Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A test of social identity theory : intergroup discrimination and self-esteem in the minimal group paradigm Lemyre, Louise 1983

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1983_A8 L45.pdf [ 4.93MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095780.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095780-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095780-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095780-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095780-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095780-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095780-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095780-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095780.ris

Full Text

A TEST OF SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY: INTERGROUP DISCRIMINATION AND SELF-ESTEEM IN THE MINIMAL GROUP PARADIGM By LOUISE LEMYRE B.A.(Psychology), Laval University, 1981 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Psychology) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA June 19 8 3 (c) Louise Lemyre, 19 8 3 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Psynhoingy The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date June, 30 1983 i i A Test of S o c i a l I d e n t i t y Theory: I n t e r g r o u p D i s c r i m i n a t i o n and S e l f - E s t e e m i n the M i n i m a l Group Paradigm A b s t r a c t To study c a t e g o r i z a t i o n e f f e c t s i n an e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n t e x t the m i n i m a l group paradigm has been d e s i g n e d by H e n r i T a j f e l . S u b j e c t s a r e c a t e g o r i z e d i n t o two groups on an ad hoc, t r i v i a l c r i t e r i o n and asked t o a l l o c a t e p o i n t s t o two anonymous pe r s o n s . The r e l i a b l e f i n d i n g i n t h i s m i n i m a l s i t u a t i o n c o n s i s t s of i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ; i . e . i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m p l u s maximum i n t e r g r o u p d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n . S o c i a l I d e n t i t y Theory a t t e m p t s t o e x p l a i n such i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n the ' r e a l w o r l d ' as w e l l as i n the c o n t e x t of the m i n i m a l group paradigm. The t h e o r y p o s t u l a t e s a b a s i c need f o r p o s i t i v e s e l f - e s t e e m and a p r o c e s s of s o c i a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . In s i t u a t i o n s of s o c i a l c a t e g o r i z a t i o n , s o c i a l i d e n t i t y ( i . e . the group membership) can mediate s e l f - e s t e e m . R e l a t i v e p o s i t i v e group d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s i n f a v o r of the i n g r o u p i s sought through c o m p e t i t i v e s o c i a l comparison and can be a c h i e v e d by i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . I t c o n s e q u e n t l y l e a d s t o h i g h e r s e l f - e s t e e m . T h i s r e s e a r c h was aimed a t v e r i f y i n g e x p e r i m e n t a l l y whether or not s e l f - e s t e e m was indeed i n v o l v e d i n i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , and a t which of s e v e r a l p o s s i b l e l e v e l s : s o c i a l c a t e g o r i z a t i o n , c o g n i t i v e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of the i n g r o u p and the o u t g r o u p , or the a c t u a l c o m p e t i t i v e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a g a i n s t the o u t g r o u p . E i g h t c o n d i t i o n s c o n c u r r e n t l y run and randomly a s s i g n e d among 135 undergraduates m a n i p u l a t e d : (a) s o c i a l c a t e g o r i z a t i o n , (b) i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n v i a a p o i n t a l l o c a t i o n t a s k , and ( c ) ; the moment a t which s e l f - e s t e e m was a s s e s s e d ; a l l w i t h i n the min i m a l group paradigm. Four c o n d i t i o n s d e t e r m i n e d a 2x2 f a c t o r i a l d e s i g n and f o u r o t h e r s added s p e c i f i c supplementary c o n t r o l s . The dependent measures i n c l u d e d Rosenberg's S e l f - E s t e e m s c a l e , the Twenty Statements t e s t , n i n e semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e s , Sherwood's S e l f -Concept I n v e n t o r y , and a s i n g l e g l o b a l r a t i n g of s e l f - e s t e e m . O v e r a l l the h y p o t h e s i s was s u p p o r t e d . I n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n c o n t r i b u t e d t o s e l f - e s t e e m as p r e d i c t e d by S o c i a l I d e n t i t y Theory. A s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t was found u s i n g a two-way MANOVA on the 2x2 d e s i g n . S p e c i f i c a l l y , c a t e g o r i z e d and d i s c r i m i n a t i v e s u b j e c t s were e q u i v a l e n t t o b a s e l i n e s u b j e c t s on s e l f - e s t e e m and they were h i g h e r than those who were e i t h e r c a t e g o r i z e d and d i d not do the p o i n t a l l o c a t i o n t a s k , or were not c a t e g o r i z e d but d i d the t a s k . The supplementary c o n d i t i o n s c o n f i r m e d t h a t f o r c a t e g o r i z e d s u b j e c t s , i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n b e n e f i t t e d s e l f - e s t e e m . The r e s u l t s suggested t h a t t h r e a t was p e r c e i v e d f o r those who were f a c i n g an u n r e s o l v e d s o c i a l comparison s i t u a t i o n which lowered t h e i r s e l f - e s t e e m . iv , V e r i f ication de la Theorie d' Identite' Sociale dans le Paradigme du Groupe Minimal: Discrimination Intergroupe et Estime-de-Soi Resume" Le paradigme du groupe minimal a e'te' deVeloppe* par Henri T a j f e l pour e'tudier dans un contexte experimental les e f f e t s de l a categorisation sociale. Des sujets, divise"s selon un critelre a r b i t r a i r e en deux groupes, doivent completer une tache d'allocation de points entre d'autres p a r t i c i p a n t s . De facon constante de la discrimination intergroupe est observed dans cette situation de categorisation sociale minimale ou aucun gain personel tangible n'est possible. Cette discrimination se manifeste par la recherche simultane'e d'un p r o f i t absolu pour le groupe d'appartenance et d'une d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n maximale des deux groupes. La the/brie d'identite" sociale tente d'expliquer cette discrimination intergroupe, tant dans la "re"alite*" que dans le cadre du paradigme du groupe minimal. La the"orie se base sur un processus d ' i d e n t i f i c a t i o n sociale et sur le besoin d'estime-de-soi; et propose que 1' appartenance £T un groupe peut §tre me/diatrice d' estime-de-soi. Dans une situation de categorisation sociale un processus de comparaison s'e*tablit selon lequel les individus tentent d'obtenir pour leur groupe une position r e l a t i v e de superiority. Cette comparaison favorable entre leur groupe et l'autre groupe contribue et leur estime-de-soi personnel. V La p r e s e n t e r e c h e r c h e v i s e a e t a b l i r s i 1 ' e s t i m e - d e - s o i e s t e f f e c t i v e m e n t i m p l i q u e " dans l a d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n t e r g r o u p e , e t a q u e l stade p r e c i s : c a t e g o r i s a t i o n , d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n c o g n i t i v e e n t r e l e s groupes, ou d i s c r i m i n a t i o n e v a l u a t i v e c o m p e t i t i v e . L o r s de l ' u n i q u e s e s s i o n expe'r i m e n t a l e 135 e t u d i a n t s sous-gradue's sont r e p a r t i s au h a s a r d parmi h u i t c o n d i t i o n s . Sont ma n i p u l e s l a c a t e ' g o r i s a t i o n en groupes, l a p o s s i b i l i t e ' d e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , et l e moment auqu e l l ' e s t i m e - d e -s o i e s t mesure". Quatre des c o n d i t i o n s c o n s t i t u e n t un scheme f a c t o r i e l 2x2, c a t e ' g o r i s a t i o n par d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , a l o r s que q u a t r e a u t r e s c o n d i t i o n s s e r v e n t de c o n t r d l e s s p e t i f i q u e s s u p p l e t n e n t a i r e s . C i n q mesures d ' e s t i m e - d e - s o i sont u t i l i s e ' e s . L'hypothese p r i n c i p a l e e s t v e i r i f i e ' e . La d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n t e r g r o u p e a f f e c t e 1 ' e s t i m e - d e - s o i . En e f f e t , 1 ' i n t e r a c t i o n c a t e g o r i s a t i o n par d i s c r i m i n a t i o n e s t s i g n i f i c a t i v e dans l ' a n a l y s e du p l a n f a c t o r i e l . Les s u j e t s cate"gor ise"s e t d i s c r i m i n a n t s montrent un n i v e a u d' e s t i m e - d e - s o i e"gal a c e l u i du groupe c o n t r 6 1 e et p l u s e l e v e que c e l u i des a u t r e s c o n d i t i o n s . Les c o n d i t i o n s s u p p l e m e n t a i r e s d^montrent etjalement que pour l e s s u j e t s c a t e g o r i s e s l a d i s c r i m i n a t i o n en f a v e u r de son p r o p r e groupe e s t n e t e s s a i r e au m a i n t i e n de l ' e s t i m e - d e -s o i , l a s i m p l e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n c o g n i t i v e ne s u f f i t pas. Quant aux s u j e t s mis en s i t u a t i o n de comparaison s o c i a l e i r r e s o l u e , i l s montrent une b a i s s e d ' e s t i m e - d e - s o i , ce q u i suggere l a p e r c e p t i o n d'une menace. Somme t o u t e , 1 ' e s t i m e - d e - s o i semble affecte'e par l a d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n t e r g r o u p e , t e l que p r e t l i t par l a t h e b r i e d ' i d e n t i t e " s o c i a l e . v i Table of Contents page Abstract , , . . . i i Resume' i v L i s t of Tables , v i i i L i s t of Figures i x Acknowledgements x Introduction 1 Minimal Group Paradigm 3 Typical procedure 3 Procedural variations 5 S t r i k i n g facts , 9 Theoretical Interpretations 10 Functionalism 11 Common fate bonding 11 Generic norm hypothesis 12 Demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s hypothesis 13 Categorical d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n 15 Social Identity Theory 16 Role of self-esteem 21 Proposed Research . 27 Method 30 Subjects 30 Procedure 30 Conditions 32 Materials 35 v i i page H y p o t h e s e s 37 R e s u l t s 39 C o d i n g 39 M a n i p u l a t i o n C h e c k s 41 R e s u l t s on S e l f - E s t e e m 44 C o m p a r i s o n o f B r e w e r ' s and T a j f e l ' s M a t r i c e s 58 P o s t e x p e r i m e n t a l Q u e s t i o n n a i r e 64 D i s c u s s i o n and C o n c l u s i o n s 64 R e f e r e n c e s 77 A p p e n d i x A: T a j f e l ' s a n d B r e w e r ' s M a t r i c e s 84 A p p e n d i x B: C o n s e n t Form, S l i p o f P a p e r , Anagram S h e e t , T i t l e Page and I n s t r u c t i o n s f o r t h e M a t r i c e s . 87 A p p e n d i x C: O r a l I n s t r u c t i o n s 94 A p p e n d i x D: P o s t e x p e r i m e n t a l Q u e s t i o n n a i r e 99 A p p e n d i x E: F o r c e d D i s c r i m i n a t i o n a n d F o r c e d F a i r n e s s M o d i f i e d M a t r i c e s 101 A p p e n d i x F: S e l f - E s t e e m Q u e s t i o n n a i r e 105 A p p e n d i x G: T a j f e l ' s P u l l S c o r e C o m p u t a t i o n s 110 v i i i L i s t o f T a b l e s page T a b l e I G r o u p Means on M a t r i x S c o r e s f o r C o n d i t i o n s 2, 3 a n d 4 42 T a b l e I I C o r r e l a t i o n s among S e l f - E s t e e m M e a s u r e s ... 45 T a b l e I I I Common F a c t o r A n a l y s i s on S e l f - E s t e e m M e a s u r e s 46 T a b l e I V G r o u p Means on S e l f - E s t e e m M e a s u r e s 47 T a b l e V P r i n c i p a l Component A n a l y s i s on S e l f - E s t e e m M e a s u r e s 54 T a b l e V I G r o u p Means on t h e F i r s t P r i n c i p a l Component o f t h e S e l f - E s t e e m M e a s u r e s IP.C.) 56 T a b l e V I I A P r i o r i B o n f e r r o n i T T e s t s o n t h e F i r s t P r i n c i p a l Component (P.C.) . - 57 T a b l e V I I I C o r r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n P.C. a n d t h e M a t r i x I n d i c e s i n C o n d i t i o n 4 59 T a b l e I X C o r r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n M a t r i x I n d i c e s 61 T a b l e X Component S t r u c t u r e o f M a t r i x I n d i c e s (Ob-l i q u e R o t a t i o n ) 63 i x L i s t o f F i g u r e s page F i g u r e 1 C a t e g o r i z a t i o n b y M a t r i x I n t e r a c t i o n E f f e c t on TST 49 F i g u r e 2 C a t e g o r i z a t i o n b y M a t r i x I n t e r a c t i o n E f f e c t on RSBRG 5 0 F i g u r e 3 C a t e g o r i z a t i o n by M a t r i x I n t e r a c t i o n E f f e c t on JLNSD 51 X Acknowledgements I wish t o e x p r e s s my g r a t i t u d e t o a l l those who c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h i s t h e s i s , e s p e c i a l l y t o the members of my committee Dr. P e t e r S u e d f e l d and Dr. D e l r o y P a u l h u s , and p a r t i c u l a r l y t o my s u p e r v i s o r , Dr. P h i l i p Smith f o r h i s work. I h i g h l y a p p r e c i a t e h i s competence, d i l i g e n c e and good w i l l . I s p e c i f i c a l l y would l i k e t o thank C h e r r y Bowhay, Mike Boyes and Candy T a y l o r f o r t h e i r h e l p i n d a t a c o l l e c t i o n , and would a l s o l i k e t o e x p r e s s my a f f e c t i o n t o a l l the p e o p l e of the P s y c h o l o g y Annex and t o acknowledge t h e i r i n e s t i m a b l e moral s u p p o r t . I am c e r t a i n l y g r a t e f u l t o the S o c i a l S c i e n c e s Research C o u n c i l of Canada and t o the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia f o r t h e i r f i n a n c i a l s u p p o r t . De p l u s , j e r e m e r c i e l e Fonds F.C.A.C. du Quebec pour son s o u t i e n f i n a n c i e r . Je s u i s egalement t r e s r e c o n n a i s s a n t e a ma f a m i l i e pour son s u p p o r t a f f e c t i f . F i n a l e m e n t , mes d e r n i e r s e t p l u s grands hommages vont a Claude Dumas a q u i j e d e s i r e d e d i e r c e t t e t h e s e . 