Predicting intergroup fairness and ingroup bias in the minimal group paradigm

Previous social psychological theory and research based on the Minimal Group Paradigm have stressed the dominance of ingroup bias in intergroup evaluations and allocation behaviour. However, fairness in intergroup allocations has also been observed. Tested here were hypotheses derived from three non...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inEuropean journal of social psychology Vol. 20; no. 3; pp. 221 - 239
Main Authors Platow, Michael J., McClintock, Charles G., Liebrand, Wim B. G.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Chichester, UK John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 01.05.1990
Wiley
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN0046-2772
1099-0992
DOI10.1002/ejsp.2420200304

Cover

More Information
Summary:Previous social psychological theory and research based on the Minimal Group Paradigm have stressed the dominance of ingroup bias in intergroup evaluations and allocation behaviour. However, fairness in intergroup allocations has also been observed. Tested here were hypotheses derived from three non‐mutually exclusive theories: (1) Social Identity Theory (e.g. Tajfel and Turner, 1986), which predicts ingroup evaluative and allocation biases, (2) Ng's (1981) Fate Control/Equity Paradigm, which predicts that ingroup bias in allocations occurs in relationships of mutual but not unilateral fate control, and (3) Social Value Theory (e.g. McClintock, 1972), which predicts that intergroup evaluations and allocation behaviours will vary as a function of the social value orientations of subjects. Evaluations were consistent with expectations from Social Identity Theory. Subjects, in general, evaluated ingroup members more favourably than the outgroup members. Allocations, however, were generally consistent with expectations from Social Value Theory, with prosocial subjects preferring fair to biased allocations, competitive subjects biased to fair ones. Neither allocation behaviour nor intergroup evaluations varied significantly as a function of the fate control relationship.
Bibliography:ArticleID:EJSP2420200304
istex:9BAB585E6A108B48A105EE4EDEE9D0CABE0E29F9
ark:/67375/WNG-6KL1CKQQ-F
ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 14
content type line 23
ISSN:0046-2772
1099-0992
DOI:10.1002/ejsp.2420200304