Minimal Group Setting Research Articles

Social Anhedonia and Intergroup Processes: A Multi-Study Investigation of Known and Novel Group Memberships

Introduction: Group memberships play an important role in promoting psychological well-being and supporting social functioning. However, studies suggest that individuals with social anhedonia, a characteristic defined by limited pleasure from social bonds, may show abnormalities in their desire to cultivate positive feelings, such as belongingness, from social groups. Still, these abnormalities have not been studied in the context of intergroup processes, leaving the relation between social anhedonia and subjective evaluations of group memberships unclear. Methods: Across three studies (Ns = 124-659), we examined associations between social anhedonia and affective and cognitive attitudes about different types of ingroups and outgroups using self-report and behavioral measures. Results: Taken together, results indicate that social anhedonia is associated with less positive and more negative feelings and beliefs about most ingroups and outgroups from everyday life, as well as negatively biased stereotyping of many prominent social groups. At the same time, individuals with either extremely high or low levels of social anhedonia did not report significantly different intergroup attitudes when group memberships were experimentally manipulated in a minimal group setting. Discussion: Overall, these findings suggest that social anhedonia is associated with less positive and more negative subjective evaluations of long-established, real-world ingroups, but not of a newly formed ingroup that requires little motivation or social engagement to maintain group membership. Aberrant feelings and attitudes toward one's ingroups are consistent with the theory that social anhedonia is related to anomalies in the need to belong within social groups from everyday life and could inform psychosocial interventions for related psychopathologies.

Collective narcissism and weakening of American democracy

AbstractThe storming of the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, and voter intimidation by Donald Trump's supporters have marked significant upheaval in American democracy. In two cross‐sectional studies and one experiment, we tested the proposition that American collective narcissism is associated with support for populist leadership (particular, their message of renewed ingroup recognition) to the point of disregard for democratic procedures. In Study 1, conducted just before the 2020 presidential elections, we examined the association of American collective narcissism with support for Trump's re‐election even if he was to violate the democratic procedures while securing it. In pre‐registered Study 2, conducted just after the Capitol attack, we examined the association between American collective narcissism and support for the attacks. In Study 3, we experimentally examined a more general proposition that collective narcissism is associated with support for populist leaders and lack of support for democratic procedures, in a minimal group setting deprived of any associations with a particular political context. The results of the three studies converge to indicate that collective narcissism is most strongly (beyond variables commonly implicated in support for right‐wing populism) associated with populist leadership to the extent of disregarding democratic norms.

Jumping on the 'bad'wagon? How group membership influences responses to the social exclusion of others.

In four studies, we addressed whether group membership influences behavioral and neural responses to the social exclusion of others. Participants played a modified three-player Cyberball game (Studies 1–3) or a team-selection task (Study 4) in the absence or presence of a minimal group setting. In the absence of a minimal group, when one player excluded another player, participants actively included the excluded target. When the excluder was from the in-group and the excluded player from the out-group, participants were less likely to intervene (Studies 1–3) and also more often went along with the exclusion (Study 4). Functional magnetic resonance imaging results (Study 3) showed that greater exclusion in the minimal group setting concurred with increased activation in the dorsolateral pre-frontal cortex, a region associated with overriding cognitive conflict. Self-reports from Study 4 supported these results by showing that participants’ responses to the target’s exclusion were motivated by group membership as well as participants’ general aversion to exclude others. Together, the findings suggest that when people witness social exclusion, group membership triggers a motivational conflict between favoring the in-group and including the out-group target. This underscores the importance of group composition for understanding the dynamics of social exclusion.

Ingroup/Outgroup Attitudes and Group Evaluations: The Role of Competition in British Classroom Settings

Children’s intergroup bias is one of the consequences of their readiness to categorise people into ingroups and outgroups, even when groups are assigned arbitrarily. The present study examined the influence of intergroup competition on children’s ingroup and outgroup attitudes developed within the minimal-group setting in British classrooms. One hundred and twelve children in two age groups (6-7- and 9-10-year-olds) were assessed on classification skills and self-esteem before being allocated to one of two colour “teams.” In the experimental condition, children were told that the teams would have a competition after two weeks and teachers made regular use of these teams to organise activities. In the control condition, where no competition ensued, teachers did not refer to “teams.” Then children completed trait attributions to their own-team (ingroup) and other-team (outgroup) members and group evaluations. It was found that children developed positive ingroup bias across conditions, but outgroup negative bias was shown only by 6-7-year-olds in the experimental condition, particularly if they lost the competition, where they evaluated their team more critically. Better classification skills were associated with less negativity towards the outgroup in the experimental condition. Findings are discussed in relation to relevant theoretical premises and particulars of the intergroup context.

Reactions to ingroup and outgroup deviants: an experimental group paradigm for black sheep effect.

