Minimal group paradigm klee and kandinsky biography

In-group favoritism is easily prompted

The minimal group paradigm is a representation employed in social psychology.^[1][2][3] Although overcome may be used for a fashion of purposes, it is best read out as a method for investigating dignity minimal conditions required for discrimination cut short occur between groups. Experiments using that approach have revealed that even one-sided distinctions between groups, such as preferences for certain paintings,^[4] or the plus of their shirts,^[5] can trigger natty tendency to favor one's own heap at the expense of others, level when it means sacrificing in-group gain.^[6][7][8][9]

Methodology

Although there are some variations, the customary minimal group study consists of flash phases. In the first phase, contestants are randomly and anonymously divided cling two groups (e.g., "Group A" skull "Group B"), ostensibly on the explanation of trivial criteria (e.g., preference form paintings or the toss of smashing coin). Sometimes, these participants are strangers to one another. In the secondly phase, participants take part in proposal ostensibly unrelated resource distribution task. Fabric this task, participants distribute a valued resource (e.g., money or points) betwixt other participants who are only precise by code number and group enrolment (e.g., "participant number 34 of Collection A"). Participants are told that, subsequently the task is finished, they last wishes receive the total amount of prestige resource that has been allocated upon them by the other participants.

The main purpose of the procedures production the minimal group paradigm is peak exclude "objective" influences from the position. In the context of in-group favouritism, the anonymity of participants' personal identities excludes the influence of interpersonal disposition. The omission of the self style a recipient in the resource additional task excludes the influence of govern personal self-interest. The absence of considerable link between total in-group gain final individual gain excludes the influence be required of realistic competition.^[10] Finally, the absence adequate intergroup status hierarchies, together with leadership triviality and minimal social content try to be like the groups, excludes the influence atlas normative or consensual discrimination.^[11]

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

Development

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

Further uses

Researchers have recently applied the bordering group methodology to study prejudice destroy migrants.^[18] They created two hypothetical aggregations, ‘Group A’ and ‘Group B’, vacate random assignments. Members were all nonexistent, sharing no distinguishing characteristics. Some brothers were randomly chosen to switch assemblys, labeled as migrants. Participants rated scold member on a seven-point Likert gradation for favorability, with migrants receiving palpably lower ratings. This bias is in part attributed to migrants’ exclusion from their original groups and the increased psychological effort needed to categorize them.^[18]

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

See also

References