Practice question · True or false
A researcher reports that two groups formed at random and given meaningless names showed clear in-group favoritism within minutes of being created. Judged against Tajfel's minimal group findings, this result is expected rather than anomalous.
Hints
- Ask what conditions Tajfel deliberately stripped out of his own design, and what happened anyway.
- If a coin flip suffices, then randomness and meaninglessness are not obstacles to favoritism.
Show the answer
True
Why
True. Tajfel's minimal group studies produced favoritism with exactly these ingredients - random assignment, trivial labels, no history and no contact - so the result confirms the finding rather than contradicting it. Expecting it to be anomalous is the 'favoritism needs a real grievance' misconception.
Practise Social Identity Theory and the Dynamics of Intergroup Conflict
The app has 5 more questions on this lesson, and keeps your place in the course. Psychology I is free to start.
More questions on Social Identity Theory and the Dynamics of Intergroup Conflict
- In Tajfel's allocation task, participants frequently chose an option giving their own group 19 rather than…
- Participants assigned to a group by a coin flip still favour their own members. Why is the minimal group…
- Select every claim that follows from social identity theory as the lesson presents it.
- Trace how social identity theory gets from a harmless act of categorisation to intergroup conflict. Put the…
- At Robbers Cave, two hostile boys' groups were brought together for pleasant joint meals, and the hostility…
- Tajfel's minimal group studies assigned people to groups by coin toss, gave the groups meaningless names, and…