Groen, B.M. (2019) - Minimal Group Paradigm: An Intergroup Dynamics Study Minimal Group Paradigm: An Intergroup Dynamics Study Bernard M. GROEN.1 Abstract The study outlined in this paper, was designed to further elicit in-group and out-group bias between self-grouped and self-categorised participants, is an adaptation of Tajfel's (et al) 1979 study on ‘social comparison and group interest in in-group favouritism’. Therefore, their article, and others related to it, will be extensively quoted and used in this paper as they form the basis of this study. The Tajfel study examined the effects of reward magnitude and comparability of the out-group on minimal inter-group discrimination where self-interest was related to in-group profit. Favouritism towards own group is hypothesised to arise from inter- group comparison to enhance self-esteem as well as instrumental rivalry for group and self- interest. In this adaptation of their study, sixty-three participants, which were employed in the health sector (n=31) and in the social care sector (n=32) in the North East of England were requested (as part of their survey completion) to distribute rewards (fictitious funding/monetary) via amended choice matrices, to the in-group and the relevant comparison out-group. Self-interest was explicitly and directly linked to the allocation of absolute profit to the in-group. KEY WORDS: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; RESEARCH METHODS; BEHAVIOURAL ECONOMICS; SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION; MINIMAL GROUP PARADIGM; INTERGROUP DYNAMICS. This paper is submitted as a preprint in February 2019 for collaborative development with interested authors, for formal peer-review submission to a high-quality journal. Therefore, it is in ‘long format’ currently and will be revised down in line with appropriate journal guidelines. CURRENT WORD COUNT (NET): 10,530 AS AT FEBRUARY 2019 1 Lead author contact details: Dr Bernard M Groen, Durham University Business School, Mill Hill Lane, Durham, DH1 3LB, England, United Kingdom, [email protected] 1 Groen, B.M. (2019) - Minimal Group Paradigm: An Intergroup Dynamics Study Relevant Literature There are many kinds of prejudice, however, what exactly is meant by the word ‘prejudice’? A useful starting point when reviewing literature on this subject is a definition found in the dictionary; ‘preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience’ (Oxford English Dictionary, 2014). Many scholars emphasize elements such as ‘inaccuracy’ or ‘incorrectness’ when attempting to define prejudice. (Allport, 1954, p.10) wrote; ‘[e]thnic prejudice is an antipathy based upon a faulty and inflexible generalisation. It may be felt or expressed. It may be directed towards a group as a whole or an individual because he is a member of that group.’ More recently (Samson, 1999) expanded Allport’s assertion; ‘prejudice involves an unjustified, usually negative attitude towards others because of their social category or group membership.’ In furthering our understanding of the social psychological understanding of prejudice, (Brown, 2010) wrote a useful summary; “Such social psychological definitions [as those by Allport and Samson above] have much to recommend them over formal lexical accounts. In particular, they accurately convey one essential aspect of the phenomenon of prejudice – that it is a social orientation either towards whole groups of people or towards individuals because of their membership of a particular group.” (2010, p. 4). The other common factor between these definitions is that they stress the negative flavour of group prejudice. Of course, commonsensically, “prejudice can take both positive and negative forms”. (again Brown, 2010, p4.) This last addition to Brown’s introductory definition proves very helpful indeed. For it is within this study that both positive and negative prejudice will be explored as a possible blockage to achieve positive integration and collaboration between different organizations. However, the above definitions ought not to imply that prejudice always involves false, irrational beliefs or generalizations towards other groups in society, neither should the definition of prejudice be limited to be strictly negative in nature as aforementioned. Indeed, recent analyses and definitions of prejudice have been adapted to include positive attitudes, judgments or feelings towards others. (Brown, 2010) explains; “[…] in a nutshell, the argument runs like this: many inter-group attitudes, whilst superficially positive in character, serve to perpetuate an out-group’s subordinate status position, since they accord value to the out-group only on specific and, typically, less ‘important’ attributes.” (p.6) 2 Groen, B.M. (2019) - Minimal Group Paradigm: An