Outgroup Accountability in the Minimal Group Paradigm: Implications for Aversive Discrimination and Social Identity Theory Author Michael Dobbs, William Crano Publication Year 2001 Type Journal Article Abstract The minimal group paradigm (MGP) is a popular method of testing intergroup phenomena. Originally created to facilitate discovery of conditions necessary and sufficient to produce ingroup favoritism, early MGP results suggested that simply grouping people was sufficient to cause discrimination. More recent research has uncovered factors that cause MGP-based discrimination to disappear. The present experiment examined outgroup accountability as explicatory of these variations. It was found that requiring justification for allocations attenuated discrimination. Outgroup accountability-based attenuation was especially evident when the allocator was of majority (vs. minority) status, as expected on the basis of aversive racism considerations. Allocators of minority status tended to discriminate more when made accountable to the outgroup. Implications of these results for theories of social identity and aversive racism are discussed. Keywords group dynamics, ingroup outgroup, social discrimination, social identity Journal Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin Volume 27 Pages 355-364 Type of Article Journal Article DOI 10.1177/0146167201273009 Full text METHOD Participants Ninety-seven undergraduate communication students [...]. Design Participants were randomly assigned to conditions in a 2 (accountability vs. no accountability) × 2 (high competence vs. low competence) × 2 (majority vs. minority) factorial design. Effects of the independent variables on monetary allocations, the dependent measure, were assessed via Tajfel matrices [...]. Procedure After arriving, participants were seated individually at desks that were separated by shoulder-high dividers. They could not see the other participants. [...] they completed a trivial line estimation task. Although group assignment was random, participants were led to believe the division was based on overestimation or underestimation of the line lengths. Participants were led to believe that their ingroup was of either high or low competence in line estimation. They were told that their group tended to be more (or less) accurate judges in perceptual tasks, such as line estimation. In addition, they were told that their group represented a numerical majority [...] or minority [...]. When participants finished reading the cover page, they were instructed to answer 10 items taken from Heatherton and Polivy’s (1991) State Self-Esteem Scale (SSES) [...]. [...] outgroup-accountable participants were told they would later meet with members of the opposite group. They were told they would receive the amount two other (anonymous) participants awarded them. In all, participants completed 12 matrices. In the accountability condition, participants were told to wear their name tag sticker and that after they filled out their booklets, they would discuss their allocation decisions with two members of the outgroup. Type of Prejudice/Bias Race/Ethnicity Country United States Method Lab Setting College/University Google ScholarDOIBibTeX
