Minimal Group Paradigm

Definition

The minimal group paradigm is a procedure that researchers use to create new social groups in the laboratory. The goal is to categorize individuals into groups based on minimal criteria that are relatively trivial or arbitrary. For example, the classic procedure involves asking participants to rate paintings made by two artists with similar abstract styles. Participants are then told that they are members of a group that prefers one of the painters to the other. This is their new ingroup, and the people who prefer the other painter represent a new outgroup. In reality, participants are assigned randomly to one of the two groups. In addition, the members of each group remain anonymous and group members have no interaction or contact with one another. Thus, the minimal group paradigm creates a situation in which individuals are separated into novel ingroups and outgroups, and these individuals have no previous experience with these groups.

Purpose

The minimal group paradigm was first used in the 1960s to examine whether social prejudice and discriminatory behavior result from the mere categorization of people into ingroups and outgroups. Previously, researchers had studied prejudice and discrimination involving preexisting groups with long histories (for example, based on race, ethnicity, or nationality). It largely was believed that these groups perceive real conflict with one another (for example, over resources) and that this conflict leads to beliefs and behavior that favor the ingroup over the outgroup. A European psychologist, Henri Tajfel, wondered whether the experience of conflict was actually necessary to produce ingroup-favoring biases. Perhaps prejudice and discrimination are more fundamental and basic to the human condition. Tajfel and his colleagues demonstrated that participants assigned to [Page 578]groups using the minimal group paradigm behaved in ways that favored their new ingroup and disadvantaged the outgroup. Thus, conflict between groups does not appear to be necessary to produce ingroup favoritism (although conflict is still very important to intergroup relations).

Ingroup Favoritism and Outgroup Derogation

The minimal group paradigm has since been used by researchers hundreds of times. Merely categorizing people into new groups affects a wide variety of perceptions, evaluations, and behaviors that reveal the degree to which people favor new ingroups over new outgroups. For example, group members evaluate new ingroups more positively on personality and other trait ratings (such as “likeable” and “cooperative”), and they evaluate products and decisions made by new ingroups more positively (even when they personally didn't contribute to these products or decisions). Group members also allocate more resources (including money) to members of new ingroups. There is some controversy about the degree to which group members respond in a positive way toward the ingroup (ingroup favoritism) versus a negative way toward the outgroup (outgroup derogation). On the whole, however, it appears that ingroup favoritism is more prevalent than is outgroup derogation in the minimal group paradigm.

The tendency to express ingroup favoritism is very robust and persists even when changes are made to the minimal group paradigm. For example, researchers have changed the basis on which participants believe they are assigned into groups. In the original procedure, participants were led to believe that they shared a preference for a particular artist with their fellow ingroup members. Perhaps this perceived similarity drives ingroup favoritism. However, even when group assignment is completely random (e.g., based on a coin flip), people continue to favor the ingroup over the outgroup in many ways. Researchers also have examined how status differences between the new ingroup and outgroup affect ingroup favoritism. For example, participants have been told that either a majority or a minority of people are classified into their new ingroup. Regardless, participants continue to express ingroup favoritism. Participants also have been told that their new ingroup performed either better or worse on an intelligence test than the outgroup. Surprisingly, participants who were told that their group performed worse than the outgroup still evaluated the ingroup more positively than the outgroup.

...