Addressing Replicability Concerns via Adversarial Collaboration: Discovering Hidden Moderators of the Minimal Intergroup Discrimination Effect
Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s) Norbert L. Kerr, Michigan State University
Version: View help for Version V1
Version Title: View help for Version Title September 2017
| Name | File Type | Size | Last Modified |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
application/pdf | 274.6 KB | 09/11/2017 07:47:PM |
|
|
application/pdf | 93.5 KB | 09/13/2017 09:43:AM |
|
|
application/pdf | 74.3 KB | 09/13/2017 09:23:AM |
|
|
application/x-spss-sav | 53.2 KB | 09/13/2017 09:42:AM |
Project Citation:
Kerr, Norbert L. Addressing Replicability Concerns via Adversarial Collaboration: Discovering Hidden Moderators of the Minimal Intergroup Discrimination Effect. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2017-09-13. https://doi.org/10.3886/E100958V1
Project Description
Summary:
View help for Summary
The present research was launched following the failure to replicate the well-established ingroup favoritism effect found in the minimal group paradigm. The focus of this adversarial collaboration was the discrepancy between the previous minimal group studies conducted by the co-authors Three possible moderators of this effect were examined in the current study: context (participants isolated or in presence of others), instructions (verbal or written) and culture (US vs. Australia). Two college samples were simultaneously drawn from an Australian university and an American one (Ntotal = 412). Using the classic minimal group paradigm, participants were randomly assigned to minimal groups before completing the task to allocate points to one of their fellow in- or outgroup members. Tajfel matrices were used to provide a variety of options for point allocation and the choices made by participants were thus the key measure of ingroup favoritism. After the point allocation task, participants were asked answer a series of questions regarding the following issues: perceptions of others’ presence, attitudes toward the targets of point allocation, evaluation of the targets and themselves, feelings about the point allocation task and their use of particular strategies to complete the task.
The present research was launched following the failure to replicate the well-established ingroup favoritism effect found in the minimal group paradigm. The focus of this adversarial collaboration was the discrepancy between the previous minimal group studies conducted by the co-authors Three possible moderators of this effect were examined in the current study: context (participants isolated or in presence of others), instructions (verbal or written) and culture (US vs. Australia). Two college samples were simultaneously drawn from an Australian university and an American one (Ntotal = 412). Using the classic minimal group paradigm, participants were randomly assigned to minimal groups before completing the task to allocate points to one of their fellow in- or outgroup members. Tajfel matrices were used to provide a variety of options for point allocation and the choices made by participants were thus the key measure of ingroup favoritism. After the point allocation task, participants were asked answer a series of questions regarding the following issues: perceptions of others’ presence, attitudes toward the targets of point allocation, evaluation of the targets and themselves, feelings about the point allocation task and their use of particular strategies to complete the task.
Scope of Project
Subject Terms:
View help for Subject Terms
social psychology;
group dynamics;
intergroup relations
Geographic Coverage:
View help for Geographic Coverage
USA ,
Australia
Time Period(s):
View help for Time Period(s)
9/1/1993 – 10/27/1993
Collection Date(s):
View help for Collection Date(s)
9/1/1993 – 10/27/1993
Universe:
View help for Universe
Adults over 18 in US and Australia. Participants were volunteers recruited from classes at an Australian and American university.
Adults over 18 in US and Australia. Participants were volunteers recruited from classes at an Australian and American university.
Data Type(s):
View help for Data Type(s)
experimental data
Methodology
Response Rate:
View help for Response Rate
All participants agreed to complete the experiment and questionnaires.
All participants agreed to complete the experiment and questionnaires.
Sampling:
View help for Sampling
Both the American and Australian sample were conveniece samples. All participants were recruited in large intro psych classes and received course credits for their participation in the current study.
Both the American and Australian sample were conveniece samples. All participants were recruited in large intro psych classes and received course credits for their participation in the current study.
