On the measurement of social orientations in the minimal group paradigm: norms as moderators of the expression of intergroup bias

Gaertner, Lowell; Insko, Chester A.

doi:10.1002/ejsp.28

Cited by 33 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This may simply indicate that ingroup bias is influenced by other variables in addition to self-esteem, for instance, social norms like fairness (see, e.g. Gaertner & Insko, 2001;Hertel & Kerr, 2001, on the impact of norms in minimal group situations). Additionally, however, it may be that processes leading to the above-mentioned opposite (i.e.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Ingroup bias in the minimal group paradigm shown by three‐person groups with high or low state self‐esteem

Petersen

Blank

2002

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From social identity theory a negative relation between self-esteem and ingroup bias can be deducted. Much research has been done to test this proposition and largely failed to confirm this relation. Unlike many existing studies, we conducted an experiment in which (a) self-esteem is not conceived as a trait entity but much more situation-specific, (b) the self-esteem manipulation is not relative to the outgroup, and (c) the measure of intergroup differentiation is unrelated to the self-esteem manipulation. We categorised our participants into two arbitrary minimal groups (Klee or Kandinsky fans) and afterwards formed homogeneous three-person groups (all persons were either Klee or Kandinsky fans). We manipulated the state self-esteem of these real groups by giving them positive or negative feedback concerning their performance in a problem-solving task. Afterwards, all groups distributed money to ingroup and outgroup members via Tajfel distribution matrices. Low state self-esteem groups were found to exhibit stronger ingroup bias than high state self-esteem groups overall, although the variability of intergroup discrimination was larger in the low state self-esteem groups, pointing to more heterogeneous reactions to low state self-esteem.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Ingroup bias in the minimal group paradigm shown by three‐person groups with high or low state self‐esteem

Petersen

Blank

2002

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, in‐group bias was uncorrelated with infra‐humanization. Thus, categorization alone is sufficient to obtain in‐group favouritism (but see Gaertner & Insko, 2001) but insufficient to produce infra‐humanization. Infra‐humanization needs more than just simple categorization.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of in‐group identification in infra‐humanization

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People tend to infra-humanize by attributing more human essence to their in-group than to out-groups. In the present article, we focus on the attribution of primary and secondary emotions to operationalize the human essence. We propose that, in order to infra-humanize, people need to be categorized in meaningful groups. In addition, we argue that what differentiates meaningful from nonmeaningful groups is that the people essentialize, perceiving members of the group as sharing an underlying, common essence. Also, we hypothesize that participants will identify more with their in-group in the case of meaningful groups. Three types of groups were created to manipulate the meaningfulness of the categorization. Participants were either randomly assigned to a group or they chose their group as a function of their preferences for a colour or the type of career they wished to pursue. As expected, infra-humanization occurred only where the categorization's criterion was meaningful. In addition, in-group identification, but not essentialism, mediated the impact of the categorization criteria on the tendency to infra-humanize. Data also showed that infra-humanization is different from classic in-group favouritism. This is because in-group favouritism, but not infra-humanization, was observed in the situation where group membership was based on random assignment. In other words, for infra-humanization to occur mere categorization is not enough; meaningfulness is also needed. For in-group favouritism to arise, the knowledge of being part of a group is a sufficient prerequisite. The discussion focuses on conditions for reducing infra-humanization and on the relationship between in-group favouritism and out-group derogation.

show abstract

“…Specifically, following suggestions that Tajfel's intergroup allocation matrices were not measuring the various allocation strategies independently [5,13], new matrices were developed. Initial findings were replicated using these new matrices [13,14,15 ].…”

Section: Criticismmentioning

confidence: 97%

The Minimal Group Paradigm and its maximal impact in research on social categorization

Otten

2016

Current Opinion in Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the most influential paradigms in research on intergroup relations is the Minimal Group Paradigm. Initially motivated by an interest in understanding the basic determinants of social discrimination, this paradigm investigates the impact of social categorization on intergroup relations in the absence of realistic conflicts of interests, and for social categories that are arbitrary and novel. Based on a short overview of the main features of the paradigm and its impact on social-psychological theories, some recent modifications -mostly stemming from the past five years -are introduced. Moreover, attesting its versatility and great value, current research will be presented revealing that the Minimal Group Paradigm does not only target ingroup favoritism and social discrimination, but is successfully used in a wide array of research fields.

show abstract

On the measurement of social orientations in the minimal group paradigm: norms as moderators of the expression of intergroup bias

Cited by 33 publications

References 22 publications

Ingroup bias in the minimal group paradigm shown by three‐person groups with high or low state self‐esteem

Ingroup bias in the minimal group paradigm shown by three‐person groups with high or low state self‐esteem

The role of in‐group identification in infra‐humanization

The Minimal Group Paradigm and its maximal impact in research on social categorization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About