Intergroup Dynamics Study This has significant relevance to this study as one of the hypothesis relates directly to status attribution and retaining the ‘status-quo’ what Brown seems to suggest here is that negative (and positive) prejudice serve to retain the higher status of those who already occupy that social ranking, and that ‘movement’ towards association with other groups will only be possible is higher status individuals deem it to perpetuate the status quo, or increase their social status/ranking. Particularly those viewed as ‘subservient’ to their own group, will be limited by the perceived loss in social standing, leading to implicit obstruction of collaboration efforts between the two different groups (in this study individuals employed in the healthcare and social care sectors). Indeed, Brown continues with a helpful further clarification; ‘[…] thus, however positive and genuine the feeling underlying such attitudes may be, their net effect is to reinforce rather than to undermine any pre-existing inter-group inequalities.’ (Brown, p.6) It is hypothesized that however ‘benevolent’ the sentiments held by healthcare professionals seem, their ultimate effect will be to define social care professionals as dependent on, and hence subordinate to, healthcare professionals (i.e. their ingroup). Following on from the previous section on the creation of prejudice in social psychology, (Allport, 1954) adds a useful suggestion that social categorization is almost a prerequisite to the creation of prejudice in society which emphasizes the ordinary and indeed the common place nature of it. As aforementioned the psychological process of categorization is ‘an inescapable feature of human existence.’ According to (Bruner, 1957) This is because “… the world is too complex a place for us to be able to survive without some means of simplifying or ordering it first.” By assigning objects and constructs to categories, the process of understanding the world is simplified. One direct outcome of categorisation is a cognitive accentuation of differences between categories and a attenuation of the differences within categories. These processes of differentiation and assimilation have been shown to affect inter-group behaviours such as for example discrimination and prejudice whether it be positive or negative in nature. The supposition that a significant amount of these processes may operate outside our awareness forms a major part of the studies which comprise this paper. The distinction between conscious and unconscious thought, also referred to as explicit and implicit thought, and prejudices are outlined in the relevant papers of this paper and highlighted where appropriate. 3 Groen, B.M. (2019) - Minimal Group Paradigm: An Intergroup Dynamics Study The adaptation of a particular category in a given context depends on the ease of its cognitive accessibility. The most common factors that influence the ease of access to a particular category are aligned to an “ … individual’s needs, goals, and habitual dispositions, or features of the stimuli such as visibility, proximity and interdependence.” (Brown, 2010) Indeed, following on from Brown’s rather helpful introduction above, (Dovidio, Hewstone, Glick, & Esses, 2010) provide further insight when they offer a useful guide to the following three interrelated concepts; “the three forms of social bias towards a group and its members: (a) prejudice, an attitude reflecting overall evaluation of a group; (b) stereotypes, associations, and attributions of specific characteristics to a group; and (c) discrimination, biased behaviour toward, and treatment of, a group or its members.” (p. 5) Furthermore, they describe prejudice as being “typically conceptualised as an attitude that, like other attitudes, has a cognitive component (e.g., beliefs about a target group), an affective component (e.g., dislike/like), and a conative component (e.g., a behavioural predisposition to behave negatively toward the target group)”. (p. 6). They formalise the above definition further on in their work as; “prejudice is an individual-level attitude (whether subjectively positive or negative) toward groups and their members that creates or maintains hierarchical status relations between groups.” (p. 7) In addition they provide an example of (Eagly & Diekman, 2005) who view prejudice as; “a mechanism that maintains status and the role differences between groups … indeed individuals who deviate from their group’s traditional role arouse negative reactions; others who exhibit behaviours that reinforce the status quo elicit positive responses.” (p. 21) Within the context of this paper, it is extremely helpful to note that; “because prejudice represents an individual-level psychological bias, members of traditionally