Evidence that Subjects' Expectancies Confound Intergroup Bias in Tajfel's Minimal Group Paradigm

Abstract

Reports that persons discriminate against out-group members even at cost to the in-group refer primarily to subjects' distribution of money in minimal group situations. Expectancies that might confound that measure of discrimination are examined here. First divided into minimal groups, subjects divided money between in-group and out-group members so as to (a) confirm whatever they believed to be the study hypothesis (positive demand), (b) disconfirm that hypothesis (negative demand), and (c) express their own unrestricted preferences (intergroup bias). The demand measures preceded, followed, or were placed between blocks of unrestricted trials. There were no effects of demand placement, but significant negative correlations and differences in means were found between amounts awarded under positive and negative demand instructions. Correlations between positive demand and bias scores, questionnaire reports of expectancies favoring discrimination, and relationships between reported expectations and bias scores are consistent with "demand" explanations of early minimal intergroup studies.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Billig, M. (1972). Social categorization in intergroup relations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Bristol.

Bornstein, G. , Crum, L. , Wittenbraker, J. , Harring, K. , Insko, C. A. , & Thibaut, J. (1983). On the measurement of social orientations in the minimal group paradigm. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 321-350.

Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimum intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307-324.

Brown, R. W. (1986). Social psychology (2nd ed.). London: Collier Macmillan.

Diehl, M. (1990). The minimal group paradigm: Theoretical explanations and empirical findings. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 1). Chichester, England: John Wiley.

Ferguson, G. A. (1981). Statistical analysis in psychology and education (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gerard, H. B. , & Hoyt, M. F. (1974). Distinctiveness of social categorization and attitude toward in-group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 836-842.

St. Claire, L. , & Turner, J. C. (1982).The role of demand characteristics in the social categorization paradigm. European Journal of Social Psychology, 12, 307-314.

Tajfel, H. (1980). Experimental studies of intergroup behavior. In M. Jeeves (Ed.), Survey of psychology, No. 3. London: Allen & Unwin.

10.

Tajfel, H. , Billig, M. G. , Bundy, R. P. , & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149-178.

11.

Tajfel, H. , & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergmup relations. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

12.

Tajfel, H. , & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

13.

Turner, J. C. (1975). Social categorization of social comparison in intergroup relations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Bristol.

14.

Turner, J. C. (1981). The experimental social psychology of intergroup behavior. In J. C. Turner & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup behavior. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.