DOI: 10.3886/e100958v1
title: Addressing Replicability Concerns via Adversarial Collaboration: Discovering Hidden Moderators of the Minimal Intergroup Discrimination Effect

description: <br>

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.

<br><br><br><br>
description: Weights: <br>No weighting was applied (except in calculation of equal-weight means of scale items).<br>
description: Response Rates: <br>All participants agreed
to complete the experiment and questionnaires.<br><br><br><br>
description: Presence of Common Scales: <br>

             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.

 <br><br>Bibliography<br><br> 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

<br><br>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.

<br><br><br><br>
description: on-site questionnaire~~
description: <br>Adults over 18 in US and Australia. Participants were volunteers recruited from classes at an Australian and American university.<br>Smallest Geographic Unit: Culture/nationality
description: <br>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. <br><br><br><br>