Minimal group paradigm

Social identity theory has its foundations in earlier research on the minimal
group paradigm. Henri Tajfel and John Turner are generally considered to
be the originators of social identity theory. However, the story really begins
with Tajfel's (1970) studies on the minimal group paradigm, which he was
conducting around the time John Turner came to work with him as a graduate
student.

The minimal group paradigm refers to the requirements for in-group

membership, however, Tajfel discovered that it does not take much to create an
in-group. In one experiment, Tajfel was able to create in-groups by simply
asking participants to estimate how many dots were moving on a screen, and
then pretending to sort them into groups: under-estimators and accurate-
estimators. That was all. Worse still, their estimates didn't even matter, as Tajfel
actually assigned participants to the groups randomly.

Despite this rather minimal categorisation into social groups, it was still enough
to cause distinctiveness between perceptions of in-groups and out-groups.
Apparently, just being in a social group is enough to cause some level of
discrimination against an out-group. On a basic level, in-group members identify
with their in-group on the basis of similarity, and their need to differentiate from
out-groups appears to lead to discrimination.

Tajfel (1970) - the Klee/Kandinsky study

Tajfel expanded upon the minimal group paradigm in this ground-breaking
study, except this time the in-groups were defined on the basis of participant
preference for the paintings of Paul Klee or Wassily Kandinsky. Once again, this
preference didn't matter, because he assigned participants to the Klee or
Kandinsky groups randomly.

Tajfel's (1970) experiment was conducted upon schoolboys in Bristol, UK, who
developed strong in-group and out-group identities after being socially
categorised into meaningless groups (supposedly based on their preference
for one artist over the other). This study demonstrated the minimal conditions
necessary for in-group preference (positive distinctiveness), which is why it is
known as the minimal group paradigm. Apparently, all that's necessary to create
an in-group preference is to simply put people into groups – in this case 'Klee'
or 'Kandinsky'.
The 48 schoolboys, all aged around 14 to 15 years old, were randomly
allocated to either a 'Klee group' or to a 'Kandinsky group'. The boys were then
asked to allocate points (worth 1/10 of a penny each) to one another
anonymously, on a matrix, while working quietly in an individual
cubicle. Participants assigned points to both the in-group and the out-group,
and they had a workbook full of matrices to work through. The matrices were
intended to test intergroup discrimination, and the arrangement of each
matrix allowed each participant to vary how the points were allocated:

Sample point matrix from Tajfel (1970).

Tajfel found that the participants tended to choose the option that maximised
the point differential between the two groups, even when it meant the in-group
got fewer points. For example, on the matrix above, participants tended to
choose the first column because it maximised the difference between in-group
and out-group, even if the sixth column would have given the in-group more
points (and still maintained an advantage over the out-group).

Furthermore, when the boys had the choice between maximising the profit for
all and maximising the profit for their own group, they chose the latter. They
were found to be more concerned with creating as large a difference as
possible between the amounts allocated to each group (in favour of their own
group), than in gaining a greater amount for everybody, across the two groups.
The maximum number of points for the in-group is 19 in Table 1, but the boys
did not choose this option because it would have given the out-group more
points. Rather than maximising benefit, they maximised distinctiveness.

Similarly, the boys could have earned themselves more points by choosing the
sixth column, but that choice would give the out-group only one point less. The
first column maximises distinctiveness between the groups, so that is what the
boys tended to choose.

Tajfel interpreted this as evidence of blatant discrimination associated with the

categorisation of the boys into apparently meaningless social groups. As such,
it forms the basis of Tajfel's minimal group paradigm.
Exam tip
The studies on the minimal group paradigm described are useful for exam
questions related to social identity theory (SIT), as the minimal group
paradigm can be both explained and exemplified in terms of SIT.

Tajfel (1970) is also relevant to exam questions on stereotypes (discussed

later), as even the most minimal groups were enough to cause the Klee boys to
discriminate against the Kandinsky boys, and vice versa. Social identity theory
offers one possible explanation for the formation of stereotypes.

The study stands as a clear example of in-group bias and the minimal group
paradigm, thereby showing just how easy it is to form a social identity - group
membership to virtually any group is all it takes. Each matrix included many
options for fairness, usually toward the middle of the matrix, but most
participants chose the more extreme options, either trying to maximise their own
profit, but more often trying to maximise the difference with the other group.

From a methodological viewpoint, the study effectively established the bare

minimum for group membership using experimental methodology in a controlled
laboratory setting. However, the generalisability may be somewhat limited as
teenage boys may be more or less prone to social identification and in-group
distinctions than the population at large.

Furthermore, some critics have argued that the participants made their point
allocations not because of the minimal group paradigm, but because of demand
characteristics as they attempted to 'do well' in the experiment. This point is
debatable, as the experimental design suggested that minimal groups were
indeed responsible for the maximised difference in point allocations.

Regardless, Tajfel demonstrated how easy it was to create in-groups, and how
easy it was to get them to discriminate against each other. It's no wonder in-
group/out-group conflict is practically a fact of life. At the same time, if the
preconditions for prejudice and discrimination are easily created through the
minimal group paradigm, then perhaps they can be easily broken to reduce
prejudice and discrimination.

Dobbs and Crano (2001) - challenging the minimal group paradigm

The Dobbs and Crano (2001) experiment pose some challenges to social
identity theory. For example, in-group favouritism increased for members of
minority groups, whereas it decreased in the majority group. This is more
complex than social identity theory would predict, and is therefore difficult to
explain. Clearly, the minimal group paradigm is not working on its own to cause
discrimination, as it appears that other factors (like majority/minority status and
accountability) are influential too.
In terms of real-life applications, this may mean that in-groups may be less
inclined to discriminate against other groups when they have to justify or explain
their choices. This means that the minimal group paradigm only explains
intergroup conflict under certain conditions.

Evaluation of social identity theory

Social identity theory might be better at explaining human behaviour than
predicting it - that's probably because in-group preferences are more complex
than the theory suggests. It's easy enough to plug in the interpretations after the
fact, but social identity theory doesn't give much guidance on how people may
act from moment to moment.

Another issue is that social identity theory seems to suggest that in-group
favouritism will lead automatically to bias, stereotyping, discrimination and so
on, against the out-group. It also assumes that in-group members will always
prefer their own group over any other groups, but that's too simple. There are all
kinds of groups with reluctant members. Some Americans, for example, won't
stand for the national anthem, and may not even identify with certain aspects of
American culture, but yet they remain clearly American as part of their social
identity.

Finally, the whole theory seems to assume that in-group favouritism is a fact of
life, and that social groups compete with each other. In reality, it doesn't have to
be that way. Intergroup conflict happens, but so does intergroup co-operation
- it could be that conflict is just more obvious or more evident in the media.

Figure 3. Intergroup co-operation can happen.

The theory also doesn’t fully explain individual differences in prejudices and
discrimination, because prejudice is often based on historical intergroup
relationships, rather than simple grouping. Conflict may arise, for example, due
to a history of competition over resources between two groups.

However, Tajfel's research on the minimal group paradigm offers some

support to some key elements of social identity theory, particularly social
categorisation and positive distinctiveness.