Tajfel Billig Bundy amp Flament 1971 1 Social Categorization Phase Participants viewed a series of paintings by two artists Kandinsky and Klee They were then provided with a ID: 686128
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "(I) The Minimal Group Paradigm" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
(I) The Minimal Group Paradigm(Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971)Slide2
1. Social Categorization PhaseParticipants viewed a series of paintings by two artists (Kandinsky and Klee). They were then provided with a code number and randomly assigned to one of two groups, ostensibly on the basis of their artistic preference.Slide3
2. Reward Distribution PhaseParticipants were asked to distribute small sums of money between pairs of recipients using specially constructed reward matrices (the amount of money distributed is the DV).The recipients were only identified by their code number and group membership. This kept the group members anonymousSlide4
Example of a Matrix for Distributing MoneyNumber
07 of your group receives...
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Number
52
of the other group receives...
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
Slide5
Manipulation of the IVTajfel et al. created different matrices to address three different variables:Maximum Joint Profit (MJP) – here the boys could give the largest reward to members of both groupsMaximum In-group Profit (MIP) – where the boys could choose the largest reward for the member of their own group irrespective of the reward provided to the other groupMaximum Difference – here the participants could choose the largest possible difference in reward between member of the different groups (in favour of the in-group). These different variables were then pitted against each other.Slide6
ResultsIn general, participants were fair, but…
There was a significant tendency
to
give more money to in-group members than to out-group members (i.e., in-group
favouritism
).
In-group
favouritism
occurred even when it meant giving in-group members
less
than the maximum amount of money
(
i.e., in-group bias
).