Interpreting in‐group‐favouring allocations in the minimal group paradigm
Interpreting in‐group‐favouring allocations in the minimal group paradigm
复制标题
解释最小群体范式中的有利于群体内的分配
DOI：
10.1111/j.2044-8309.1997.tb01121.x
复制
发表时间：
1997
影响因子：
5.4
通讯作者：
Aaron O'Connell
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Platow;K. Harley;J. Hunter;Peter Hanning;R. Shave;Aaron O'Connell
在社会认同理论中，最小群体范式中的内群体偏好分配被解释为努力将一个人的内群体与外群体积极区分开来（Tajfel & Turner，1986）。另一种来自公平理论（亚当斯，1965）的解释认为，有利于内群体的分配代表了一个人的内群体相对于外群体的感知价值（Bruins，Platow & Ng，1995）。我们在两项研究中评估了基于这两种解释的预测。在研究1（N = 73）中，直接操纵相对组内和组外价值。外组价值的主要影响，与参与者作出组内有利于分配时，外组有高，但不低的价值。在研究2（N = 42）中，参与者被归类为条件的基础上，他们的先验报告水平的感知组内价值和个人自尊的中位数分裂。高个人自尊和低感知的组内价值，低个人自尊和高感知的组内价值的参与者作出了有利于组内的分配。总的来说，这两项研究的数据更符合社会认同分析，而不是相对群体价值假设。最小组间分配的社会认同和公平理论解释的影响进行了讨论。
Within social identity theory, in-group-favouring allocations in the minimal group paradigm are interpreted as strivings to differentiate positively one's in-group from an out-group (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). An alternative interpretation, derived from equity theory (Adams, 1965), suggests that in-group-favouring allocations represent the perceived worth of one's in-group relative to an out-group (Bruins, Platow & Ng, 1995). We evaluated predictions based on these two interpretations in two studies. In Study 1 (N = 73), relative in-group and out-group worth were directly manipulated. A main effect for out-group worth obtained, with participants making in-group-favouring allocations when the out-group had high but not low worth. In Study 2 (N = 42), participants were categorized into conditions based on median splits of their a priori reported levels of perceived in-group worth and personal self-esteem. In-group-favouring allocations were made by participants with high personal self-esteem and low perceived in-group worth, and low personal self-esteem and high perceived in-group worth. Overall, the data from these two studies are more consistent with a social identity analysis than the relative in-group worth hypothesis. Implications for social identity and equity theoretical interpretations of minimal intergroup allocations are discussed.