1 A Test of S o c i a l I d e n t i t y Theory: I n t e r g r o u p D i s c r i m i n a t i o n and S e l f - E s t e e m i n The M i n i m a l Group Paradigm H i s t o r i c a l l y , S o c i a l I d e n t i t y Theory emerged from T a j f e l ' s (1959, 1981) work on the e f f e c t s of c a t e g o r i z a t i o n on p h y s i c a l p e r c e p t i o n . These o b s e r v a t i o n s were then t r a n s f e r r e d t o the a r e a of s o c i a l p e r c e p t i o n , and the i n t e r e s t f o c u s e d on groups and t h e i r i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s . The s o - c a l l e d m i n i m a l group e x p e r i m e n t a l paradigm was c o n s e q u e n t l y d e v e l o p e d w i t h the aim of u n d e r s t a n d i n g the b a s i c p r o c e s s e s i n v o l v e d i n i n t e r g r o u p r e l a t i o n s . I t s i n t r i g u i n g r e s u l t s have s u s t a i n e d a g r e a t d e a l of e m p i r i c a l and t h e o r e t i c a l work s i n c e . Out of t h i s f i e l d of r e s e a r c h , a major t h e o r y of group p s y c h o l o g y has been e l a b o r a t e d by H. ' T a j f e l (1978, 1981) and J.C. Turner (1975, 1981); S o c i a l I d e n t i t y Theory. T h i s t h e s i s w i l l f i r s t s u r v e y t h e emergence of the m i n i m a l group paradigm and of S o c i a l I d e n t i t y Theory, and review r e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e g a t h e r e d over the pa s t decade. T h e o r e t i c a l i s s u e s w i l l t hen be d i s c u s s e d , and f i n a l l y some s p e c i f i c p r e d i c t i o n s b a s i c t o S o c i a l I d e n t i t y Theory w i l l be made. These hypotheses w i l l then be e x p e r i m e n t a l l y t e s t e d . T a j f e l (1959) examined the e f f e c t s of c a t e g o r i z a t i o n on 2 the p e r c e p t i o n of p h y s i c a l s t i m u l i . C o n s i s t e n t p e r i p h e r a l c o v a r i a t e s such as i r r e l e v a n t c a t e g o r i z a t i o n s , i n f l u e n c e e v a l u a t i o n s made on a f o c a l d i m e n s i o n ( T a j f e l , 1959). For example, i f a s e r i e s of l i n e s t h a t v a r y i n l e n g t h by a c o n s t a n t amount i s d i v i d e d i n the m i d d l e i n t o two groups of c o n s e c u t i v e l i n e s i r r e l e v a n t l y l a b e l l e d A and B r e s p e c t i v e l y , the d i f f e r e n c e between the two l i n e s on each s i d e of the c a t e g o r y boundary w i l l be o v e r e s t i m a t e d ( T a j f e l & W i l k e s , 1963). The s u p e r i m p o s i t i o n of a dichotomous c o r r e l a t e d c l a s s i f i c a t i o n on a s e r i e s of s t i m u l i i n c r e a s e s p e r c e i v e d s i m i l a r i t y w i t h i n c a t e g o r i e s and p e r c e i v e d d i f f e r e n c e s between c a t e g o r i e s ( D o i s e , 1978; T a j f e l , 1978). The e f f e c t s of c a t e g o r i z a t i o n , which appears t o have a s i g n i f i c a n t i n f l u e n c e on p h y s i c a l p e r c e p t i o n , have a l s o been e x p l o r e d i n the domain of s o c i a l p e r c e p t i o n . S t u d i e s t h a t have examined the r e l a t i o n s between n a t u r a l s o c i a l c a t e g o r i e s such as E n g l i s h and Welsh, B l a c k s and W h i t e s , males and f e m a l e s , C a t h o l i c s and P r o t e s t a n t s , F r e n c h Canadians and E n g l i s h Canadians, have c o n f i r m e d the g e n e r a l tendency t o o v e r e s t i m a t e i n t r a g r o u p homogeneity and i n t e r g r o u p d i f f e r e n c e (Brewer, 1979; D o i s e , 1978; T a j f e l , 1978). D i s c r i m i n a t i o n and s t e r e o t y p i n g seem v e r y p r e v a l e n t i n i n t e r g r o u p r e l a t i o n s ( A u s t i n & W o r c h e l l , 1979; B i l l i g , 1976). I n t e r r e l a t i o n s between n a t u r a l or " r e a l w o r l d " groups a r e of c o u r s e i n t e r e s t i n g and n e c e s s a r y t o s t u d y . N e v e r t h e l e s s i t i s v e r y d i f f i c u l t t o study b a s i c s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r o c e s s e s i n n a t u r a l i s t i c group c o n t e x t s , s i n c e they a r e confounded w i t h h i s t o r i c a l , p o l i t i c a l and economic 3 f a c t o r s t h a t exceed the scope of s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g y . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e i r a n a l y s i s i n v o l v e s the problems i n h e r e n t t o c o r r e l a t i o n a l and c r o s s - c u l t u r a l s t u d i e s . In o r d e r t o study c a t e g o r i z a t i o n e f f e c t s and i n t e r g r o u p r e l a t i o n s i n an e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n t e x t t h a t would a l l o w a s y s t e m a t i c e x a m i n a t i o n of the b a s i c p r o c e s s e s i n v o l v e d i n i n t e r g r o u p r e l a t i o n s , T a j f e l d e s i g n e d what i s now known as the m i n i m a l group paradigm ( B i l l i g & T a j f e l , 1973; T a j f e l , Flament, B i l l i g & Bundy, 1971; T u r n e r , 1978). The r e s u l t s of the e x p e r i m e n t s u s i n g t h i s p r o c e d u r e were of c r u c i a l importance t o the emergence of S o c i a l I d e n t i t y Theory. C o n s e q u e n t l y , a d e s c r i p t i o n of the m i n i m a l group p r o c e d u r e and a review of the e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e i t has y i e l d e d w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s . The M i n i m a l Group Paradigm T y p i c a l p r o c e d u r e . T y p i c a l l y , the m i n i m a l group paradigm c o n s i s t s of l e a d i n g a p o o l of s u b j e c t s t o b e l i e v e t h a t they a r e d i v i d e d i n t o two m u t u a l l y e x c l u s i v e c a t e g o r i e s . The d i v i s i o n i n t o these two groups i s a c t u a l l y made a t random, though s u b j e c t s a r e t o l d t h a t i t i s based on such t h i n g s as one's p r e f e r e n c e f o r one of two modern p a i n t e r s , or performance a t e s t i m a t i n g the number of d o t s on a s c r e e n , or o t h e r a p p a r e n t l y ad hoc and t r i v i a l c r i t e r i a . S u b j e c t s ' group memberships a r e c o n f i d e n t i a l , and anonymity i s p r e s e r v e d by the use of i n d i v i d u a l code numbers i n s t e a d of names. No i n t e r a c t i o n of any k i n d i s a l l o w e d among s u b j e c t s . The d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the m i n i m a l group paradigm i s the m i n i m a l s o c i a l c a t e g o r i z a t i o n . However, ex p e r i m e n t s 4 u s i n g t h i s p r o c e d u r e have tended t o employ s i m i l a r forms of a dependent measure t o demonstrate the e f f e c t s of the m i n i m a l c a t e g o r i z a t i o n . T y p i c a l l y , s u b j e c t s are asked, under the c o v e r of a d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g t a s k , t o d i s t r i b u t e p o i n t s between o t h e r p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the s t u d y . They do t h i s by u s i n g a s e r i e s of m a t r i c e s t h a t s i m u l t a n e o u s l y a l l o c a t e p o i n t s t o two d i f f e r e n t p e r s o n s i d e n t i f i e d on each m a t r i x by t h e i r code number and group membership. T y p i c a l l y s u b j e c t s are t o l d t h a t they w i l l r e c e i v e the sum of the p o i n t s a l l o c a t e d t o them p e r s o n a l l y by o t h e r p a r t i c i p a n t s a t the end of the e x p e r i m e n t . The m a t r i c e s are d e s i g n e d t o r e f l e c t a v a r i e t y of a l l o c a t i o n s t r a t e g i e s p ursued by the s u b j e c t s (see examples i n Appendix A ) . The o r g a n i z a t i o n of the p o i n t s i n the d i f f e r e n t m a t r i c e s a l l o w s one t o a s s e s s f i v e t y p e s of a l l o c a t i o n s t r a t e g i e s : f a i r n e s s ( F ) , when p o i n t s are d i s t r i b u t e d e v e n l y between the members of the two groups; maximum j o i n t p r o f i t (MJP), or m a x i m i z i n g the t o t a l number of p o i n t s a l l o t e d t o the two groups taken t o g e t h e r ; maximum i n g r o u p p r o f i t (MIP), when the a b s o l u t e number of p o i n t s g i v e n t o one's own group i s maximized i r r e s p e c t i v e of the number of p o i n t s i t i m p l i e s f o r the o u t g r o u p ; maximum d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n (MD), when the d i f f e r e n c e between the two groups i s maximized, and f i n a l l y ; i n g r o u p f a v o u r i t i s m (FAV) which combines MIP and MD, thus c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o c h o i c e s t h a t maximize the d i f f e r e n c e between the two groups and ensure t h a t the i n g r o u p g e t s more than t h e o u t g r o u p ( B i l l i g & T a j f e l , 1973; T a j f e l e t a l . , 1971; T u r n e r , 1978; T u r n e r , Brown & T a j f e l , 1979). B e s i d e s the a l l o c a t i o n t a s k , e v a l u a t i v e r a t i n g s of 5 o t h e r s have sometimes a l s o been e l i c i t e d from the s u b j e c t s ( e . g . , Brewer & S i l v e r , 1978). The b a s i c elements of the m i n i m a l group paradigm a r e the f o l l o w i n g : (a) no f a c e - t o - f a c e i n t e r a c t i o n among s u b j e c t s ; (b) anonymity; (c) no i n s t r u m e n t a l or r a t i o n a l l i n k between the c r i t e r i a f o r c a t e g o r i z a t i o n and the response measure, and; (d) no d i r e c t u t i l i t a r i a n v a l u e of the s u b j e c t s ' r e s p o n s e s t o themselves as i n d i v i d u a l s (Brewer, 1979; T a j f e l e t a l . , 1971; Tu r n e r , 1978). The t y p i c a l r e s u l t of the a l l o c a t i o n t a s k c o n s i s t s of a r e l i a b l e c o m p e t i t i v e ' i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m , c h a r a c t e r i z e d by maximum i n g r o u p p r o f i t p l u s maximum d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n (Brewer, 1979; D o i s e , 1978; T a j f e l , 1978, 1981; T u r n e r , 1978, 1983). P r o - i n g r o u p e v a l u a t i v e b i a s e s a r e a l s o r e l i a b l y found i n t r a i t r a t i n g s and l i k i n g p r e f e r e n c e s (Brewer, 1979). P r o c e d u r a l v a r i a t i o n s . S e v e r a l v a r i a t i o n s on the b a s i c m i n i m a l group paradigm a r e found i n the l i t e r a t u r e . They c o n f i r m the r o b u s t n e s s of the f i n d i n g s t h a t m i n i m a l c a t e g o r i z a t i o n can be s u f f i c i e n t t o cause i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , as e x p r e s s e d by i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m , or by h i g h e r e v a l u a t i o n of the i n g r o u p . One of the v a r i a t i o n s c o n c e r n s the c r i t e r i o n f o r c a t e g o r i z a t i o n . Groups are o f t e n based on t r i v i a l c r i t e r i a such as p a i n t i n g p r e f e r e n c e s ( B i l l i g & T a j f e l , 1973; Brewer & S i l v e r , 1978; S t - C l a i r e & T u r n e r , 1982), dot e s t i m a t i o n ( G e r a r d & Hoyt, 1974; Howard & R o t h b a r t , 1980), or photograph c h o i c e s 6 (Brown & T u r n e r , 1979). Even c o m p l e t e l y random c a t e g o r i z a t i o n p r o v e s t o be c a p a b l e of i n d u c i n g i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ( B i l l i g & T a j f e l , 1973; Brewer & S i l v e r , 1979; L o c k s l e y , O r t i z & Hepburn, 1980). The s i m p l e t o s s of a c o i n , or drawing of a s l i p of paper a r e enough t o produce i n g r o u p b i a s e s , even i n the absence of any o t h e r s i m i l a r i t y f a c t o r t o s t r e n g t h e n group membership. C a t e g o r i z a t i o n , as l o n g as i t i s e x p l i c i t l y r e c o g n i z e d by the i n d i v i d u a l , and does not c o n f l i c t w i t h s u b j e c t i v e l y s t r o n g e r c r i t e r i a , can l e a d t o i n t e r g r o u p d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n ( T a j f e l , 1978). U s u a l l y d e c i s i o n s a r e made by the s u b j e c t about two anonymous o t h e r s ; a member of the i n g r o u p and a member of the out g r o u p . In the s e c a s e s i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m i s r e l i a b l y found. Brown and Turner (1979) and Turner and S p r i g g s (1982) have a l s o t e s t e d c o n d i t i o n s i n which s u b j e c t s a l l o c a t e p o i n t s between them s e l v e s and a n o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l , h a l f the time from the i n g r o u p and h a l f from the outgr o u p . In the s e c o n d i t i o n s however, i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m i s o v e r r i d e n by s e l f - f a v o r i t i s m ( T u r n e r , 1975, 1978). Some e x p e r i m e n t s have t e s t e d the n e c e s s i t y of an e x p l i c i t s i m i l a r i t y f a c t o r , by c r o s s i n g i t i n a f a c t o r i a l d e s i g n w i t h random c a t e g o r i z a t i o n . S u b j e c t s were t o l d whether or n o t : (a) they were d i v i d e d i n t o g roups, and (b) they s h a r e d s i m i l a r a e s t h e t i c p r e f e r e n c e s ( B i l l i g & T a j f e l , 1973; Brewer & S i l v e r , 1978), or a t t i t u d e s and b e l i e f s ( A l l a n & W i l d e r , 