

“…As in Study 3, all participants listened to a 10 second sample blast to ensure that all were familiar with the sound in question. Following other researchers [7,45], we used the difference in the total amount (i.e., of white noise) allocated to in-group and out-group members to assess intergroup discrimination.…”

Threats to group value, domain‐specific self‐esteem and intergroup discrimination amongst minimal and national groups

“…Others have suggested that alternative explanations for discrimination in the minimal group setting are more appropriate (e.g. Gaertner & Insko, 2000; Otten, 2002; Rabbie, Schot, & Visser, 1989). In contrast to these perspectives, those more sympathetic to SIT have suggested two possible explanations for the empirical evidence.…”

“…As a result, researchers have begun to develop alternative means by which to examine self-evaluation in a way that is more consistent with the assumptions of SIT (e.g. Ellemers, Kortekaas, & Ouwerkerk, 1999;Long, Spears, & Manstead, 1994;Platow et al, 1997). Luhtanen and Crocker (1992) have provided one approach.…”