A minimal group paradigm is a research approach based on the premise that the minimal condition for in-group favoritism and out-group bias to occur group membership. Henri Tajfel initially used the study approach. The results revealed that being part of a group for whatever reason is the minimum requirement for intergroup bias to occur. The research approach postulates that random and inapt distributions of persons into groups cause them to favor their in-groups and show prejudice towards the out-groups (Tajfel et al., 1971). This paper will summarize the research methodology and results from a minimal group paradigm and explain how these results complement and/or challenge other literature on intergroup conflict. The paper will also expound on the research's influence on the perception of the inevitability of intergroup conflict.
Minimal Group Paradigm Research Methodology and Results
In the minimum group paradigm study, Tajfel used a research approach that included analyzing past research findings on intergroup conflict. The previous research and literature provided valuable information that Tajfel used in the study. Previous research on intergroup relations done in the 1960s by Rabbie offered useful information about in-group favoritism. Also, Tajfel used the quantitative experimental approach, where neutral and valued experimental conditions were used to obtain comparative statistical data (Tajfel et al., 1971). In the research, individuals were randomly distributed into groups based on insignificant criteria such as tossing a coin. The participants were then required to apportion unrelated valuable resources to other anonymous participants identified using a code number and group membership. The individual participants were to receive the total value of the resources allocated to them by other participants. The research results revealed a considerable tendency to allocate more resources to the in-group members than the out-group members among the participants (Tajfel et al., 1971). Further, the research findings indicated that a person’s cognitive belief that they are part of a group is enough to cause in-group favoritism and discrimination against the out-group.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
How the Results Compliment and/or Challenge Other Sources of Intergroup Conflict
The minimal group paradigm findings of the intergroup conflict both complement and challenge the understanding of other sources of intergroup conflict such as competition, history, and scarcity of resources. The research results significantly support earlier causes of intergroup conflict, particularly those based on a shortage of resources, competition, and history. For instance, in the context of intergroup competition, the desire to be better than the other group when two groups are competing for a similar goal may result in a competitive conflict between the groups (Turner et al., 1979). Therefore, intergroup conflict may occur as the in-group members strive to do better than the out-group members. The minimal group paradigm supports compliments this source of intergroup conflict in that those individuals placed in random groups strive to make their groups better than the rival groups. Also, the paradigm complements the scarcity of resources source in that there is consistent favoritism of an individual's in-group when allotting resources. The historical perception of intergroup conflict supposes that individuals have an irrational but deliberate inclination to support their in-group and show bias towards the out-group (Turner et al., 1979). This results in in-group favoritism, especially during resource scarcity periods. This concept is complemented by the paradigm study findings that reveal similar in-group bias during resource allocation.
The results challenge established intergroup conflict research, suggesting that expectations of future interactions with members of a particular group significantly increase in-group preference. The minimal group paradigm results revealed that in-group favoritism simply occurred if individuals held a cognitive belief that they were part of a group (Tajfel et al., 1971). An elaborate ideological justification is not particularly essential for in-group preference to occur.
The Research Influence on the Inevitability of Intergroup Conflict
Studies on intergroup conflict have consistently revealed in-group preference as a primary cause of intergroup conflict. According to research, in-group favoritism restores and maintains a group by shielding the in-group members from threats to their self-esteem (Lemyre & Smith, 1985). Social categorization and in-group membership provide an individual with a social identity, which is essential in developing the self-concept (Fiske et al., 2010). An individual's self-esteem is, therefore, fundamentally linked to their in-group membership. When this membership is threatened, intergroup conflict is likely to occur to reduce the threats. The minimal group paradigm research also reveals social categorization and in-group favoritism, which are the primary causes of intergroup conflict. The research methodology showed that in-group inclinations occurred when group membership became explicit to an individual. The intergroup discrimination occurred within minimal in-group associations, which show the inevitability of intergroup conflict in various contexts.
In conclusion, existing research and the minimal group paradigm study consistently reveal that the in-group favoritism occurs in different social settings. The social categorization and in-group bias continually lead to out-group discrimination, which results in intergroup conflict. The social mechanisms such as prior and future interactions with the in-group members have little significance on the existence of in-group favoritism. Intergroup conflict is inevitable based on the minimal group paradigm research findings and other literature on intergroup conflict. Human history has shown a consistent inescapable permanence in establishing social categories such as political parties and football teams whose result is intergroup conflict. As the global populations grow and the available resources diminish, the competitive intergroup conflict is inevitable.
References
Fiske, S. T., Gilbert, D. T., & Lindzey, G. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1). John Wiley & Sons.
Lemyre, L., & Smith, P. M. (1985). Intergroup discrimination and self-esteem in the minimal group paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 49 (3), 660.
Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European journal of social psychology , 1 (2), 149-178.
Turner, J. C., Brown, R. J., & Tajfel, H. (1979). Social comparison and group interest in in-group favouritism. European journal of social psychology , 9 (2), 187-204.