1975) w i t h o t h e r s . Ingroup s i m i l a r i t y was found t o enhance i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n above and beyond the e f f e c t s of c a t e g o r i z a t i o n 7 a l o n e , but was not s u f f i c i e n t t o induce d i s c r i m i n a t i o n by i t s e l f ; c a t e g o r i z a t i o n was the n e c e s s a r y p r e c o n d i t i o n ( B i l l i g & T a j f e l , 1973; Brewer, 1979; Brewer & S i l v e r , 1978; T a j f e l , 1978) . Other v a r i a t i o n s of the m i n i m a l group paradigm have concerned the i n s t r u c t i o n s . In some e x p e r i m e n t s o r a l and w r i t t e n i n s t r u c t i o n s have been m a n i p u l a t e d t o induce e x p l i c i t c o m p e t i t i o n or e x p l i c i t c o o p e r a t i o n between the groups (Brewer & S i l v e r , 1978; D o i s e , C s p e l i , Dann, L a r s e n & O s t e l l , 1972; Turner & S p r i g g s , 1982; W i l d e r , 1978). The unanimous c o n c l u s i o n about the r o l e of e x p l i c i t c o m p e t i t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n s i s t h a t i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m can be enhanced by c o m p e t i t i o n , i . e . d i s c r i m i n a t i o n w i l l be even g r e a t e r t h a n i n o t h e r c o n d i t i o n s ; but e x p l i c i t c o m p e t i t i o n i s not n e c e s s a r y t o o b t a i n the d i s c r i m i n a t i o n e f f e c t (Brewer, 1979; Brewer & S i l v e r , 1978; D o i s e e t a l . , 1972; Turner & S p r i g g s , 1982; W i l d e r , 1978). The a l l o c a t i o n t a s k sometimes c o n c e r n s money ( B i l l i g & T a j f e l , 1973; Hewstone, Finchman & J a s p a r s , 1981 ) and sometimes s i m p l y p o i n t s (Brewer & S i l v e r , 1978 ; T u r n e r , 1978). I t may c o n s i s t of d i s t r i b u t i n g rewards (Brewer & S i l v e r , 1978 ; T a j f e l & B i l l i g , 1974) or p e n a l t i e s (Hewstone e t a l . , 1981; T a j f e l e t a l . , 1971). Both money and p o i n t d i s t r i b u t i o n s a r e e f f e c t i v e i n showing i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m ( T u r n e r , 1975, 1978); but the tendency i s weaker when p e n a l t i e s are used (Hewstone e t a l . , 1981). Two major t y p e s of m a t r i c e s have been used. Predominant i n the l i t e r a t u r e a re T a j f e l ' s (1970) m a t r i c e s , made of t h i r t e e n 8 columns of two rows (see Appendix A ) . The numbers are d i s p l a y e d i n such a way t h a t two a l l o c a t i o n s t r a t e g i e s c o n f l i c t i n t-he same m a t r i x . The " p u l l " , or r e l a t i v e i n f l u e n c e of one s t r a t e g y on another can be computed from a s u b j e c t ' s answers t o two or more p r e s e n t a t i o n s of each m a t r i x , w i t h the rows d e s i g n a t i n g i n g r o u p and outgroup rewards a l t e r n a t i n g from p r e s e n t a t i o n t o p r e s e n t a t i o n (Aschenbrenner & S c h a e f e r , 1980; B r a n t h w a i t e , Doyle & L i g h t b o w n , 1979; Brown, T a j f e l & T u r n e r , 1980; T u r n e r , 1978, 1980, 1983). Brewer's (1979) m a t r i c e s on the o t h e r hand a r e e a s i e r t o code but they have not been as w i d e l y used. They c o n s i s t of f o u r p a i r s of t w o - c e l l e d m a t r i c e s (see Appendix A ) . For each p a i r , a s t r a t e g y , e i t h e r f a i r n e s s , i n g r o u p p r o f i t , i n t e r g r o u p d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n or j o i n t p r o f i t , i s d e t e r m i n e d a c c o r d i n g t o the c o m b i n a t i o n of answers t o the two m a t r i c e s . The f r e q u e n c y of each s t r a t e g y i s used as the measure. Only one experiment (Brewer & S i l v e r , 1978) has d i r e c t l y compared T a j f e l ' s and Brewer's m a t r i c e s . S i m i l a r r e s u l t s were o b t a i n e d on the two forms (Brewer, 1979; Brewer & S i l v e r , 1978). Other a d a p t a t i o n s of the p r o c e d u r e have used as dependent measures r a t i n g s of l i k i n g and p e r s o n a l i t y a t t r i b u t e s , and r e s u l t s have c o n f i r m e d b i a s e s i n f a v o r of the i n g r o u p , even on r a t i n g s of p h y s i c a l t r a i t s ( D oise e t a l . , 1972; G e r a r d & Hoyt, 1974; Howard & R o t h b a r t , 1980; Park & R o t h b a r t , 1982). L o c k s l e y e t a l . (1980) o b t a i n e d independent measures of b e h a v i o r towards the i n g r o u p and the outgroup by h a v i n g s u b j e c t s a l l o c a t e c h i p s from two e q u a l s i z e d p i l e s . Dion (1973) used c o o p e r a t i v e v e r s u s c o m p e t i t i v e d e c i s i o n s i n p r i s o n e r dilemma games as h i s 9 dependent v a r i a b l e . These means of r e s p o n d i n g too y i e l d e d r e s u l t s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h those d e s c r i b e d above. A c r o s s a l l t h e s e v a r i a t i o n s the o v e r a l l p i c t u r e shows t h a t mere c a t e g o r i z a t i o n i n t o a m i n i m a l i n g r o u p and outgroup can be s u f f i c i e n t t o provoke i n t e r g r o u p d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n and c o m p e t i t i v e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n (Brewer, 1979; T a j f e l , 1978; T a j f e l & T u r n e r , 1979). F a c t o r s such as s i m i l a r i t y and c o m p e t i t i o n enhance i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m , but mere c a t e g o r i z a t i o n i n t o groups c o n s t i t u t e s the min i m a l n e c e s s a r y c o n d i t i o n . Moreover, the phenomena of i n t e r g r o u p b e h a v i o r i n the m i n i m a l group paradigm a r e q u i t e r o b u s t t o d e s i g n v a r i a t i o n s . The s t r i k i n g f a c t s . The most s t r i k i n g f i n d i n g of t h i s r e s e a r c h , i s t h a t one f i n d s r e l i a b l e c o m p e t i t i v e i n t e r g r o u p  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n s i t u a t i o n s of ad hoc, t r i v i a l , and even random c a t e g o r i z a t i o n . S u b j e c t s do not know the i n d i v i d u a l i d e n t i t y of members of t h e i r group, do not i n t e r a c t w i t h o t h e r s , and do not g a i n any t a n g i b l e b e n e f i t from the t a s k . S t i l l , they adopt a s t r a t e g y of c o m p e t i t i v e i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m . They make c h o i c e s not o n l y t o maximize i n g r o u p p r o f i t , but s i m u l t a n e o u s l y t o o p t i m i z e i n t e r g r o u p d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , and they do so even a t the c o s t of a b s o l u t e g a i n f o r the i n g r o u p . No o t h e r s t r a t e g y , such as maximum j o i n t p r o f i t or f a i r n e s s , i s as i n f l u e n t i a l . S u b j e c t s a l s o c o n s i s t e n t l y e x p r e s s more f a v o r a b l e e v a l u a t i o n s f o r the s e i n g r o u p members they do not know, and w i t h whom they share o n l y a temporary t r i v i a l c a t e g o r i z a t i o n . Mere p e r c e p t i o n by s u b j e c t s t h a t they b e l o n g t o two d i f f e r e n t groups can be s u f f i c i e n t t o cause i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n 10 t h a t does not seem t o s e r v e any i n s t r u m e n t a l purpose. As Turner (1978) p u t s i t , "the most s t r i k i n g f e a t u r e of m i n i m a l group d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i s , i n a sense, t h a t i t happens a t a l l " (p.140). I t i s t h i s v e r y phenomenon t h a t s t a n d s i n need of e x p l a n a t i o n by a p s y c h o l o g i c a l t h e o r y of group r e l a t i o n s . T h e o r e t i c a l I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s There have been many a t t e m p t s t o e x p l a i n ' r e a l w o r l d ' s o c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ( A u s t i n & W o r c h e l , 1979; D o i s e , 1978 ; T a j f e l , 1978). These a t t e m p t s have d e a l t p r i m a r l y w i t h complex s i t u a t i o n s from which the r o l e of h i s t o r i c a l , economic and p o l i t i c a l f a c t o r s cannot be i s o l a t e d , such as i n s e x i s m , r a c i s m or a n t i s e m i t i s m . What the e v i d e n c e from the m i n i m a l group paradigm adds now t o the p i c t u r e i s t h a t t h e r e appear t o be b a s i c p r o c e s s e s u n d e r l y i n g i n t e r g r o u p b e h a v i o r s t h a t can be shown even i n v e r y m i n i m a l s i t u a t i o n s where i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n would, a t f i r s t , seem u n j u s t i f i e d . What i s needed i s a t h e o r y of i n t e r g r o u p r e l a t i o n s t h a t can e x p l a i n the f i n d i n g s i n m i n i m a l c o n t e x t s , and can be a p p l i e d t o l e s s - t h a n -m i n i m a l group d i s c r i m i n a t i o n as w e l l . S e v e r a l e x p l a n a t i o n s of i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a r e p r e v a l e n t i n the l i t e r a t u r e and r e l e v a n t t o t h i s d i s c u s s i o n . T h e o r i e s t h a t a r e based s o l e l y on i n d i v i d u a l p r o c e s s e s such as F r e u d i a n and n e o - F r e u d i a n p s y c h o a n a l y t i c t h e o r i e s , w i l l not be d i s c u s s e d h e r e , s i n c e they r e l y u n r e a l i s t i c a l l y on m e t a p h y s i c a l c o n s t r u c t s ( e . g . Le Bon's "group mind") t o e x p l a i n group b e h a v i o r , or are o v e r l y r e d u c t i o n i s t ( B i l l i g , 1976). The 11 s e v e r a l r e m a i n i n g e x p l a n a t i o n s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d below under the l a b e l s of f u n c t i o n a l i s m , common f a t e b o n d i n g , the g e n e r i c norm h y p o t h e s i s , the demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s h y p o t h e s i s , c a t e g o r i c a l d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , and f i n a l l y S o c i a l I d e n t i t y Theory. F u n c t i o n a l i s m . F u n c t i o n a l i s m e x p l a i n s group p s y c h o l o g y w i t h r e s p e c t t o the int e r d e p e n d e n c e i m p l i e d by c o n c r e t e need s a t i s f a c t i o n and g o a l achievement. The f u n c t i o n a l i s t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s be s t r e p r e s e n t e d by S h e r i f . H i s work on i n t e r g r o u p c o m p e t i t i o n and s u p e r o r d i n a t e g o a l s a p p l i e s t o s i t u a t i o n s of r e a l i s t i c group c o n f l i c t , where i n d i v i d u a l s of a group a r e e x p l i c i t l y i n t e r d e p e n d e n t f o r t h e i r own s e l f -i n t e r e s t s ( S h e r i f , 1966, 1979). H i s t h e o r y d e s c r i b e s c o n f l i c t s o v e r t o b j e c t i v e and m a t e r i a l i n t e r e s t s . C o m p e t i t i o n i s i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d and l e g i t i m i z e d i n these s i t u a t i o n s i n t h a t a winner and a l o s e r a r e e x p l i c i t l y e x p e c t e d . I n such c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n g r o u p - o u t g r o u p d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n and d i s c r i m i n a t i o n become i n s t r u m e n t a l f o r w i n n i n g , and make common sense ( T a j f e l & T u r n e r , 1979). M i n i m a l group e v i d e n c e , however, shows t h a t n e i t h e r i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d nor e x p l i c i t c o n f l i c t s a r e n e c e s s a r y , nor a r e t a n g i b l e g a i n s r e q u i r e d t o c r e a t e i n t e r g r o u p c o m p e t i t i o n and d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . The f u n c t i o n a l i s t approach does not e x p l a i n i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . Under c o n d i t i o n s of t r i v i a l and t r a n s i e n t c a t e g o r i z a t i o n , i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m i s n o n - i n s t r u m e n t a l and appears g r a t u i t i o u s ( T a j f e l & T u r n e r , 1979). Common f a t e bonding. Common f a t e bonding r e f e r s t o the 1 2 p e r c e p t i o n of groupness from e x p e r i e n c i n g or e x p e c t i n g s i m i l a r outcomes t o those of o t h e r s (Shaw, 1981). The common f a t e e x p l a n a t i o n does not a p p l y t o the m i n i m a l group paradigm because s u b j e c t s a r e u s u a l l y t o l d t h a t a t t h e end of the m a t r i x t a s k they w i l l be c r e d i t e d w i t h a l l the p o i n t s t h a t have been a l l o c a t e d t o them p e r s o n a l l y by a l l o t h e r s i n the experiment ( B i l l i g & T a j f e l , 1973; T a j f e l & B i l l i g , 1974; T a j f e l e t a l . , 1971). There i s no e x p l i c i t c o m p e t i t i v e s t r u c t u r e , nor w i t h i n -group dependency t h a t would imply a shared f a t e f o r the i n g r o u p members, d i s t i n c t i v e from t h a t of the o utgroup members (Brewer, 1979; T u r n e r , 1975). The g e n e r i c norm h y p o t h e s i s . Another type of e x p l a n a t i o n t h a t has been a p p l i e d t o the m i n i m a l group r e s u l t s i s the h y p o t h e s i s of a g e n e r i c norm p r e s c r i b i n g d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a g a i n s t an o u t g r o u p ( T a j f e l , 1970; T a j f e l & B i l l i g , 1974). T h i s g e n e r i c norm was h y p o t h e s i z e d t o a c t i v a t e the tendency t o behave d i f f e r e n t i a l l y towards the o u t g r o u p , even under c o n d i t i o n s where such b e h a v i o r was of no u t i l i t e r i a n v a l u e , and the c a t e g o r i z a t i o n of v e r y l i t t l e meaning ( T a j f e