The current study investigated the effects of intragroup interaction and cohesion on intergroup bias in a minimal group setting. As expected, interacting groups displayed a stronger intergroup bias than did individual group members acting in isolation. Moreover, there was a tendency for cohesive groups to show more intergroup bias than did groups formed on an ad hoc basis. Additional analyses showed that while groups and individuals did not differ in their treatment of the ingroup, groups discriminated against outgroup members more strongly than did individually acting group members. The findings are discussed with respect to their implications for understanding the differences in intergroup bias between groups, whose members interact, and individually acting group members.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abrams, D., Wetherell, M., Cochrane, S., Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1990). Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity, and group polarization . British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 97–119 .
2.
Bettencourt, B. A., Charlton, K., & Kernahan, C. (1997). Numerical representation of groups in cooperative settings: Social orientation effects on ingroup bias . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 630–659 .
3.
Billig, M., & Tajfel, H. (1973). Normative communication in a minimal intergroup situation . European Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 339–344 .
4.
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 .
5.
Bourhis, R. Y., Turner, J. C., & Gagnon, A. (1997). Interdependence, social identity, and discrimination. In R. Spears, P. J. Oakes, N. Ellemers, & S. A. Haslam (Eds.), The social psychology of stereotyping and group life (pp. 273–295). Oxford, UK: Blackwell .
6.
Brewer, M. D. (1979). Ingroup bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis . Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307–324 .
7.
Brewer, M. D., & Brown, R. J. (1998). Intergroup relations. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed.; Vol. II, pp. 554–594). Boston: McGraw-Hill .
8.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum .
9.
Diehl, M. (1989a). Justice and discrimination between minimal groups: The limits of equity . British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 227–238 .
10.
Diehl, M. (1989b). Dichotomie und Diskriminierung: Die Auswirkungen von Kreuzkategorisierungen auf die Diskriminierung im Paradigma der minimalen Gruppen [Dichotomy and discrimination: The effects of cross-categorizations on discrimination in the minimal group paradigm] . Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 20, 92–102 .
11.
Dion, K. L. (1973). Cohesiveness as a determinant of ingroup-outgroup bias . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 163–171 .
12.
Farsides, T. L. (1993). Beyond discrimination in the minimal group paradigm . Paper presented at the Annual conference of the BPS Social Psychology Section, Oxford, UK.
13.
Gaertner, L., & Insko, C. A. (2000). Intergroup discrimination in the minimal group paradigm: Categorization, reciprocation, or fear? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 77–94 .
14.
Gaertner, L., & Schopler, J. (1998). Perceived ingroup entitativity and intergroup bias: An interconnection of self and others . European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 963–980 .
15.
Grieve, P. G., & Hogg, M. A. (1999). Subjective uncertainty and intergroup discrimination in the minimal group situation . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 926–940 .
16.
Hardin, C. D., & Higgins, E. T. (1996). Shared reality: How social verification makes the subjective objective. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Vol. III, The interpersonal context (pp. 28–84). New York: Guilford Press .
17.
Hartstone, M., & Augustinos, M. (1995). The minimal group paradigm: Categorization into two versus three groups . European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 179–193 .
18.
Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias . Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 575–604 .
19.
Hogg, M. A. (1987). Social identity and group cohesiveness. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher, & M. S. Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory (pp. 89–116). Oxford, UK: Blackwell .
20.
Hogg, M. A. (1992). The social psychology of group cohesiveness: From attraction to social identity. New York: New York University Press .
21.
Hogg, M. A. (1993). Group cohesiveness: A critical review and some new directions . European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 85–111 .
22.
Hogg, M. A. (2001). Self-categorization and subjective uncertainty resolution: Cognitive and motivational facets of social identity and group membership. In J. P. Forgas, K. D. Williams, & L. Wheeler (Eds.), The social mind: Cognitive and motivational aspects of interpersonal behavior (pp. 323–349). New York: Cambridge University Press .
23.
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge .
24.
Hogg, M. A., & Hains, S. C. (1996). Intergroup relations and group solidarity: Effects of group identification and social beliefs on depersonalized attraction . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 295–309 .
25.
Hogg, M. A., Turner, J., & Davidson, B. (1990). Polarized norms and social frames of reference: A test of self-categorization theory of group polarization . Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 11, 77–100 .
26.
Insko, C. A., Hoyle, R. H., Pinkley, R. L., Hong, G., Slim R. M., Dalton, B., et al. (1988). Individual-group discontinuity: The role of a consensus rule . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 505–519 .
27.
Insko, C. A., & Schopler, J. (1998). Differential distrust of groups and individuals. In C. Sedikides, J. Schopler, & C. A. Insko (Eds.), Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior (pp. 75–107). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum .
28.
Jackson, J. W., & Smith, E. R. (1999). Conceptualizing social identity: A new framework and evidence for the impact of the different dimensions . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 120–135 .
29.
Kirk, R. E. (1995). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole .
30.
Locksley, A., Ortiz, V., & Hepburn, C. (1980). Social categorization and discriminatory behavior: Extinguishing the minimal intergroup discrimination effect . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 773–783 .
31.
Mackie, D. M. (1986). Social identification effects in group polarization . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 720–728 .
32.
Mullen, B., Brown, R., & Smith, C. (1992). Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status: An integration . European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 103–122 .
33.
Mummendey, A., Otten, S., & Blanz, M. (1994). Social categorization and intergroup discrimination. The asymmetry in positive versus negative outcome allocations . Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 1, 15–30 .
34.
Ng, S. H. (1981). Equity theory and the allocation of rewards between groups . European Journal of Social Psychology, 11, 439–444 .
35.
Otten, S., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Evidence for implicit evaluative ingroup bias: Affect-biased spontaneous trait inference in a minimal group paradigm . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 77–89 .
36.
Otten, S., Mummendey, A., & Blanz, M. (1996). Intergroup discrimination in positive and negative outcome allocations: The impact of stimulus, valence, group status, and relative group size . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 568–581 .
37.
Petersen, L.-E., & Blank, H. (2001). Reale Gruppen im Paradigma der minimalen Gruppen: Wirkt die Gruppensituation als Korrektiv oder Katalysator sozialer Diskriminierung? [Real groups in the minimal group paradigm: Does the group context work as corrective or catalyst of social discrimination] . Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie, 48, 304–318 .
38.
Petersen, L.-E., & Blank, H. (2003). Ingroup bias in the minimal group paradigm shown by three-person groups with high or low state self-esteem . European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 149–162 .
39.
Reichl, A. J. (1997). Ingroup favouritism and outgroup favoritism in low status minimal groups: Differential responses to status-related and status-unrelated measures . European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 617–633 .
40.
Schopler, J., Insko, C. A., Graetz, K. A., Drigotas, S., Smith, V. A., & Dahl, K. (1993). Individual-group discontinuity: Further evidence for mediation by fear and greed . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 419–431 .
41.
Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination . Scientific American, 223, 96–102 .
42.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social identity and group relations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press .
43.
Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorisation and intergroup behaviour . European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149–178 .
44.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall .
45.
Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15–40). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press .
46.
Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group procresses: Theory and research (Vol. 2, pp. 77–121). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press .
47.
Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell .
48.
Wagner, U., Lamper, L., & Syllwasschy, J. (1986). In-group inferiority, social identity and out-group devaluation in a modified minimal group study . British Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 15–23 .