Collection Mode(s):
View help for Collection Mode(s)
on-site questionnaire
Scales:
View help for Scales
Tajfel’s matrices (Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971) were used in the current study to measure the extent that participants exhibit ingroup favoritism in the minimal group condition (i.e., participants were randomly assigned to groups based on arbitrary catigorization). There is a total of 12 matrices in Tajfel’s matrices, nine of which were adapted from the rest of the three generic matrices. In each matrix, there are two rows that represents the number of points to be allocated to one’s fellow ingroup member or the outgroup member. There are also 13 columns in every matrix that provides one with 13 types of the various combinations of the points to be allocated to the in- or outgroup member. All matrices were designed to examine participants’ tendency to use the following four strategies when they are doing the points allocation task: maximizing the points given to the ingroup member (MIP, maximize ingroup profit), maximize (positive) differences between in- and outgroup in point allocation (MD, maximize differences), equal/fair outcomes for both in- and outgroup members (F, fair) and maximize the total points allocated to the ingroup member and the outgroup member (MJP, maximize joint profit). With Tajfel’s matrices, one is enabled to calculated the pull scores that can indicate the participants’ tendency to show ingroup favoritism (i.e., MIP + MD on MJP, MD on MIP+MJP, and MD+MIP on F), equality/fairness (i.e., F on MD+MIP) or maximizing the total points allocated to both group members (MJP on MIP+MD, and MJP+MIP on MD). Please refer to the article by Bourhis, Satchdev, and Gagnon (1994) for more detailed information regarding the calculation of these pull scores.
Bibliography
Tajfel, H., Billig, M., Bundy, R., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149-178. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420010202
Bourhis, R. Y., Sachdev, I., & Gagnon, A. (1994). Intergroup research with the Tajfel matrices: Methodological notes. In M. Zanna & J. Olson (Eds.), The psychology of prejudice: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 7, pp. 209-232). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tajfel’s matrices (Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971) were used in the current study to measure the extent that participants exhibit ingroup favoritism in the minimal group condition (i.e., participants were randomly assigned to groups based on arbitrary catigorization). There is a total of 12 matrices in Tajfel’s matrices, nine of which were adapted from the rest of the three generic matrices. In each matrix, there are two rows that represents the number of points to be allocated to one’s fellow ingroup member or the outgroup member. There are also 13 columns in every matrix that provides one with 13 types of the various combinations of the points to be allocated to the in- or outgroup member. All matrices were designed to examine participants’ tendency to use the following four strategies when they are doing the points allocation task: maximizing the points given to the ingroup member (MIP, maximize ingroup profit), maximize (positive) differences between in- and outgroup in point allocation (MD, maximize differences), equal/fair outcomes for both in- and outgroup members (F, fair) and maximize the total points allocated to the ingroup member and the outgroup member (MJP, maximize joint profit). With Tajfel’s matrices, one is enabled to calculated the pull scores that can indicate the participants’ tendency to show ingroup favoritism (i.e., MIP + MD on MJP, MD on MIP+MJP, and MD+MIP on F), equality/fairness (i.e., F on MD+MIP) or maximizing the total points allocated to both group members (MJP on MIP+MD, and MJP+MIP on MD). Please refer to the article by Bourhis, Satchdev, and Gagnon (1994) for more detailed information regarding the calculation of these pull scores.
Bibliography
Tajfel, H., Billig, M., Bundy, R., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149-178. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420010202
Bourhis, R. Y., Sachdev, I., & Gagnon, A. (1994). Intergroup research with the Tajfel matrices: Methodological notes. In M. Zanna & J. Olson (Eds.), The psychology of prejudice: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 7, pp. 209-232). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Weights:
View help for Weights
No weighting was applied (except in calculation of equal-weight means of scale items).
No weighting was applied (except in calculation of equal-weight means of scale items).
Unit(s) of Observation:
View help for Unit(s) of Observation
Invididuals
Geographic Unit:
View help for Geographic Unit
Culture/nationality
Related Publications
Published Versions
Report a Problem
Found a serious problem with the data, such as disclosure risk or copyrighted content? Let us know.
This material is distributed exactly as it arrived from the data depositor. ICPSR has not checked or processed this material. Users should consult the investigator(s) if further information is desired.