l e t a l . , 1971). Normative v a l u e s t o f a v o r one's own group were thought t o be c a r r i e d over i n t o the e x p e r i m e n t a l s e t t i n g ( B i l l i g & T a j f e l , 1973). S e v e r a l problems c o n t r i b u t e d t o the d e f e a t of t h i s h y p o t h e s i s . F i r s t , a norm i s d e f i n e d as a s o c i a l p r e s c r i p t i o n d e t e r m i n i n g which conduct i s a p p r o p r i a t e , d e s i r a b l e or e x p e c t e d i n a g i v e n s i t u a t i o n ( T a j f e l , 1981; T u r n e r , 1980). In the m i n i m a l group paradigm a g e n e r i c norm of f a i r n e s s would be more p l a u s i b l e than one of i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m ( B r a n t h w a i t e e t a l . , 13 1979). F a i r n e s s seems t o be more s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e ( S t - C l a i r e & T u r n e r , 1982; T u r n e r , 1980). Moreover, S t - C l a i r e and Turner (1982) found t h a t o b s e r v e r s u b j e c t s d i d not expect c a t e g o r i z e d p a r t i c i p a n t s of a m i n i m a l group experiment t o d i s c r i m i n a t e a g a i n s t the outgroup. A l l a n and W i l d e r ' s (1975) s u b j e c t s r e p o r t e d f a i r n e s s , not f a v o r i t i s m , as t h e i r p r e f e r r e d s t r a t e g y on a p o s t e x p e r i m e n t a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e . F u r t h e r m o r e , the a c t u a l r e s u l t s of i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m i n the m i n i m a l group e x p e r i m e n t s appear c o u n t e r - i n t u i t i v e t o many, and have g e n e r a t e d r e s i s t a n c e from o t h e r s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i s t s ( T u r n e r , 1980, 1983). T h i s can be t a k e n as e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t the g e n e r i c norm h y p o t h e s i s , as can some c r o s s - c u l t u r a l e v i d e n c e which s u g g e s t s t h a t i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m i s not u n i v e r s a l ( W e t h e r e l l , 1982). Moreover, from a t h e o r e t i c a l p o i n t of view n o r m a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n s tend towards c i r c u l a r i t y s i n c e they a r e v e r i f i e d by the p r e s e n c e of t h e v e r y b e h a v i o r s they a r e t r y i n g t o e x p l a i n . They have low p r e d i c t a b i l i t y , o p p o s i t e norms can be p r e d i c t e d i n the same c o n t e x t ; the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the p r e v a l e n t norm i s d e t e r m i n e d a p o s t e r i o r i . F i n a l l y , a n o r m a t i v e h y p o t h e s i s i s a t b e s t d e s c r i p t i v e , i t does not s p e c i f y the p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r o c e s s e s i n v o l v e d , nor e x p l a i n why a norm of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and not of c o o p e r a t i o n would be e x p e c t e d . . The demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s h y p o t h e s i s . Another e x p l a n a t i o n of the m i n i m a l group r e s u l t s t h a t i s more d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o the m i n i m a l group paradigm per se i n v o k e s the r o l e of demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n a c c o u n t i n g f o r i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m . C r i t i c s have argued t h a t the e x p e r i m e n t a l s e t t i n g "demanded" 1 4 c o m p e t i t i o n (Aschenbrenner & S c h a e f e r , 1980; G e r a r d & Hoyt, 1974). Two e x p e r i m e n t s e x p l i c i t l y a d d r e s s e d t h i s p o s s i b l e a r t i f a c t . T a j f e l and B i l l i g (1974) t e s t e d the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t the u n c e r t a i n t y and i n s e c u r i t y i n h e r e n t t o the e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n t e x t c o u l d be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m . H a l f the s u b j e c t s were made f a m i l i a r w i t h the e x p e r i m e n t a l s e t t i n g by c o m p l e t i n g a p r e f e r e n c e t a s k and an i n d i v i d u a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e p r i o r t o the a c t u a l s e s s i o n . C o n t r a r y t o the a n x i e t y h y p o t h e s i s , f a m i l i a r s u b j e c t s showed even more i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m than those exposed t o the s e t t i n g o n l y once. S t -C l a i r e and Turn e r (1982) m a n i p u l a t e d s u b j e c t r o l e s . A f i r s t group of s u b j e c t s d i d the s t a n d a r d m i n i m a l group e x p e r i m e n t , and a second group d i d i t under e x p l i c i t i n s t r u c t i o n s t o d i s c r i m i n a t e . A t h i r d group of s u b j e c t s , exposed t o the same s e t t i n g and m a n i p u l a t i o n s , ;,had t o p r e d i c t what they thought o t h e r s would do i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n . The demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s h y p o t h e s i s would be s u p p o r t e d i f the P r e d i c t i o n group a n t i c i p a t e d as much i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m as the C o n t r o l s u b j e c t s a c t u a l l y committed. Moreover, the h y p o t h e s i s i m p l i e s t h a t e x p l i c i t demand cues w i l l i n c r e a s e i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m . On the c o n t r a r y , the r e s u l t s r e v e a l e d l e s s i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m and more f a i r n e s s p r e d i c t e d by the P r e d i c t i o n group than a c t u a l l y o b t a i n e d by t h e c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s , who d i s c r i m i n a t e d j u s t as much as s u b j e c t s under e x p l i c i t i n s t r u c t i o n s t o d i s c r i m i n a t e . S t - C l a i r e and Turner (1982) c o n c l u d e t h a t the demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s h y p o t h e s i s i s not s u p p o r t e d . F u r t h e r m o r e , p o s t e x p e r i m e n t a l i n q u i r i e s have never r e v e a l e d any e v i d e n c e of 15 c o m p l i a n c e t o an e x p e r i m e n t e r e f f e c t (Brown, T a j f e l & T u r n e r , 1980). Groupness cues are l o g i c a l l y n e c e s s a r y t o o p e r a t i o n a l i z e s o c i a l c a t e g o r i z a t i o n , and Turner (1978) r e c o g n i z e s t h a t t h e r e i s an a lmost a u t o m a t i c i m p l i c i t c o m p e t i t i o n e l i c i t e d , but he r i g h t l y p o i n t s out t h a t t h i s i s the v e r y phenomenon of i n t e r e s t . Why, i n a s i t u a t i o n where no e x p l i c i t r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r c o m p e t i t i o n are e x p r e s s e d , does one c o n s t a n t l y f i n d d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ? C a t e g o r i c a l d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n . Another e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the r e s u l t s of the m i n i m a l group paradigm i s D o i s e s ' s (1978) model of c a t e g o r i c a l d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n . A c c o r d i n g t o D o i s e , i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n can be e x p l a i n e d s o l e l y on the b a s i s of p r i n c i p l e s of c a t e g o r i z a t i o n and c a t e g o r y d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n d i s c o v e r e d e a r l i e r by T a j f e l (1959). C a t e g o r y d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n i s based on i n t r a c l a s s p e r c e p t u a l convergence t h a t a c c e n t u a t e s s i m i l a r i t i e s w i t h i n c a t e g o r i e s , and i n t e r c l a s s d i v e r g e n c e t h a t enhances d i f f e r e n c e s between c a t e g o r i e s (Deschamps & D o i s e , 1978; D o i s e , Deschamps & Meyer, 1978; D o i s e e t a l . , 1972; D o i s e & S i n c l a i r , 1973) . S o c i a l c a t e g o r i z a t i o n i n d u c e s i n d i v i d u a l s t o p e r c e i v e p e o p l e i n terms of groups. I t l e a d s , a c c o r d i n g t o D o i s e , t o r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l , e v a l u a t i v e , and u l t i m a t e l y b e h a v i o r a l d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s between the groups. C a t e g o r i z a t i o n not o n l y e n a b l e s i n d i v i d u a l s t o o r g a n i z e t h e i r s u b j e c t i v e e x p e r i e n c e ; i t a l s o c o n s t i t u t e s a p r o c e s s by which s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n s a r e s t r u c t u r e d ( D o i s e , 1978). T a j f e l (1978, 1981) a l s o acknowledges t h a t c a t e g o r i z a t i o n i n f l u e n c e s c o g n i t i o n s , but D o i s e (1978) sees i t as the o n l y p r o c e s s n e c e s s a r y t o 16 c o n s i d e r , whereas T a j f e l does n o t . A c c o r d i n g t o t h i s c o g n i t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m i s the i n h e r e n t consequence of c a t e g o r y d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n . No o t h e r mechanism i n t e r v e n e s . A q u e s t i o n a r i s e s then about t h e d i r e c t i o n of the d i f f e r e n t i a l e v a l u a t i o n between the i n g r o u p and the outgr o u p . I n the p u r e l y c o g n i t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , one cannot p r e d i c t the d i r e c t i o n of the i n g r o u p - o u t g r o u p b i a s , o n l y the f a c t of d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n . C o g n i t i o n s a l o n e do not s u f f i c e t o e x p l a i n the e v a l u a t i v e v a l e n c e of i n t e r g r o u p r e l a t i o n s . Something e l s e must i n t e r a c t w i t h c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s of c a t e g o r i z a t i o n , some m o t i v a t i o n a l p r o c e s s . An a l t e r n a t i v e t o D o i s e ' s model, one which a d d r e s s e s the q u e s t i o n of v a l e n c e , i s proposed i n the form of S o c i a l I d e n t i t y Theory, which i s d e s c r i b e d below. S o c i a l I d e n t i t y Theory S o c i a l I d e n t i t y Theory emerged p r i m a r i l y i n response t o the i n t r i g u i n g r e s u l t s of the m i n i m a l group paradigm, a l t h o u g h i t has e v o l v e d t o the p o i n t now where i t has v e r y much wider a p p l i c a t i o n . The t h e o r y i s based, i n p a r t , on an e x t e n s i o n of F e s t i n g e r ' s (1954) t h e o r y of s o c i a l c o m p a r i s o n , which p o s t u l a t e s a human need t o e v a l u a t e one's own o p i n i o n s and a b i l i t i e s . F e s t i n g e r h y p o t h e s i z e s t h a t these e v a l u a t i o n s a r e a c h i e v e d by means of comparison w i t h o t h e r s , t o the e x t e n t t h a t o b j e c t i v e , n o n - s o c i a l bases f o r e v a l u a t i o n a r e not a v a i l a b l e . T a j f e l (1972, 1974) and Turner (1975) argue t h a t the d i s t i n c t i o n between s o c i a l and n o n - s o c i a l means of comparison i s m i s l e a d i n g , and t h a t a l l forms of s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n a r e i n 17 f a c t s o c i a l , even though some s t a n d a r d s of comparison may appear " o b j e c t i v e " due t o h i g h l e v e l s of s o c i a l consensus. They argue t h a t not o n l y i n d i v i d u a l o p i n i o n s and a b i l i t i e s , but group memberships t o o , are e v a l u a t i v e l y i m p o r t a n t , as th e s e p r o v i d e people w i t h o r i e n t a t i o n and d e f i n i t i o n i n s o c i e t y . Thus they extend the s o c i a l comparison i d e a t o embrace i n t e r g r o u p as w e l l as i n t e r p e r s o n a l e v a l u a t i o n s . F e s t i n g e r t h e o r i z e s a need f o r p o s i t i v e s o c i a l comparison f o r a b i l i t y s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n . T a j f e l and Turn e r argue t h a t t h i s i s so i n the case of i n t e r g r o u p comparison as w e l l . In summary, "...membership of a p a r t i c u l a r group i n r e g a r d - t o i t s f u n c t i o n of s o c i a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s r e l a t e d t o a p o s i t i v e e v a l u a t i o n of i t s a t t r i b u t e s i n comparison w i t h o t h e r groups" ( T u r n e r , 1975, p.8) and, " ' a s o c i a l group w i l l , t h e r e f o r e , be c a p a b l e of p r e s e r v i n g i t s c o n t r i b u t u i o n t o thos e a s p e c t s of an i n d i v i d u a l ' s s o c i a l i d e n t i t y which are p o s i t i v e l y v a l u e d by him o n l y i f i t manages t o keep i t s p o s i t i v e l y v a l u e d d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s from o t h e r groups" ( T a j f e l , 1972 quoted i n T u r n e r , 1975, p.8) S o c i a l I d e n t i t y Theory makes two b a s i c a s s u m p t i o n s . One i s t h a t the s e l f - c o n c e p t c o m p r i s e s an i n d i v i d u a l i d e n t i t y and a s o c i a l i d e n t i t y (Brown & T u r n e r , 1981). The former c o n s i s t s of the i d i o s y n c r a c i e s of the i n d i v i d u a l , p e r s o n a l t r a i t s and a t t r i b u t e s , w h i l e the l a t t e r i s r e l a t e d t o group memberships. S o c i a l i d e n t i t y r e f e r s t o one's knowledge of b e l o n g i n g t o c e r t a i n s o c i a l groups. I t i s c o n s t i t u t e d by the s e t of d i f f e r e n t groups (e.g. race> sex, language, p r o f e s s i o n , e t c . ) of which one i s a member. T h i s s o c i a l s e l f i s m u l t i f a c e t t e d and 18 the c o n t e x t d e t e r m i n e s which dimension of i t i s s a l i e n t ( T u r n e r , 1975, 1982). The second assumption s t a t e s t h a t t h e r e i s a b a s i c d r i v e f o r p o s i t i v e s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n , t h a t i s maintenance or enhancement of s e l f - e s t e e m . I n d i v i d u a l s s t r i v e f o r a p o s i t i v e s e l f - i m a g e ( T a j f e l , 1978, 1981; T u r n e r , 1975, 1978, 1982). Thus t h e t h e o r y i n t r o d u c e s the n o t i o n s of s o c i a l c omparison and s o c i a l c o m p e t i t i o n t o account f o r s o c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . Turner (1975) r e f e r s t o s o c i a l c o m p e t i t i o n t o s i g n i f y t h a t people a r e s t r i v i n g f o r a r e l a t i v e p o s i t i v e d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s of t h e i r group by comparison w i t h a s p e c i f i c o u tgroup. By ' c o m p e t i t i o n ' he means t h a t both groups cannot s i m u l t a n e o u s l y a c h i e v e a r e l a t i v e p o s i t i v e s t a t u s on the same s p e c i f i c d i m e n s i o n , and by ' s o c i a l ' t h a t t h i s c o m p e t i t i o n i s t o be d i s t i n g u i s h e d from S h e r i f ' s (1966, 1979) type of r e a l i s t i c c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t s . To the p e r c e p t u a l c o g n i t i v e e f f e c t s of c a t e g o r i z a t i o n and group i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a r e now added the consequences of s o c i a l c omparison w i t h t h e i r i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r s e l f - e s t e e m . People use t h e i r s o c i a l i d e n t i t y , i . e . t h e i r group memberships, as a so u r c e of p o s i t i v e s e l f - e s t e e m . I n d i v i d u a l s not o n l y d e f i n e t hemselves but a l s o e v a l u a t e themselves i n terms of t h e i r group memberships (T u r n e r , 1982). P o s i t i v e e v a l u a t i o n i s thus a c h i e v e d t h r o u g h the p r o c e s s of s o c i a l c o m p a r i s o n . P o s i t i v e s o c i a l i d e n t i t y , or p o s i t i v e s o c i a l d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s , i s based on f a v o r a b l e comparisons w i t h a r e l e v a n t o u t g r o u p on some v a l u e d d i m e n s i o n ( T a j f e l & T u r n e r , 1979). In s i t u a t i o n s of 19 c a t e g o r i z a t i o n where i n d i v i d u a l s a r e d e f i n e d by t h e i r group memberships, p e o p l e engage i n i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n o r d e r t o o b t a i n by s o c i a l comparison a r e l a t i v e p o s i t i v e s t a t u s f o r t h e i r group, and c o n s e q u e n t l y p o s i t i v e p e r s o n a l s e l f -e v a l u a t i o n . Requirements t h a t a r e t o be f u l f i l l e d f o r t h i s p r i n c i p l e t o a p p l y a r e : (a) a c c e p t a n c e of the group membership by the i n d i v i d u a l , i . e . one c o n s i d e r s o n e s e l f t o be s o c i a l l y d e f i n e d by the c a t e g o r y ; (b) the outgroup b e i n g e x p l i c i t l y d e f i n e d and r e l e v a n t , and (c) p o s s i b i l i t i e s of s o c i a l comparison ( T a j f e l & T u r n e r , 1979; T u r n e r , 1982). T a j f e l (1978) d e s c r i b e s a sequence a c c o r d i n g t o which a p r o c e s s s t a r t i n g w i t h s o c i a l c a t e g o r i z a t i o n i nduces s o c i a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , then s o c i a l comparison which i n t u r n l e a d s t o s o c i a l d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n by means of s o c i a l c o m p e t i t i o n ( T a j f e l , 1978, 1981; T a j f e l & T u r n e r , 1979). These r e q u i r e m e n t s are met i n the m i n i m a l group p r o c e d u r e , where s u b j e c t s a r e anonymous except f o r t h e i r group membership, and can e x p r e s s themselves o n l y t h r o u g h i n g r o u p - o u t g r o u p d e c i s i o n s . On t h e s e they attempt t o a c h i e v e f o r t h e i r i n g r o u p a p o s i t i v e group s t a t u s by engaging i n c o m p e t i t i v e s o c i a l comparison v i a the reward a l l o c a t i o n t a s k . T h e i r c a t e g o r y membership i s the way they a r e s o c i a l l y d e f i n e d i n the s i t u a t i o n . S e l f - e s t e e m i s thus d e r i v e d from the p o s i t i v e s t a t u s of t h e i r group o b t a i n e d v i a i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m on t h e m a t r i c e s . From the above d e s c r i p t i o n , S o c i a l I d e n t i t y Theory seems t o o f f e r a n o v e l and i n t e r e s t i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n t h a t i t combines c o g n i t i v e and m o t i v a t i o n a l 20 p r o c e s s e s i n l i n k i n g s o c i a l c a t e g o r i z a t i o n , s o c i a l i d e n t i t y and s o c i a l comparison t o s o c i a l d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n . S o c i a l I d e n t i t y Theory i s s u p p o r t e d by a convergence of e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e . S i n c e Ferguson and K e l l y ' s (1964) study i n which two groups w o r k i n g i n d e p e n d e n t l y i n s i g h t of each o t h e r but f r e e from any c o m p e t i t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n s showed e v a l u a t i v e i n g r o u p b i a s ; much e v i d e n c e , as a l r e a d y r e v i e w e d , has been o b t a i n e d i l l u s t r a t i n g the r e l a t i o n between s o c i a l c a t e g o r i z a t i o n and i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m . Rabbie and W i l k e n s (1971) f o r example r e p o r t e d a m a n i p u l a t i o n check, i n which groups i n a supposedly n o n - c o m p e t i t i v e e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n e q u a l l e d groups competing f o r m a t e r i a l g a i n on a measure of p e r c e i v e d c o m p e t i t i o n . T h i s r e s u l t poses a problem f o r a f u n c t i o n a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n but i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h T u r n e r ' s s o c i a l c o m p e t i t i o n n o t i o n . B e s i d e s t h i s , the t h e o r y has been dev e l o p e d i n a number of i n t e r e s t i n g d i r e c t i o n s . For example, i t c o n s i d e r s a l t e r n a t i v e s t o s o c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ( T a j f e l , 1981; T a j f e l & T u r n e r , 1979). In s i t u a t i o n s where the i n g r o u p cannot a c h i e v e a p o s i t i v e s t a t u s on the a v a i l a b l e d i m e n s i o n s , T a j f e l (1978) s u g g e s t s t h a t members may attempt i n d i v i d u a l m o b i l i t y t o a c c e s s the s u p e r i o r group, c r e a t e new d i m e n s i o n s on which t o a c h i e v e f a v o r a b l e c o m p a r i s o n s , r e d e f i n e the o u t g r o u p , or change the e v a l u a t i v e s i g n i f i c a n c e of the d i m e n s i o n of comparison. They may compete h a r d e r , deny t h e i r i n f e r i o r i t y , and sometimes even t h e i r group membership. Moreover, i f p e o p l e can a c h i e v e p o s i t i v e s e l f -esteem more e a s i l y or more d i r e c t l y i n d i v i d u a l l y w i t h o u t 21 r e f e r r i n g t o t h e i r group membership, they w i l l do so and w i l l not be as i n t e r e s t e d i n a p o s i t i v e s t a t u s f o r t h e i r group. The t h e o r y has a l s o been e f f i c i e n t l y a p p l i e d t o " r e a l w o r l d " i n t e r g r o u p r e l a t i o n s . For example, G i l e s and Johnson (1981) use S o c i a l I d e n t i t y p r i n c i p l e s t o e x p l a i n r e l a t i o n s between e t h n o l i n g u i s t i c g r o u p s . M i l n e r (1981) a n a l y s e s r a c i a l p r e j u d i c e a g a i n s t B l a c k s w i t h i n the same framework. The dynamics of m i n o r i t y groups, and r e l a t i o n s of s t a t u s and power have a l s o been s t u d i e d i n t h e s e terms ( T a j f e l , 1978; T a j f e l & T u r n e r , 1979; Turner & Brown, 1978). T a j f e l (1978, 1981) has been concerned w i t h the i m p l i c a t i o n of the t h e o r y f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g s t e r e o t y p i n g and p r e j u d i c e , and B i l l i g (1976) sees i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r a n t h r o p o l o g y , h i s t o r y and p o l i t i c s . T urner (1982) has used the framework t o e x p l o r e group f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s e s i n more depth. S o c i a l I d e n t i t y Theory p r o v i d e s a n o v e l and more comprehensive e x p l a n a t i o n f o r i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n than any of the o t h e r approaches d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r . S e l f - e s t e e m p l a y s a c e n t r a l r o l e i n the t h e o r y and c o n s e q u e n t l y d e s e r v e s t o be e x p l i c i t l y d i s c u s s e d . The r o l e of s e l f - e s t e e m . S o c i a l I d e n t i t y Theory assumes a b a s i c d r i v e f o r p o s i t i v e s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n . There i s some sup p o r t f o r such an a s s u m p t i o n . At a t h e o r e t i c a l l e v e l , much has been w r i t t e n about a d r i v e f o r s e l f - e s t e e m . E p s t e i n (1973) and W e l l s and M a r w e l l (1976) c i t e many s e l f - c o n c e p t t h e o r e t i c i a n s who have p o s t u l a t e d a b a s i c need t o enhance s e l f -esteem, from James t o Rogers, and G.W. A l l p o r t t o H i l g a r d . 22 White (1959) approached a s i m i l a r n o t i o n by c o n s i d e r i n g the sense of competence as a d r i v e . L i k e H i l g a r d (1949), he s t a r t s from the b i o l o g i c a l t r a d i t i o n i n m o t i v a t i o n and proceeds from p h y s i o l o g i c a l t o b e h a v i o r a l arguments t o j u s t i f y h i s r e f e r e n c e t o a m o t i v a t i o n of competence. Mancuso (1976) a l s o s u p p o r t s the i d e a of a m o t i v a t i o n r e l a t e d t o s e l f - e s t e e m . F u r t h e r m o r e , much r e s e a r c h w i t h i n the t r a d i t i o n of self-enhancement t h e o r y has made use of a m o t i v a t i o n a l concept of s e l f - e s t e e m . (Colman & O l v e r , 1978; J o n e s , 1973; M c F a r l i n & B l a s c o v i c h , 1981; Norem-Hebeisen & Johnson, 1981). T e s s e r (1980) s t a r t s from the s t a n d p o i n t t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s aim a t e n h a n c i n g , or a t l e a s t m a i n t a i n i n g t h e i r s e l f - e s t e e m , t o d e v e l o p the S e l f - E v a l u a t i o n Maintenance Model of s e l f - d e f i n i t i o n s ( T e sser & Camp b e l l , 1980; T e s s e r & P a u l h u s , 1983). At the e m p i r i c a l l e v e l some s t u d i e s have r e l a t e d i n d i v i d u a l s e l f - e s t e e m t o group i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and group s t a t u s (Zander, S t o t l a n d & Wolfe, 1960). The more c o h e s i v e the group i s p e r c e i v e d t o be and the more the i n d i v i d u a l i d e n t i f i e s w i t h i t , the more s e l f - e s t e e m i s a f f e c t e d p o s i t i v e l y by s u c c e s s e s and n e g a t i v e l y by group f a i l u r e s . There i s a l s o c o m p a t i b l e e x p e r i m e n t a l e v i d e n c e f o r some s p e c i f i c .. a s p e c t s of the importance of s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n i n S o c i a l I d e n t i t y Theory. Turner (1975, 1978) demonstrated t h a t s o c i a l c a t e g o r i z a t i o n d i d not l e a d t o s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n when s u b j e c t s c o u l d a c t d i r e c t l y f o r t h e m s e l v e s . When a l l o c a t i n g p o i n t s or money between themselves and an o t h e r p e r s o n , s u b j e c t s showed l e s s i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m than when they were making d e c i s i o n s 23 about two o t h e r s , one b e i n g an i n g r o u p member and one a member of t h e outgroup. T h i s s u p p o r t s the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l not r e f e r t o t h e i r group membership i f they can c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e i r s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n d i r e c t l y as i n d i v i d u a l s . Turner and S p r i g g s (1982) r e p l i c a t e d t h i s r e s u l t . L o c k s l e y e t a l . (1980) found r e d u c t i o n of i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m on t r a i t r a t i n g s and c h i p a l l o c a t i o n s when s u b j e c t s r e c e i v e d p o s i t i v e e v a l u a t i o n s from t h e outgroup and n e g a t i v e ones from the i n g r o u p . These d a t a support the i d e a t h a t p e o p l e w i l l not engage i n as much s o c i a l c o m p e t i t i o n i f they can a c h e i v e p o s i t i v e s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n t h r o u g h o t h e r means. S p e c i f i c b i a s e s on e v a l u a t i v e d i m e n s i o n s a l s o t e s t i f y t o the need f o r p o s i t i v e e v a l u a t i o n ( L i n v i l l e & J o n e s , 1980; Park & R o t h b a r t , 1982). More f a v o r a b l e than u n f a v o r a b l e b e h a v i o r s were e x p e c t e d from the i n g r o u p , and more n e g a t i v e b e h a v i o r s from the outgroup than from the i n g r o u p were remembered i n a r e c o g n i t i o n t a s k (Howard & R o t h b a r t , 1980). A l s o c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the model, Turner (1978) obse r v e d more i n g r o u p b i a s e s on a t t r i b u t e s of h i g h than low importance t o the s u b j e c t s , and on d i m e n s i o n s on