Practice question · Multiple choice
Participants assigned to a group by a coin flip still favour their own members. Why is the minimal group finding so unsettling?
Hints
- Ask what the two groups had in common before the coin flip.
- Tajfel stripped away everything he could and the effect survived.
Show the answer
B. Because in-group favouritism needs no history or real difference
Why
Categorisation is enough on its own. That is why intergroup bias is so easy to create and why removing the supposed cause of a conflict often does not remove the conflict.
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…
- A researcher reports that two groups formed at random and given meaningless names showed clear in-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…