A comparison of minimal group induction procedures

Thomas Bradley Pinter, Anthony G. Greenwald

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

20 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

For 40 years researchers have studied minimal groups using a variety of induction procedures which, surprisingly, have never been formally evaluated. This article reports two experiments that compared minimal group induction procedures based on: (1) memorization of novel ingroup names; (2) an imagination instruction; (3) random assignment; and (4) false feedback from painting preferences. The memorization procedure produced the largest ingroup favoritism effects on implicit measures of attraction and identification, whereas all procedures produced comparable ingroup favoritism effects on explicit measures of attraction and identification and bonus money allocation. The memorization procedure is recommended as a practical and effective minimal group induction procedure, particularly in cases in which implicit assessments are of primary interest.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)81-98
Number of pages18
JournalGroup Processes and Intergroup Relations
Volume14
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2011

Fingerprint

Painting
induction
Feedback
Group
Experiments
Imagination
Paintings
Names
Induction
money
Research Personnel
instruction
experiment
Memorization

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Social Psychology
  • Cultural Studies
  • Communication
  • Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)
  • Sociology and Political Science

Cite this

@article{351a31ebd5ea4e8fa7b50a422a91d4e9,
title = "A comparison of minimal group induction procedures",
abstract = "For 40 years researchers have studied minimal groups using a variety of induction procedures which, surprisingly, have never been formally evaluated. This article reports two experiments that compared minimal group induction procedures based on: (1) memorization of novel ingroup names; (2) an imagination instruction; (3) random assignment; and (4) false feedback from painting preferences. The memorization procedure produced the largest ingroup favoritism effects on implicit measures of attraction and identification, whereas all procedures produced comparable ingroup favoritism effects on explicit measures of attraction and identification and bonus money allocation. The memorization procedure is recommended as a practical and effective minimal group induction procedure, particularly in cases in which implicit assessments are of primary interest.",
author = "Pinter, {Thomas Bradley} and Greenwald, {Anthony G.}",
year = "2011",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/1368430210375251",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "14",
pages = "81--98",
journal = "Group Processes and Intergroup Relations",
issn = "1368-4302",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "1",

}

A comparison of minimal group induction procedures. / Pinter, Thomas Bradley; Greenwald, Anthony G.

In: Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, Vol. 14, No. 1, 01.01.2011, p. 81-98.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison of minimal group induction procedures

AU - Pinter, Thomas Bradley

AU - Greenwald, Anthony G.

PY - 2011/1/1

Y1 - 2011/1/1

N2 - For 40 years researchers have studied minimal groups using a variety of induction procedures which, surprisingly, have never been formally evaluated. This article reports two experiments that compared minimal group induction procedures based on: (1) memorization of novel ingroup names; (2) an imagination instruction; (3) random assignment; and (4) false feedback from painting preferences. The memorization procedure produced the largest ingroup favoritism effects on implicit measures of attraction and identification, whereas all procedures produced comparable ingroup favoritism effects on explicit measures of attraction and identification and bonus money allocation. The memorization procedure is recommended as a practical and effective minimal group induction procedure, particularly in cases in which implicit assessments are of primary interest.

AB - For 40 years researchers have studied minimal groups using a variety of induction procedures which, surprisingly, have never been formally evaluated. This article reports two experiments that compared minimal group induction procedures based on: (1) memorization of novel ingroup names; (2) an imagination instruction; (3) random assignment; and (4) false feedback from painting preferences. The memorization procedure produced the largest ingroup favoritism effects on implicit measures of attraction and identification, whereas all procedures produced comparable ingroup favoritism effects on explicit measures of attraction and identification and bonus money allocation. The memorization procedure is recommended as a practical and effective minimal group induction procedure, particularly in cases in which implicit assessments are of primary interest.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78650686482&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=78650686482&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/1368430210375251

DO - 10.1177/1368430210375251

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:78650686482

VL - 14

SP - 81

EP - 98

JO - Group Processes and Intergroup Relations

JF - Group Processes and Intergroup Relations

SN - 1368-4302

IS - 1

ER -