which the outgroup was r e l e v a n t and comparable. T h i s e v i d e n c e w h i l e g e n e r a l l y s u p p o r t i v e , i s c i r c u m s t a n t i a l , and b e a r s o n l y i n d i r e c t l y on the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n the minimal group paragigm c o n t r i b u t e s t o p e r s o n a l s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n . Only two s t u d i e s have a d d r e s s e d t h i s h y p o t h e s i s d i r e c t l y . Oakes and Turner (1980) measured p o s t - e x p e r i m e n t a l s e l f - e s t e e m under two c o n d i t i o n s . S u b j e c t s were f i r s t c a t e g o r i z e d on p a i n t i n g p r e f e r e n c e s , and then were 24 a s s i g n e d e i t h e r t o an e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n i n which s u b j e c t s completed the u s u a l m a t r i x b o o k l e t , or t o a c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n , i n which s u b j e c t s read a newspaper a r t i c l e on which they would supposedly be q u e s t i o n n e d l a t e r . At the end of the s e s s i o n , a l l s u b j e c t s completed a s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e . E x p e r i m e n t a l s u b j e c t s , who ind e e d showed i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m on the m a t r i c e s , e x p r e s s e d g r e a t e r s e l f - e s t e e m than c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s on the Twenty Statements Test and semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l i t e m s , a l t h o u g h a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was not o b t a i n e d on Rosenberg's (1965) S e l f - E s t e e m s c a l e . A f a c t o r a n a l y s i s of the s e l f - e s t e e m measures y i e l d e d a s i n g l e f a c t o r on which s c o r e s d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y a c r o s s c o n d i t i o n s . The experiment thus gave e n c o u r a g i n g r e s u l t s . However, the c r i t i c i s m can be made t h a t the e x p e r i m e n t a l t a s k s i n the two c o n d i t i o n s were not of e q u a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . One was a d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g t a s k , w h i l e the o t h e r s i m p l y c o n s i s t e d of w a i t i n g . I t c o u l d be suggested t h a t the importance of the e x p e r i m e n t a l t a s k i n f l u e n c e s s e l f - e s t e e m , i n d e p e n d e n t l y of the o p p o r t u n i t y t o d i s c r i m i n a t e . I t i s t h e r e f o r e e s s e n t i a l t o compare c o n d i t i o n s where the t a s k s a r e of comparable p s y c h o l o g i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . Moreover, the s e t t i n g of the e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n makes group membership much more s a l i e n t , a g a i n i n d e p e n d e n t l y of any a c t u a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n r e s p onse. C o n s e q u e n t l y , i n t h i s s t u d y the e v i d e n c e i s not c l e a r on which a s p e c t s of the e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n caused the d i f f e r e n c e i n s e l f - e s t e e m : the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the t a s k , the c o n f r o n t a t i o n of the i n g r o u p and the outgroup, the s a l i e n c e of 25 the membership, or the d i s c r i m i n a t i o n per se. Turner and S p r i g g s (1982) conducted another m i n i m a l group experiment w i t h s e l f - e s t e e m as one of the dependent v a r i a b l e s . Two independent v a r i a b l e s were m a n i p u l a t e d . One concerned the i n s t r u c t i o n s g i v e n t o the s u b j e c t s . They were i n s t r u c t e d e i t h e r t o be c o o p e r a t i v e or c o m p e t i t i v e . The second m a n i p u l a t i o n c o n c erned the type of m a t r i x . In the Group c o n d i t i o n s u b j e c t s were c a t e g o r i z e d on p a i n t i n g p r e f e r e n c e s and they a l l o c a t e d p o i n t s between i n g r o u p and o u t g r o u p members, w h i l e i n the I n d i v i d u a l c o n d i t i o n , they were not e x p l i c i t l y c a t e g o r i z e d i n t o g roups, and they a l l o c a t e d p o i n t s between themselves and another p e r s o n , h a l f the time who shared the same p a i n t i n g p r e f e r e n c e and f o r t h e o t h e r h a l f of the m a t r i c e s , who d i d n o t . S e l f - e s t e e m measures were the same as those used by Oakes and Turner (1980). On the m a t r i c e s a l l c o n d i t i o n s showed some' in g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m but they d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y a c c o r d i n g t o the two e x p e c t e d main e f f e c t s , g i v i n g g r e a t e r f a v o r i t i s m i n the C o m p e t i t i o n c o n d i t i o n s and i n the Group c o n d i t i o n s . A f a c t o r a n a l y s i s of s e l f - e s t e e m measures r e v e a l e d a s i n g l e f a c t o r as i n the Oakes and Turner e x p e r i m e n t . Two-way ANOVAs on each s e l f -esteem s c a l e r e v e a l e d a main e f f e c t f o r c o m p e t i t i o n v e r s u s c o o p e r a t i o n , due t o the tendency towards h i g h e r s e l f - e s t e e m on Rosenberg's i n v e n t o r y , the semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e s and the common f a c t o r , under the c o m p e t i t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n s . On the Twenty Statements t e s t , s e l f - e s t e e m s c o r e s were s t a t i s t i c a l l y h i g h e r under I n d i v i d u a l c o n d i t i o n s ( S e l f v s . Other m a t r i c e s ) than Group c o n d i t i o n s (Other v s . Other m a t r i c e s ) . No 26 i n t e r a c t i o n s were s i g n i f i c a n t . In t h i s experiment the r e l a t i o n between c o m p e t i t i o n and i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m seems t o have m i r r o r e d the p a t t e r n between c o m p e t i t i o n and s e l f - e s t e e m . C o m p e t i t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n s caused an i n c r e a s e i n i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m and an i n c r e a s e i n s e l f - e s t e e m , s u g g e s t i n g a r e l a t i o n between i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m and s e l f - e s t e e m . One cannot c o n c l u d e , though, t h a t i t i s the amount of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n t h a t i n d e e d caused the change of s e l f - e s t e e m ; the r e l a t i o n i s i n d i r e c t and c o r r e l a t i o n a l i n n a t u r e . Moreover, s i n c e a l l the groups were i n s i t u a t i o n s of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and showed i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m t o some e x t e n t , one cannot judge whether i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n was a n e c e s s a r y c o n d i t i o n f o r a change i n s e l f -esteem. F u r t h e r m o r e , i n the e x p l i c i t l y c a t e g o r i z e d c o n d i t i o n , the t a s k c o n s i s t e d of a l l o c a t i n g p o i n t s between two o t h e r s , one i n g r o u p e r and one o u t g r o u p e r , w h i l e i n the n o n - c a t e g o r i z e d c o n d i t i o n s u b j e c t s d i s t r i b u t e d p o i n t s between themselves and somebody e l s e . In the l a t t e r c o n d i t i o n d i r e c t s e l f - i n t e r e s t and the p o s s i b i l i t y of s e l f - f a v o r i t i s m were i n t r o d u c e d . S u b j e c t s c o u l d a c t d i r e c t l y on t h e i r s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n . C o n s e q u e n t l y the comparison between the Group c o n d i t i o n and the I n d i v i d u a l c o n d i t i o n c o u l d not answer the q u e s t i o n about the impact of i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n on s e l f - e s t e e m ; t h e r e was no group-wise c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n where d i s c r i m i n a t i o n was i m p o s s i b l e . B e s i d e s , the e v e n t u a l impact of c a t e g o r i z a t i o n per se c o u l d not be a s s e s s e d because the n o n - c a t e g o r i z e d s u b j e c t s had a d i f f e r e n t t y p e of m a t r i x from th e c a t e g o r i z e d ones, c o n f o u n d i n g two v a r i a b l e s . 27 These two e x p e r i m e n t s by Oakes and Turner (1980) and Turner and S p r i g g s (1982) have attempted t o answer p a r t of the q u e s t i o n about the r o l e of s e l f - e s t e e m i n i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . The e v i d e n c e they g i v e i s n o t , however, s u f f i c i e n t t o v e r i f y S o c i a l I d e n t i t y Theory. Because of t h e i r m e t h o d o l o g i c a l weaknesses, no c o n c l u s i v e statement can be made about the e f f e c t of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n on s e l f - e s t e e m . There i s need f o r f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The Proposed R e s e a r c h The aim of the proposed r e s e a r c h i s t o e x t e n d the c o n t r i b u t i o n s of Oakes and Turner (1980) and Turner and S p r i g g s (1982) i n v e r i f y i n g t h a t s e l f - e s t e e m i s i n v o l v e d i n i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , and t o attempt t o d e t e r m i n e a t which of s e v e r a l p o s s i b l e s t a g e s i n the p r o c e d u r e , a s ^ w i l l be d e s c r i b e d below. E s s e n t i a l l y , S o c i a l I d e n t i t y t h e o r y p r e d i c t s an i n c r e a s e i n s e l f - e s t e e m a f t e r a s u c c e s s f u l c o m p e t i t i v e s o c i a l c o m p a r i s o n . P o s i t i v e e v a l u a t i v e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , i . e . d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , i s a p r e r e q u i s i t e of success i n t h i s r e s p e c t . I t i s however c o n c e i v a b l e t h a t a change i n s e l f - e s t e e m may a l s o be produced by o t h e r f a c t o r s i n the d e s i g n . For example, c a t e g o r i z a t i o n , i n the minimal group paradigm, may i n i t s e l f e l i c i t some p o s i t i v e s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n i n t h a t i t s o c i a l l y d e f i n e s i n d i v i d u a l s ( i n an a d m i t t e d l y m i n i m a l way) i n a c o n t e x t where the a m b i g u i t y of the e x p e r i m e n t a l s i t u a t i o n may e l i c i t a s e a r c h f o r p e r s o n a l meaning. N e i t h e r of the e x p e r i m e n t s d e s c r i b e d above i n c l u d e d a n o n - c a t e g o r i z a t i o n c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n t o compare the e f f e c t s of 28 c a t e g o r i z a t i o n a g a i n s t . Moreover, p u r e l y c o g n i t i v e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of the i n g r o u p and o u tgroup i . e . the s i m p l e c o n f r o n t a t i o n of the two, i n d e p e n d e n t l y of any a c t u a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , may c o n t r i b u t e t o s e l f - e s t e e m because i t makes s a l i e n t s o c i a l i d e n t i t y , or b e l o n g i n g . T h i s p r e d i c t i o n i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h a c o g n i t i v i s t p o s i t i o n l i k e D o i s e ' s . A f t e r the impact of c a t e g o r i z a t i o n and c o g n i t i v e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , the a c t u a l d i s c r i m i n a t i v e a c t would b r i n g i n the c o m p a r a t i v e e v a l u a t i v e component t h a t l e a d s t o the p o s i t i v e s t a t u s of the group. In summary, S o c i a l I d e n t i t y Theory e x p e c t s i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n t o be the f a c t o r most r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the change i n s e l f - e s t e e m , but one may a l s o s u s p e c t t h a t s o c i a l c a t e g o r i z a t i o n and s i m p l e c o g n i t i v e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n w i l l c o n t r i b u t e t o s e l f - e s t e e m as w e l l . The f o l l o w i n g r e s e a r c h w i l l t e s t i f indeed d i s c r i m i n a t i o n enhances s e l f - e s t e e m , and w i l l a l s o p r o v i d e means t o a s s e s s the r o l e of the o t h e r f a c t o r s mentioned above. C o n d i t i o n s w i l l m a n i p u l a t e i n d e p e n d e n t l y c a t e g o r i z a t i o n , s i m p l e c o g n i t i v e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between the i n g r o u p and the o u t g r o u p , and d i sc r i m i n a t i o n . The proposed r e s e a r c h w i l l s t udy i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n w i t h i n the m i n i m a l group paradigm, because the g o a l a t t h i s s t a g e i s t o c l a r i f y the b a s i c s of the t h e o r y . C o m p l e t e l y random c a t e g o r i z a t i o n w i l l be used, as opposed t o t r i v i a l c r i t e r i a , t o m i n i m i z e any s o r t of s i m i l a r i t y p e r c e p t i o n . S i m i l a r i t y may l e a d s u b j e c t s t o make i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m not because of t h e i r 29 membership per se, but t o defend a t t r i b u t e s they may i n f e r s h a r i n g w i t h t h e i r group. Many f a c t o r s , of c o u r s e , are l e f t t o f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n . At t h i s p o i n t , the i n t e r e s t i s not i n the r o l e of i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a b l e s , p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , or r e l a t e d t r a i t s . The i s s u e of m o t i v a t i o n or of i n t e n t i o n , whether d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i s made " i n o r d e r t o " enhance s e l f -esteem as Turner (1982) s u g g e s t s , i s not a d d r e s s e d e i t h e r . T h i s r e s e a r c h f o c u s e s on the ef f e c t of c a t e g o r i z a t i o n and d i s c r i m i n a t i o n on s e l f - e s t e e m . To a c t u a l l y t e s t the impact of i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n on s e l f - e s t e e m i n the m i n i m a l group paradigm, the experiment w i l l c omprise e i g h t c o n d i t i o n s . The independent v a r i a b l e s w i l l c o n s i s t of m a n i p u l a t i n g : (a) c a t e g o r i z a t i o n ( v e r s u s non-c a t e g o r i z a t i o n ) ; (b) i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n v i a d i f f e r e n t t y p e s of m a t r i x t a s k , and; (c) the moment a t which s e l f - e s t e e m , the dependent v a r i a b l e , i s a s s e s s e d . S i n c e t h e r e i s no consensus about t e r m i n o l o g y whether t o r e f e r t o s e l f - e s t e e m , s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n , s e l f - r e g a r d or e l s e ( W e l l s & M a r w e l l , 1976; W y l i e , 1961, 1974); the term s e l f - esteem w i l l be used t o name a s t a t e s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n r e f l e c t i n g the degree of s e l f - l i k i n g (Robinson Sc Shaver, 1 973). We w i l l a l s o use t h i s o p p o r t u n i t y d i r e c t l y t o compare T a j f e l ' s and Brewer's m a t r i c e s . 