In the classic black sheep effect (BSE) an ingroup deviant member is usually evaluated more negatively than the corresponding outgroup deviant. This effect is usually obtained by using scenarios and asking people to imagine the situation as vividly as possible. The present study proposes a new method to investigate the BSE by considering the behavioral and physiological reactions to unfair behavior (aggressive game behavior) in a realistic experimental group-setting. The study involved 52 university students in a minimal group setting who performed a modified version of the competitive reaction time (CRT) task adapted to be played in groups of four people. The classic BSE was replicated for evaluation but not for the behavioral reactions (retaliate to aggression) to deviants. More interestingly, a negative relationship emerged in the ingroup deviant condition between the level of behavioral derogation and the systolic blood pressure level.

Badly off or better off than them? The impact of relative deprivation and relative gratification on intergroup discrimination.

This research examines for the 1st time the effects of relative deprivation and relative gratification, based on social comparison, on implicit and overt forms of discrimination toward the outgroup in a minimal group setting. Study 1 showed that compared to a control condition, relative deprivation and relative gratification enhanced implicit discrimination-measured through variations of linguistic abstraction in intergroup descriptions. Whereas both relative deprivation and relative gratification produced linguistic ingroup favoritism, linguistic productions of relatively deprived groups also conveyed outgroup derogation. Study 2 showed that relatively deprived and relatively gratified groups were overtly discriminatory in intergroup allocations of negative outcomes. The effects of relative deprivation were mediated by perceived intergroup rivalry and, in part, by perceived common fate. Perceived common fate partly accounted for the effects of relative gratification. Study 3 focused on mediators of relative gratification. First, members of relatively gratified (vs. control) groups worried about losing the ingroup advantage, which together worked as sequential mediators of discrimination. Second, relatively gratified groups reported higher existential guilt, which, in turn, was related to expectations of discrimination by the relatively deprived outgroup, and these sequentially mediated the effects of relative gratification. Overall, these studies highlight that both relative deprivation and relative gratification enhance intergroup discrimination and contribute to the understanding of the underlying processes.

Can you trust the good guys? Trust within and between groups with different missions

Non-governmental organizations and other non-profit organizations attract workers who strongly identify themselves with their missions. We study whether these “good guys” are more trustworthy, and how such pronounced group identities affect trust and trustworthiness within the groups and towards out-groups. We find that subjects who strongly identify themselves with a non-profit mission are more trustworthy in a minimal group setting but also harshly discriminate against out-groups when subjects are grouped by the missions they identify themselves with.

Can You Trust the Good Guys? Trust within and between Groups with Different Missions

NGOs and other non-profit organizations attract workers who strongly identify themselves with their missions. We study whether these good guys are more trust- worthy and how such pronounced group identities affect trust and trustworthiness within the groups and toward out-groups. We find that subjects who strongly identify themselves with a non-profit mission are more trustworthy in a minimal group setting but also harshly discriminate against out-groups when subjects are grouped by the missions they identify themselves with.

Determinants of in-group bias: Is group affiliation mediated by guilt-aversion?

In-group favoritism in social dilemma situations is one of Social Identity Theory’s main findings. We investigate what causes the in-group bias: is it merely due to group affiliation or, alternatively, is guilt-aversion moderating the strength of in-group favoring? We induce group membership in a minimal group setting, observe in-/out-group transfers and elicit corresponding beliefs. According to our experimental data group affiliation affects beliefs and explains a substantial part of the bias. Evidence for guilt-aversion is found only when beliefs are elicited before actions.

Increasing Group Entitativity

Previous research has shown the strength of the linguistic intergroup bias across different intergroup settings. However, there is no evidence of linguistic discrimination within minimal groups. This experiment aimed to shed light on the phenomenon of linguistic intergroup discrimination in a minimal group setting, and to investigate the impact of group entitativity on this bias. Four group entitativity conditions were created by altering the mere categorization condition toward less entitativity and toward more entitativity. Participants were asked to describe the choice allegedly made by another participant in allocating resources to ingroup and outgroup members. Results showed an overall linguistic bias, whereby ingroup behaviors were described more positively and abstractly than outgroup behaviors. Increasing group entitativity resulted in increasingly biased outgroup descriptions, which in the most entitative condition revealed a predominant use of negative abstract terms.

The Effects of Intragroup Interaction and Cohesion on Intergroup Bias

The current study investigated the effects of intragroup interaction and cohesion on intergroup bias in a minimal group setting. As expected, interacting groups displayed a stronger intergroup bias than did individual group members acting in isolation. Moreover, there was a tendency for cohesive groups to show more intergroup bias than did groups formed on an ad hoc basis. Additional analyses showed that while groups and individuals did not differ in their treatment of the ingroup, groups discriminated against outgroup members more strongly than did individually acting group members. The findings are discussed with respect to their implications for understanding the differences in intergroup bias between groups, whose members interact, and individually acting group members.

