Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Minimal Group Paradigm (minimal + group_paradigm)
Selected AbstractsUnited we win, divided we fail?EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 3 2008Effects of cognitive merger representations, performance feedback on merging groups Research has shown that cognitive representations of mergers influence intergroup evaluations. This paper extends this research by studying how cognitive representations of mergers (one group, dual identity, and two groups) interact with performance feedback (success and failure) to affect intergroup evaluations. Two competing hypotheses were tested, which made different predictions in case of superordinate group salience combined with subgroup salience after merger failure: The subgroup-salience-hypothesis predicts that subgroup salience during a merger generally results in pre-merger ingroup bias toward the pre-merger outgroup (i.e., two groups and dual identity). The superordinate- salience-hypothesis predicts that subgroup salience only results in pre-merger ingroup bias if superordinate group salience is low (i.e., two groups). Both hypotheses predict low levels of ingroup bias after merger success. Study 1 confirmed the second hypothesis using a 3 (merger representation: one group, dual identity, and two groups),×,2 (merger feedback: failure and success) design with interacting groups. Study 2 replicated the results in an adapted minimal group paradigm. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] Ideological beliefs as determinants of discrimination in positive and negative outcome distributionsEUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 5 2005Catherine E. Amiot Social identity theory proposes that discrimination contributes favourably to group members' social identity. In minimal group paradigm (MGP) studies involving positive outcome distributions (e.g. money), discrimination is associated with a more positive social identity. But studies on the positive-negative asymmetry effect show that categorization leads to less discrimination when negative (salary cuts) than when positive outcomes (salary increases) are distributed. Using structural equation modelling, this study (N,=,279) tested whether discrimination involving negative outcome distributions could contribute as much to group members' positive social identity as discrimination on positive outcomes. The study also tested if ideological beliefs (i.e. social dominance orientation, authoritarianism), measured one month before the MGP experiment, could predict positive and negative outcome discrimination. While the fit of the hypothesized model was adequate, only social dominance orientation predicted both positive and negative outcome discrimination. Also, discrimination on positive outcomes but not on negative ones contributed to positive social identity. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] On the measurement of social orientations in the minimal group paradigm: norms as moderators of the expression of intergroup biasEUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 2 2001Lowell Gaertner Contrary to most other research conducted in the minimal group paradigm tradition, Bornstein, Crum, Wittenbraker, Harring, Insko and Thibaut (1983a) found little evidence of ingroup favoritism when they employed a revised measurement system (i.e. the Multiple Alternative Matrices; MAMs). The current experiment examined whether Bornstein et al.'s effects could be attributed to norms that prohibit intergroup discrimination, which are made salient by framing the outcome values in the intergroup allocation task as monetary payment. We manipulated the salience of prohibitive norms by varying whether participants allocated on the MAMs monetary payment, bonus money or feelings. Participants more strongly associated ,having to be fair and equal' with payment than with bonus or feelings and category members made fewer allocations that maximized the ingroup's relative and absolute profit and more allocations that minimized intergroup differences when allocating monetary payment than when allocating bonus money or feelings. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] Mergers and group status: the impact of high, low and equal group status on identification and satisfaction with a company merger, experienced controllability, group identity and group cohesionJOURNAL OF COMMUNITY & APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 3 2007Peter Fischer Abstract Although mergers are seen as tools to enhance business in today's global marketplace, they have had a low success rate, possibly because the focus has been on financial and legal issues rather than on the human factors involved. In this respect, focusing on the social psychological variables, social identity theory can provide an explanation for the failure of most mergers. An experiment based on this theory involving mergers between two workgroups was conducted to investigate the effects of merger-related status on participants' psychological responses to the mergers. Thirty-six small groups were assigned to three different status groups (high, low and equal status groups) using the minimal group paradigm. Most negative responses to the merger,in terms of identification with the merger group, satisfaction with the merger, common in-group identity, group cohesion and controllability,were given by the members of the low status groups. Contrary to expectations, status was not related to the performance of the groups. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] | ||||||||||