30 Method S u b j e c t s One hundred t h i r t y - f i v e (135) undergraduates from an I n t r o d u c t o r y P s y c h o l o g y c l a s s a t U.B.C. agreed t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s e x periment d u r i n g t h e i r c l a s s p e r i o d . The 90 males and 45 females were s e a t e d a t i n d i v i d u a l desks s e p a r a t e d from each o t h e r by about a h a l f meter i n a l a r g e a u d i t o r i u m . Procedure A l l the c o n d i t i o n s i n t h i s experiment were run c o n c u r r e n t l y . A f t e r a b r i e f i n t r o d u c t i o n s u b j e c t s were asked t o s i g n the Consent Form (Appendix B ) . Then, f o l l o w i n g o r a l i n s t r u c t i o n s about the o v e r a l l p r o c e d u r e and the s p e c i f i c t a s k s t o be p e rformed (Appendix C) t h r e e teams of two e x p e r i m e n t a l a s s i s t a n t s went around the c l a s s r o o m a l l o w i n g each s u b j e c t t o draw a s l i p of paper from a bag and t o t a k e an e x p e r i m e n t a l b o o k l e t . S u b j e c t s had been t o l d t h a t they would be g i v e n an anonymous c o n f i d e n t i a l p e r s o n a l code number by drawing a s l i p of paper. They would use t h i s code number throughout the e x p e r i m e n t a l s e s s i o n i n s t e a d of t h e i r name, i n o r d e r t o p r o t e c t t h e i r anonymity. I n f a c t a l l s u b j e c t s drew " p e r s o n a l " code number '16'. Moreover, t h r e e q u a r t e r s of the s l i p s of paper performed a group c a t e g o r i z a t i o n a t the same ti m e . In these c a s e s the s l i p l e d s u b j e c t s t o b e l i e v e t h a t the c l a s s was d i v i d e d i n t o two groups, Blue and Red, on a random b a s i s , and t h a t they had be a s s i g n e d by chance t o Group Red (Appendix B ) . 31 S e c r e c y of the s l i p of paper was s t r e s s e d . S u b j e c t s had t o -read the s l i p , w r i t e the i n f o r m a t i o n (code number and, i f any, group membership) down on the second page of t h e i r e x p e r i m e n t a l b o o k l e t , f o l d up the s l i p of paper, and put i t i n an envelope a l r e a d y p r o v i d e d . The s u b j e c t s then s t a r t e d work on t h e i r b o o k l e t , which c o n t a i n e d two p a r t s . One p a r t was a p o i n t a l l o c a t i o n t a s k u s i n g m a t r i c e s of rewards f o r two unknown persons i d e n t i f i e d by t h e i r code numbers and, i n some c o n d i t i o n s , by t h e i r group memberships. The o t h e r p a r t of the b o o k l e t c o n s i s t e d of a s e l f -esteem q u e s t i o n n a i r e . These two p a r t s appeared i n r e v e r s e d o r d e r , depending on the c o n d i t i o n . To p r e v e n t s u b j e c t s from t a l k i n g t o one a n o t h e r , they were a l s o p r o v i d e d from the b e g i n n i n g of the s e s s i o n w i t h a f i l l e r t a s k , a whole sheet of anagrams (Appendix B ) . They were i n s t r u c t e d t o s o l v e t h e s e i n t h e i r spare t i m e , under the c o v e r of e s t a b l i s h i n g norms f o r somebody e l s e ' s s t u d y . When everybody had f i n i s h e d a n s w e r i n g t h e i r b o o k l e t , t h e experiment was d e c l a r e d o v e r . S u b j e c t s were then asked t o complete a P o s t e x p e r i m e n t a l Q u e s t i o n n a i r e g a t h e r i n g t h e i r comments, h y p o t h e s e s , p e r c e p t i o n s and s u s p i c i o n s (Appendix D). F i n a l l y t h e s u b j e c t s were d e b r i e f e d about the whole p r o c e d u r e , the d i f f e r e n t c o n d i t i o n s , the h y p o t h e s e s , and were g i v e n a b r i e f summary of S o c i a l I d e n t i t y t h e o r y . 32 C o n d i t i o n s S u b j e c t s were randomly a s s i g n e d to one of e i g h t c o n d i t i o n s a c c o r d i n g t o the randomized o r d e r of the b o o k l e t s i n the e x p e r i m e n t e r s ' boxes. The c o n d i t i o n s v a r i e d on t h r e e p a r a m e t e r s : (a) c a t e g o r i z a t i o n i n t o groups v e r s u s no c a t e g o r i z a t i o n ; (b) type of a l l o c a t i o n t a s k , and; (c) the o r d e r of the p o i n t a l l o c a t i o n and s e l f - e s t e e m t a s k s . C a t e g o r i z a t i o n was m a n i p u l a t e d on two l e v e l s . Some s u b j e c t s ( t h r e e q u a r t e r s of them) were c a t e g o r i z e d (C) on a s upposedly random b a s i s by the drawing of a s l i p of paper, as members of Group Red (as opposed t o Group B l u e ) . T h i s type of p u t a t i v e random c a t e g o r i z a t i o n was shown t o be e f f e c t i v e i n p r o d u c i n g i n g r o u p - o u t g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n on the m a t r i c e s i n a p i l o t s t u d y . The o t h e r q u a r t e r of the s u b j e c t s were not c a t e g o r i z e d (NC) i n t o groups at a l l . T h e i r s l i p of paper o n l y i n d i c a t e d a p e r s o n a l code number. The second f a c t o r of the e x p e r i m e n t , the type of p o i n t a l l o c a t i o n t a s k , was m a n i p u l a t e d by the use of d i f f e r e n t t y p e s of m a t r i c e s i n t h e b o o k l e t s . The o b j e c t i v e was t o make i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n t h r o u g h i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m p o s s i b l e o n l y f o r c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s and not f o r o t h e r s , w h i l e a t the same time m a i n t a i n i n g some e q u i v a l e n c e between the t a s k s . S u b j e c t s who had been c a t e g o r i z e d i n t o groups a l l o c a t e d p o i n t s on each m a t r i x of t h e i r b o o k l e t t o e i t h e r : (a) one anonymous member of t h e i r i n g r o u p , Red, and one of the o u t g r o u p , B l u e (Mtx I n - O u t ) , (b) two anonymous members of the i n g r o u p (Mtx I n -I n ) , or (c) two anonymous members of the o u t g r o u p (Mtx Out-33 O u t ) . These t h r e e c o n d i t i o n s a l l employed normal v e r s i o n s of the m a t r i c e s , as they have been used i n p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h . A f u r t h e r two c o n d i t i o n s were c r e a t e d i n which c a t e g o r i z e d s u b j e c t s a l l o c a t e d p o i n t s between an i n g r o u p and an outgroup member, but on m a t r i c e s t h a t had been a l t e r e d i n such a way as t o make i t i m p o s s i b l e t o choose a n y t h i n g o t h e r than c o m p e t i t i v e i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m (Mtx Force d D i s c r i m i n a t i o n ) , or t o enable o n l y f a i r n e s s (Mtx F o r c e d F a i r n e s s ) . N o n - c a t e g o r i z e d s u b j e c t s f i l l e d i n m a t r i c e s about two o t h e r anonymous persons i d e n t i f i e d o n l y by code numbers, w i t h o u t r e f e r r i n g t o any group membership ( M t x ) . These d i f f e r e n t t y p e s of m a t r i c e s a l l o w e d the ex p e r i m e n t e r t o m a n i p u l a t e the o p p o r t u n i t y f o r a s u b j e c t t o e x p r e s s i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . The l a s t independent v a r i a b l e concerned the moment a t which s e l f - e s t e e m was a s s e s s e d . In some c o n d i t i o n s s e l f - e s t e e m was measured i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r the c a t e g o r i z a t i o n m a n i p u l a t i o n , b e f o r e the p o i n t a l l o c a t i o n t a s k ; i n o t h e r s i t was e v a l u a t e d a f t e r the p o i n t d i s t r i b u t i o n t a s k . These two a l t e r n a t i v e s were m a n i p u l a t e d by the o r d e r of p r e s e n t a t i o n of the m a t r i x p a r t of the b o o k l e t . In the s i t u a t i o n where s e l f - e s t e e m was a s s e s s e d j u s t a f t e r the c a t e g o r i z a t i o n , p a r t I of the b o o k l e t c o n t a i n e d the s e l f - e s t e e m q u e s t i o n n a i r e and the m a t r i c e s were p r e s e n t e d i n p a r t I I i n o r d e r t o p r e s e r v e s i m i l a r i t y i n time involvment as compared w i t h t h e c o n d i t i o n s where the m a t r i c e s were performed f i r s t . As t o the dependent v a r i a b l e s of t h i s e x p e r i m e n t , they c o n s i s t e d of measures of t r a n s i e n t s e l f - e s t e e m , a l s o r e f e r r e d 34 t o as s t a t e s e l f - e s t e e m (as opposed t o t r a i t s e l f - e s t e e m ) . The o r g a n i z a t i o n of a l l t h e s e parameters y i e l d e d a d e s i g n w i t h e i g h t randomly a s s i g n e d c o n d i t i o n s of the form: C a t e g o r i z a t i o n B o o k l e t P a r t I P a r t I I 1 j NC S e l f - E s t e e m Mtx 2 ) NC Mtx S e l f - E s t e e m 3 ) C S e l f - E s t e e m Mtx In-Out 4 ) C Mtx In-Out S e l f - E s t e e m 5 ) C Mtx I n - I n S e l f - E s t e e m 6 ) C Mtx Out-Out S e l f - E s t e e m 7 ) C Mtx F o r c e d F a i r n e s s S e l f - E s t e e m 8 ) C Mtx F o r c e d Dscrmtn S e l f - E s t e e m The c o r e of the d e s i g n c o n s i s t e d of the f i r s t f o u r c o n d i t i o n s which formed, w i t h r e s p e c t t o the dependent v a r i a b l e s e l f - e s t e e m , a 2 x 2 d e s i g n : c a t e g o r i z a t i o n or n o n - c a t e g o r i z a t i o n by m a t r i x t a s k or non-matrix t a s k . To t h i s b l o c k the f o u r r e m a i n i n g c o n d i t i o n s were a f f i x e d as supplementary c o n t r o l s . The c o r n e r - s t o n e of the d e s i g n was c o n d i t i o n 4 which was t o be compared on s e l f - e s t e e m w i t h c o n d i t i o n s where s u b j e c t s were c a t e g o r i z e d but c o u l d not e x p r e s s any i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m on the m a t r i c e s because they were not c o n f r o n t e d w i t h both the i n g r o u p and the outgroup s i m u l t a n e o u s l y ( c o n d i t i o n s 5, 6 ) , or 35 because they were f o r c e d t o be f a i r ( c o n d i t i o n 7 ) . In c o n d i t i o n 3 s e l f - e s t e e m was a s s e s s e d p r i o r t o any p o s s i b l e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , no e x p l i c i t comparison or d e c i s i o n h a v i n g been made y e t . T h i s p e r m i t t e d the s i m u l a t i o n of a p r e - p o s t measure of s e l f - e s t e e m w i t h r e s p e c t t o d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , w i t h o u t e n c o u n t e r i n g r e p e a t e d measure a r t i f a c t s such as p r e t e s t s e n s i t i v i t y . Moreover the l a t t e r c o n d i t i o n (3) i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h c o n d i t i o n 1, the b a s e l i n e , p e r m i t t e d the e v a l u a t i o n of the impact of c a t e g o r i z a t i o n a l o n e on s e l f - e s t e e m . C o n d i t i o n 2 se r v e d as a c o n t r o l f o r the e f f e c t of the m a t r i x t a s k . C o n d i t i o n 8 p r o v i d e d an analogue t o c o n d i t i o n 7 w i t h r e s p e c t t o i t s f o r c e d c h a r a c t e r , and t e s t e d , when opposed t o c o n d i t i o n 4, i f p e r c e i v e d freedom i n d i s c r i m i n a t i n g a g a i n s t an outgroup was a d e t e r m i n a n t of a change i n s e l f - e s t e e m . M a t e r i a l s The c a t e g o r i z a t i o n m a n i p u l a t i o n was c a r r i e d out by the use of two typ e s of s l i p s of paper. One i n d i c a t e d o n l y a code number, w h i l e the o t h e r type a l s o a s s i g n e d a group membership, Red, t o the s u b j e c t (Appendix B ) . The c o r e of the m a n i p u l a t i o n s was a c c o m p l i s h e d t h r o u g h the b o o k l e t s whose c o m p o s i t i o n changed a c c o r d i n g t o the c o n d i t i o n s . The b o o k l e t s were made of 27 h a l f - p a g e s s t a p l e d t o g e t h e r . The f i r s t page was l e f t b l ank i n o r d e r t o cover the second page on which s u b j e c t s had t o w r i t e t h e i r code number and, i f any, t h e i r group membership (Appendix B ) . The m a t r i x p a r t c o n s i s t e d of a page of i n s t r u c t i o n s 36 (Appendix B) f o l l o w e d by.16 pages of m a t r i c e s . E i g h t m a t r i c e s of T a j f e l ' s 13 column format a l t e r n a t e d w i