Evidence for Implicit Evaluative In-Group Bias: Affect-Biased Spontaneous Trait Inference in a Minimal Group Paradigm

Mere categorization of individuals into two distinct social categories has been shown to elicit in-group favoritism. Positive differentiation, even of trivial groups, has been explained in terms of a striving for a positive social identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). The present study questions this interpretation by providing evidence for the implicit activation of positive affect toward novel in-groups. A minimal group setting was combined with a typical paradigm measuring spontaneous trait inferences (STIs). Results show that behaviors that implied positive traits about an in-group member were more likely to be categorized in a manner consistent with the implied trait than when (a) the behaviors were performed by an out-group member and (b) the traits implied were negative. There was no facilitation of trait inference to out-group members performing negative behaviors (i.e., there was evidence for implicit in-group favoritism but not out-group derogation).

About the impact of automaticity in the minimal group paradigm: evidence from affective priming tasks

Two experiments examined whether novel, minimal ingroups are automatically associated with positive affect while outgroups do not elicit such positive evaluative default. Participants were assigned to social categories in a typical minimal group setting and subsequently administered a masked priming task, i.e. prime words were not consciously recognized. Following either the presentation of a priori positive or negative words or the presentation of the group labels, participants classified adjectives with regard to their valence (positive/negative). In Experiment 1, a standard affective priming paradigm was realized with response latencies as dependent measures; in Experiment 2, a response window technique was used, with errors as crucial measure. In both studies, significant affective congruency effects emerged similarly for standard primes and category labels, indicating ingroup bias on an implicit level. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Positive Mood and In-Group-Out-Group Differentiation in a Minimal Group Setting

Two experiments examined the impact of positive mood on impression formation about in-group and out-group members. Participants performed a dot estimation task and received feedback that they belonged either to the group of overestimators or underestimators. They rated the likability of target persons characterized by positive or negative traits and, in half of the trials, by their group membership (overestimators or underestimators). These judgments were made either in an unmanipulated neutral mood state or after induction of a positive mood. Both experiments revealed a stronger in-group-out-group differentiation in a positive mood than in a neutral mood. Without group label presented, the impact of the individuating information was the same in both mood states; with group label presented, it was smaller in positive mood. Response latencies did not vary with mood. The data demonstrate a twofold impact of mood, due to both its informational function and its enhancement of the categorizing information's weight.

Distinctiveness threat and prototypicality: combined effects on intergroup discrimination and collective self‐esteem

The combined influence on ingroup bias of threat to group distinctiveness and prototypicality as a group member was examined in two studies. It was predicted, in line with social identity theory, that threat to group distinctiveness would lead to more ingroup bias. In addition, on the basis of self-categorization theory it was predicted that protypical and peripheral group members would react differently to a threat to their group distinctiveness. Only group members who define themselves as prototypical group members should be motivated to defend their threatened distinctiveness by engaging in increased ingroup bias. This hypothesis was first supported in a modified minimal group setting in which threat was operationalized as overlapping group boundaries, These results were then replicated in a Second study, using better-established groups, fdr whom distinctiveness threat was manipulated in terms of intergroup similarity. Moreover, some support was found in Study 2 for the prediction that the opportunity to engage in intergroup differentiation can, under restricted conditions, enhance group-related self-esteem. (C) 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Self-anchoring and differentiation processes in the minimal group setting.

In-group favoritism in the minimal group setting was hypothesized to be a function of 2 processes: a tendency to base in-group judgments on the self (self-anchoring) and a tendency to assume 1 group to be opposite of the other (differentiation). In the first 3 experiments, in which the order of rating the self and target group was varied, was categorized and uncategorized participants were given trait information about 1 group and were asked to estimate the level of those traits in the other group. In-group judges tended to base group ratings on the self, whereas out-group and uncategorized judges inferred the 2 groups to be opposite of one another. Experiment 4 attempted to directly assess the direction of inference between self and in-group by giving feedback about self or in-group on unfamiliar dimensions and found that participants were more willing to generalize from self to in-group than from in-group to self.

Self-anchoring and differentiation processes in the minimal group setting.

Self-anchoring and differentiation processes in the minimal group setting.

Intergroup norms and intergroup discrimination: distinctive self-categorization and social identity effects.

Manipulation of in-group and out-group norms of discrimination and fairness allowed for the operation of competing social identity principles concerning in-group bias, conformity, and group distinctiveness. The combined effects of these principles on in-group bias were first examined in a modified minimal-group setting (Study 1). Results demonstrated that participants' allocation strategies were in accord with the in-group norm. Furthermore, dissimilar norms resulted in greater use of positive differentiation allocation strategies. However, in natural groups (Study 2), more in-group bias was found when both group norms were similar and discriminatory. The results confirm the importance of in-group norms and demonstrate differences between experimental and natural groups in the applicability of competing social identity and self-categorization principles.

Trivial and Important Criteria for Social Categorization in the Minimal Group Paradigm

Abstract The study examined how the importance of a criterion for social categorization can vary with the social context. The main hypothesis was that there would be no difference between the influence of two criteria of differing real-world importance when each is used independently as the only criterion for social categorization in the same minimal group setting. The subsidiary hypothesis was that social categorization on both a trivial and an important basis would lead to positive in-group bias. The subjects were 66 schoolboys. Social categorization was on the basis of either a minimal criterion or subjects' school house-system. Both the main and the subsidiary hypotheses were confirmed.