In Tajfel's minimal group paradigm, participants were randomly assigned to groups based on arbitrary criteria (e.g., dot-estimation tasks). What did these studies consistently show?
AParticipants showed favoritism toward their in-group even with no history, interaction, or material stakes
BParticipants treated both groups equally because the groups were meaningless
CParticipants showed hostility toward the out-group more strongly than favoritism toward the in-group
DParticipants only showed bias when they believed group membership reflected real ability
The striking finding was that mere categorization — without any shared history, face-to-face interaction, or material competition — was sufficient to produce in-group favoritism in resource allocation. This isolated categorization itself as a sufficient cause of bias, independent of realistic conflict or group history.
Question 2 True / False
Social identity theory predicts that in-group favoritism and out-group hostility are equally strong and typically occur together.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
A key distinction in social identity research is that in-group favoritism (favoring one's own group) is more robust and consistent than out-group hostility (actively denigrating or harming the out-group). In minimal group situations especially, people favor their in-group without necessarily showing hostility toward the out-group. The two are related but empirically separable, and conflating them leads to incomplete prejudice-reduction strategies.
Question 3 Short Answer
According to social identity theory, why do people show favoritism toward arbitrary in-groups even when nothing material is at stake?
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: Because group membership contributes to self-concept, and people are motivated to maintain positive social identity. Favoring the in-group in comparisons with out-groups boosts the group's relative status, which supports a positive self-image.
Tajfel and Turner argued that self-esteem is partially derived from the perceived value of the groups one belongs to. When a group is positively distinct from comparison groups, members benefit via self-enhancement. This mechanism explains why even meaningless categorization triggers favoritism — there is always a self-enhancement payoff to believing your group is better.