A reexamination of the relation between equal status contact and intergroup attraction Author Nancy Norvell, Stephen Worchel Publication Year 1981 Type Journal Article Abstract Studied how imbalance in historical status (based on previous interaction) and immediate status (based on conditions of present interaction) affected intergroup attraction in a cooperative setting. In all conditions, 2 groups of 6–9 undergraduates drawn from 256 Ss competed during the 1st phase. In half of the cases, 1 group was designated as the winner, thus creating a historical imbalance. In the other half, no winner–loser distinction was made. In the 2nd phase, the 2 groups cooperated on a task. In half the cases, 1 group was given information that would help in solving the cooperative problem. In the other conditions, no additional information was provided. When the additional information corrected a historical imbalance, intergroup attraction increased during the cooperative task. However, when the additional information was not perceived as redressing the historical imbalance, cooperation did not increase intergroup attraction. The supplying of additional information to one group was seen as unfair regardless of the existence of historical status imbalance. The results are discussed with regard to civil rights and affirmative action programs. (27 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) Keywords cooperation, intergroup dynamics, status Journal Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Volume 41 Pages 902-908 Type of Article Journal Article DOI 10.1037/0022-3514.41.5.902 Full text The following is an excerpt of the intervention methodology. For more information, please see the full text of the article on the publisher's website or through your institution's library. Method Subjects The subjects were 256 male and female undergraduate students drawn from introductory psychology classes. [...] Procedure When subjects arrived at the experimental room they were given a five-minute period to become acquainted. [...] The first phase of the experiment would involve small group competition. After giving examples of "real life" situations in which small groups compete, the experimenter randomly divided the subjects into two subgroups. [...] The experimenter explained to each subgroup that they would attempt to solve a human relations problem. [...] The subjects were then given a written case history involving a dispute between two employees over vacation time. The subgroups were told that they would have ten minutes to consider the case and write their solution on the form provided with the case. It was emphasized that the solutions of the two subgroups would be compared on the basis of insight and the ability to use psychological knowledge [...]. After the work period, the subgroups were brought together and asked to complete a questionnaire. They were asked to rate their attraction toward in-group and out-group members, evaluate the difficulty of the task, and state their feelings for the experimenter. [...] When subjects completed the questionnaire, the first manipulation was executed. In half the cases, the experimenter stated that she had examined the responses on the task and it was clear that Group A had a better solution and was, therefore, the winner. [...] The experimenter then explained that in many industrial settings, large groups are used to solve complex problems. Thus, in the second half of the study, the two subgroups would work together (forming a session group) to solve a problem. Further, in an effort to simulate real industrial conditions, all members of the session would be entered in a raffle to win a $50 bonus if they solved the problem. At this point, the information manipulation was performed. In the additional information conditions, [...] one subgroup would be given additional information that would actually help the combined effort. [...] In the no additional information conditions, no additional information was given to either of the subgroups. The task was the NASA task that required subjects to rank order, by degree of importance, items that would be needed in a trip into space. [...] After they finished, they completed a questionnaire similar to the one used after the first phase of the study. [...] In addition to the questions asked on the first measure, the second questionnaire had a number of filler items and subjects in the additional information condition were asked to rate the "fairness" of giving one subgroup additional information [...]. Type of Prejudice/Bias Minimal/Artificial Country United States Method Lab Setting College/University Google ScholarDOIBibTeX