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

Abstract

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.

Minimal but meaningful: Probing the limits of randomly assigned social identities

“…In other words, participants showed ingroup biases even in experimentally-created and otherwise arbitrary groups (so-called "minimal groups"). Since then, other studies have replicated and extended their findings using various attitudinal and behavioral measures, including other group induction methods like random assignment and participant choice (e.g., Brewer & Silver, 1978;Perreault & Bourhis, 1999; for reviews, see Dunham, 2018;Otten, 2016). In line with the original Tajfel studies, participants have been shown to more positively evaluate their minimal ingroup members, allocate more resources to them, and hold stronger implicit biases towards them.…”

Mere membership

“…Indeed, ingroup bias appears even absent conflict, competition, or indeed any information whatsoever about the specific characteristics of the groups involved. The redbanner example is the minimal groups paradigm [24,25] (MGP; Box 1). While it admits of many variants, in its simplest and clearest instantiation isolated individuals are randomly assigned to previously unfamiliar social groups based on arbitrary cues such as a group-denoting color or novel label.…”

“…While it admits of many variants, in its simplest and clearest instantiation isolated individuals are randomly assigned to previously unfamiliar social groups based on arbitrary cues such as a group-denoting color or novel label. This manipulation, a social coin flip, has profound consequences, producing a wide range of biases in favor of the ingroup [25]. While the MGP is widely known, its consequences are broader than generally recognized, making it paradoxically both familiar and underappreciated.…”

“…While the MGP is widely known, its consequences are broader than generally recognized, making it paradoxically both familiar and underappreciated. Indeed, a central goal of this review is to detail some fundamental challenges these effects pose to common accounts of the origins of ingroup bias [25][26][27].…”

The Effect of Trait Self-Awareness, Self-Reflection, and Perceptions of Choice Meaningfulness on Indicators of Social Identity within a Decision-Making Context

“…Within the social identity literature, the extent to which we feel similar to, like, or favor other in-group members is indicative of the extent to which our identification with that group has been incorporated into our self-concept ( Hogg, 1992 , 1993 ; Ellemers et al, 1999 ; Leach et al, 2008 ). The minimal group paradigm which facilitates the measurement of in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination is one way of measuring the extent to which group membership has been incorporated into the self-concept and therefore had an effect on social identity ( Otten, 2016 ).…”