This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Berkowitz, N. H. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Berkowitz, N. H. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Evidence that Subjects' Expectancies Confound Intergroup Bias in Tajfel's Minimal Group Paradigm

Boston College

Reports that persons discriminate against out-group members even at cost to the in-group refer primarily to subjects' distribution of money in minimal group situations. Expectancies that might confound that measure of discrimination are examined here. First divided into minimal groups, subjects divided money between in-group and out-group members so as to (a) confirm whatever they believed to be the study hypothesis (positive demand), (b) disconfirm that hypothesis (negative demand), and (c) express their own unrestricted preferences (intergroup bias). The demand measures preceded, followed, or were placed between blocks of unrestricted trials. There were no effects of demand placement, but significant negative correlations and differences in means were found between amounts awarded under positive and negative demand instructions. Correlations between positive demand and bias scores, questionnaire reports of expectancies favoring discrimination, and relationships between reported expectations and bias scores are consistent with "demand" explanations of early minimal intergroup studies.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Rubin and M. Hewstone Social Identity Theory's Self-Esteem Hypothesis: A Review and Some Suggestions for Clarification Personality and Social Psychology Review, February 1, 1998; 2(1): 40 - 62. [Abstract] [PDF]