Raising the minimum in the minimal group paradigm.

Ingroup bias found in the Minimal Group Paradigm is an important finding for theories of intergroup relations. However, explanation of the finding is controversial. In this study, we contrast the Social Identity Theory explanation of ingroup bias with / a new alternative hypothesis. We argue that ingroup bias is a result of subjects employing a self-interested quasi-strategy in an attempt to gain greater material i benefits for themselves. Although the strategy cannot be successful, we argue that the interdependence situation characteristic of the Minimal Group Paradigm deceives I subjects into believing it can be successful. Consequently, when subjects are not t dependent on other subjects for their own rewards in the Minima1 Group Paradigm, I ingroup bias disappears. Results of our experiment support the interdependence

[1]  John C. Turner,et al.  Rediscovering the Social Group , 1987 .

[2]  H. Tajfel,et al.  Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behaviour , 1973 .

[3]  Norman Miller,et al.  Ten years of research on the false-consensus effect: an empirical and theoretical review , 1987 .

[4]  David A. Wilder,et al.  Social Categorization: Implications for Creation and Reduction of Intergroup Bias , 1986, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology.

[5]  Melvin J. Kimmel,et al.  Twenty Years of Experimental Gaming: Critique,Synthesis, and Suggestions for the Future , 1977 .

[6]  John Thibaut,et al.  On the measurement of social orientations in the minimal group paradigm , 1983 .

[7]  H. Tajfel.  Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations , 1982 .

[8]  John C. Turner,et al.  Social categorization and intergroup behaviour: Does minimal intergroup discrimination make social identity more positive? , 1980 .

[9]  John C. Turner,et al.  Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup behaviour , 1975 .

[10]  W. Hamilton,et al.  The evolution of cooperation. , 1984, Science.

[11]  H. Tajfel,et al.  Social categorization and intergroup behaviour , 1971 .

[12]  M. Brewer,et al.  Ingroup bias as a function of task characteristics , 1978 .

[13]  G. Marwell,et al.  Economists free ride, does anyone else? : Experiments on the provision of public goods, IV , 1981 .

[14]  Amos Tversky,et al.  Causal versus diagnostic contingencies: On self-deception and on the voter's illusion. , 1984 .

[15]  John Orbell,et al.  Explaining discussion-induced cooperation. , 1988 .

[16]  J. Sivacek,et al.  Predictions of others' responses in a mixed-motive game: Self-justification or false consensus? , 1979 .

[17]  M. Brewer.  In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. , 1979 .

[18]  Jacob M. Rabbie,et al.  Social identity theory: A conceptual and empirical critique from the perspective of a behavioural interaction model , 1989 .

[19]  L. Ross,et al.  The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes , 1977 .

[20]  Anne Locksley,et al.  Social categorization and discriminatory behavior: Extinguishing the minimal intergroup discrimination effect. , 1980 .

[21]  M. Platow,et al.  PREDICTING INTERGROUP FAIRNESS AND INGROUP BIAS IN THE MINIMAL GROUP PARADIGM , 1990 .