t h e i g h t of Brewer's 2-column type (Appendix A ) . For each of t h e s e m a t r i c e s two unknown persons were i d e n t i f i e d a t the b e g i n n i n g of the rows by some randomly chosen code numbers and, f o r c o n d i t i o n s 3 through 8, by group memberships. T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n was hand w r i t t e n i n i n k c o r r e s p o n d i n g i n c o l o r t o the group l a b e l s , b l u e or r e d . T a j f e l ' s m a t r i c e s were of f o u r d i f f e r e n t t y p e s as shown i n Appendix A. Each type was p r e s e n t e d t w i c e , s w i t c h i n g around the group on the t o p and bottom rows. C o n d i t i o n s 7 and 8 used m o d i f i e d v e r s i o n s of the o r i g i n a l m a t r i c e s . For the F o r c e d F a i r n e s s c o n d i t i o n the a r r a y s of numbers were c o n t r u c t e d i n such a way t h a t the p o i n t s a l l o c a t e d t o the i n g r o u p were n e c e s s a r i l y e q u a l t o those g i v e n t o the outgroup. In the F o r c e d D i s c r i m i n a t i o n c o n d i t i o n the numbers were combined such t h a t more p o i n t s were always g i v e n t o the i n g r o u p (Appendix E ) . For each m a t r i x , s u b j e c t s had t o c i r c l e a column c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o the number of p o i n t s they a l l o c a t e d t o the two persons i d e n t i f i e d on the page. They a l s o had t o w r i t e t h e s e numbers down on the l i n e s p r o v i d e d . The s e l f - e s t e e m p a r t c o n s i s t e d of a s e t of measures f o r which the i n s t r u c t i o n s s t r e s s e d the need t o answer as they f e l t a t t h a t v e r y moment. The q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n c l u d e d a h a l f - l e n g t h v e r s i o n of the Twenty Statement T e s t (Jones, Sengenig & H a l e y , 1974; Kuhn & M c P a r t l a n d , 1954; McGuire & Padawer-Singer, 1976), Rosenberg's (1965) 10-item S e l f - E s t e e m S c a l e extended t o a 7-p o i n t L i k e r t s c a l e , 22 semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e s c o m p r i s i n g 37 J u l i a n , B i s h o p & F i e d l e r ' s (1966) n i n e items and Sherwood's S e l f - C o n c e p t I n v e n t o r y 13 items (Robinson & Shaver, 1973). F i n a l l y t h e r e was a s i n g l e 7 - point r a t i n g s c a l e a d d r e s s i n g d i r e c t l y the l e v e l of ^ s e l f - e s t e e m ( H a m i l t o n , 1971). The s e l f -esteem q u e s t i o n n a i r e (Appendix F) c o n s t i t u t e d p a r t I of the b o o k l e t f o r c o n d i t i o n 1 and 3 and p a r t I I f o r a l l the o t h e r c o n d i t i o n s . F i n a l l y , the l a s t page of the b o o k l e t asked f o r age and sex. The consent form, anagram sheet and p o s t e x p e r i m e n t a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e a re reproduced i n the Appendices B and D. Hypotheses The main o b j e c t i v e of t h i s experiment was t o determine whether engaging i n c o m p e t i t i v e s o c i a l comparison and d i s c r i m i n a t i n g a g a i n s t an o u t g r o u p causes an i n c r e a s e i n s e l f -esteem. T h i s presupposed c a t e g o r i z a t i o n i n t o an i n g r o u p and an ou t g r o u p , as w e l l as an o p p o r t u n i t y t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e between th e s e two groups. The e i g h t e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s were d e s i g n e d t o a d d r e s s t h i s q u e s t i o n . Four of them m a n i p u l a t e d c a t e g o r i z a t i o n and the m a t r i x t a s k i n a 2x2 d e s i g n . These were c o n d i t i o n s 1 t o 4. The p r i n c i p a l h y p o t h e s i s about s e l f - e s t e e m p r e d i c t e d a c a t e g o r i z a t i o n by m a t r i x i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t , w i t h both b e i n g 38 n e c e s s a r y t o i n c r e a s e s e l f - e s t e e m . S u b j e c t s who were c a t e g o r i z e d and who d i s c r i m i n a t e d would show h i g h e r s e l f -esteem. There was a l s o a secondary s e t of h y p o t h e s e s . A s m a l l main e f f e c t f o r c a t e g o r i z a t i o n was e x p e c t e d , i n t h a t c a t e g o r i z a t i o n would add t o the s u b j e c t s ' s o c i a l d e f i n i t i o n . A s m a l l m a t r i x main e f f e c t was a l s o h y p o t h e s i z e d i n the d i r e c t i o n of p o s t - m a t r i x s e l f - e s t e e m measures b e i n g h i g h e r than those taken p r i o r t o the m a t r i x t a s k due t o the f e e l i n g of h a v i n g completed a s i g n i f i c a n t e x p e r i m e n t a l t a s k . Thus, the main p r e d i c t i o n was t h a t c o n d i t i o n 4 would be the h i g h e s t ; moreover c o n d i t i o n s 2 and 3 would be h i g h e r than c o n d i t i o n 1. Four o t h e r c o n d i t i o n s , 5 t o 8, were added as supplementary comparisons t o s e r v e as s p e c i f i c c o n t r o l s f o r the impact of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n once c a t e g o r i z a t i o n had been e s t a b l i s h e d . C o n d i t i o n s 5, 6, and 7 o f f e r e d d i f f e r e n t means of p r e v e n t i n g i n t e r g r o u p d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , w h i l e p r e s e n t i n g the s u b j e c t s w i t h t a s k s of comparable l e n g t h and s t r u c t u r e as i n c o n d i t i o n 4. In c o n d i t i o n 8 s u b j e c t s were f o r c e d t o d i s c r i m i n a t e i n f a v o r of t h e i r own group. The major p r e d i c t i o n was t h a t of a l l c o n d i t i o n s where s u b j e c t s were c a t e g o r i z e d i n t o groups ( c o n d i t i o n s 3 t o 8 ) , s e l f - e s t e e m would be h i g h e s t i n those where i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n o c c u r r e d ( c o n d i t i o n s 4 and 8 ) . F u r t h e r p r e d i c t i o n s were t h a t c o n d i t i o n s 5 and 6 would not d i f f e r on s e l f - e s t e e m , and b oth would be lower than c o n d i t i o n 4; and c o n d i t i o n 7 ( F o r c e d F a i r n e s s ) would be lower on s e l f -esteem than c o n d i t i o n 8 ( F o r c e d D i s c r i m i n a t i o n ) . C o n c e r n i n g the F o r c e d D i s c r i m i n a t i o n c o n d i t i o n , i t was s u s p e c t e d t h a t the 39 l a t t e r might be lower on s e l f - e s t e e m than the f r e e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n c o n d i t i o n ( c o n d i t i o n 4) as a consequence of p e r c e i v e d l i m i t e d freedom. R e g a r d i n g the impact on s e l f - e s t e e m of h a v i n g completed a s i g n i f i c a n t t a s k , c o n d i t i o n s 5, 6, 7 s h o u l d be h i g h e r than c o n d i t i o n 3. In summary, f o r the c a t e g o r i z a t i o n c o n d i t i o n s , the p r e d i c t i o n s were: (a) c o n d i t i o n s 4, 8 > 3, 5, 6, 7; (b) c o n d i t i o n s 5 = 6 ; (c) c o n d i t i o n s 4 > 5, 6; (d) c o n d i t i o n s 8 > 7; (e) c o n d i t i o n s 4 > 8; ( f ) c o n d i t i o n s 5, 6, 7 > 3. R e s u l t s Coding F i v e i n d i c e s were used t o measure s e l f - e s t e e m : the s h o r t e n e d Twenty Statement Test (TST), the extended Rosenberg's S e l f - E s t e e m S c a l e (RSBRG), J u l i a n et a l . semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e s (JLNSD), Sherwood's S e l f - C o n c e p t I n v e n t o r y items (SHRWD), and a s i n g l e g l o b a l r a t i n g s c a l e (SNGL). For TST two independent judges s c o r e d the responses as r e f l e c t i n g p o s i t i v e (+1), n e g a t i v e (-1) or n e u t r a l (0) a t t r i b u t i o n s . They agreed on 1108 out of the 1245 d e c i s i o n s , an agreement r a t e of 89%. For the o t h e r f o u r measures, the s u b j e c t s ' r e s p o n s e s were coded from 1 t o 7, 7 b e i n g the p o s i t i v e anchor, and the average s c o r e on each measure was c a l c u l a t e d f o r each s u b j e c t . For c o n d i t i o n s 2, 3, and 4, the c h o i c e s on the m a t r i c e s were coded s i n c e they would be used f o r m a n i p u l a t i o n checks on 40 the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of c a t e g o r i z a t i o n on d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , and f o r the c o m p a r a t i v e a n a l y s i s of T a j f e l ' s and Brewer's m a t r i c e s . F i v e s t r a t e g i e s , p r e v i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d , were a n a l y s e d : F a i r n e s s ( F ) , Maximum J o i n t P r o f i t (MJP), Maximum Ingroup P r o f i t (MIP), Maximum D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n (MD), and a c o m b i n a t i o n of the l a s t two, Ingroup F a v o r i t i s m (FAV). For T a j f e l ' s m a t r i c e s d a t a were e n t e r e d as t o the p o s i t i o n Of the chosen c e l l from 1 t o 13, 1 b e i n g a t the extreme l e f t . P u l l s c o r e s of a s t r a t e g y on another were computed based on the two p r e s e n t a t i o n s of each m a t r i x . S i x p u l l s , congruent w i t h T a j f e l ' s and T u r n e r ' s usage, were d e r i v e d : the p u l l of FAV on F, of FAV on MJP, of MD on MJP + MIP, and t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l s , F on FAV, MJP on FAV and f i n a l l y MJP+MIP on MD (Brown, T a j f e l & T u r n e r , 1980; T u r n e r , 1978, 1980, 1983). F i n a l l y , one of the m a t r i x t y p e s p e r m i t t e d the c a l c u l a t i o n of an a b s o l u t e FAV s c o r e , independent of the p u l l of another s t r a t e g y . The computation d e t a i l s a r e g i v e n i n Appendix G. Brewer's m a t r i c e s were s c o r e d a c c o r d i n g t o her c o d i n g system (Appendix A ) . F r e q u e n c i e s f o r each s t r a t e g y , FAV, F, MIP, MJP, were e n t e r e d f o r each s u b j e c t . I t must be noted t h a t the m a t r i x s c o r e s d e s c r i b e d above r e p r e s e n t i n t e r g r o u p s t r a t e g i e s . The c o d i n g system t h e n , i s v a l i d o n l y t o the e x t e n t t h a t ah i n g r o u p i s opposed t o an outgroup. N e v e r t h e l e s s , the same co m p u t a t i o n s can be a p p l i e d t o m a t r i c e s i n c o n d i t i o n 2 on which the Ingroup/Outgroup d i s t i n c t i o n does not h o l d , y i e l d i n g what w i l l be c a l l e d "pseudo" s t r a t e g y s c o r e s . T h i s p r o c e d u r e , which i s c u r r e n t i n 41 the l i t e r a t u r e ( B i l l i g & T a j f e l , 1973; Brewer & S i l v e r , 1978, T u r n e r , 1980), i s e s s e n t i a l i n o r d e r t o show t h a t the p u l l s c o r e s i n c o n d i t i o n 4 a r e not j u s t a r t i f a c t s of the s c o r i n g p r o c e d u r e . M a n i p u l a t i o n Checks The m a t r i x t a s k s e r v e d t o o p e r a t i o n a l i z e the independent v a r i a b l e , i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . The encoding of the m a t r i x c h o i c e s a l l o w e d a m a n i p u l a t i o n check t o see i f indeed c a t e g o r i z e d s u b j e c t s d i s c r i m i n a t e d . T a b l e I d i s p l a y s group means on each s t r a t e g y i n d e x ; the f i r s t f o u r i n d i c e s r e p r e s e n t Brewer's system, the l a s t seven T a j f e l ' s m a t r i c e s . In a d d i t i o n t o c o n d i t i o n s 2 and 4, d a t a from c o n d i t i o n 3 a r e a l s o g i v e n ; t h e s e w i l l be used i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h those of c o n d i t i o n 4 i n a l a t e r " s e c t i o n . I n s e r t T a b l e I around here For some c o n d i t i o n s , c o n s t r a i n t s on the s e t t i n g i n s u r e d t h a t s u b j e c t s d i d d i s c r i m i n a t e , or d i d n o t . For o t h e r s , though, s u b j e c t s were l e f t t o t h e i r own w i l l , and a v e r i f i c a t i o n was r e q u i r e d t o e s t a b l i s h wether they d i d engage i n i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m . T h i s was p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t f o r c o n d i t i o n 4, the p i v o t of the s t u d y . In o r d e r t o t e s t i f the c a t e g o r i z e d s u b j e c t s of c o n d i t i o n 4 engaged i n d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , a one-sample H o t e l l i n g ' s T Square was performed on the s t r a t e g y i n d i c e s . T h i s p r o c e d u r e y i e l d e d 42 Table I Group means on M a t r i x Scores f o r C o n d i t i o n s 2, 3, and 4 C o n d i t i o n 2 C o n d i t i o n 3 C o n d i t i o n 4 Strategy- NC-Mtx-SE C-SE-Mtx I/O C-Mtx I/O-SE Brewer's frequency FAV 0 .58 0.88 1.83 F 1.11 1.53 0 . 67 MIP 1.26 0 . 82 0 . 89 MJP 1.00 0.77 0 .61 T a j f e l ' s p u l l s cores FAV 1.7-4 1.00 1.33 FAV on F -1.58 3.00 1.22 FAV on MJP -0.74 1.59 3.17 MD on MJP+MIP 0 .47 0 .00 2 .17 F on FAV 2 . 00 5 . 35 2 .44 MJP on FAV 1.16 1.47 1. 39 MJP+MIP on MD -1.00 0.94 -2 . 06 Note. a : "pseudo" s t r a t e g y s c o r e s 43 e x p e r i m e n t - w i s e .95 c o n f i d e n c e i n t e r v a l s t h a t e s t a b l i s h e d whether or not T a j f e l ' s p u l l s c o r e s were s t a t i s t i c a l l y e q u i v a l e n t t o z e r o , and whether Brewer's s t r a t e g y f r e q u e n c i e s d i f f e r e d from 1, the chance l e v e l . The p u l l of FAV on MJP was p o s i t i v e and s t a t i s t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t from z e r o , i t d i d not c r o s s z e r o (C.I.=(1.4,4.9); t(l7)=3.82, p<.0l); the p u l l of MJP+MIP on MD was n e g a t i v e and s i g n i f i c a n t (C.I.= ( -3 .6 , -0 .5) ; t(17)=-2.85, p<.02). The fre q u e n c y of FAV was d i f f e r e n t from 1, the chance e x p e c t a t i o n (C.I.=(1.29,2 .38) ). The r e s u l t s a l s o s u p p o r t e d the n u l l hypotheses t h a t the fr e q u e n c y of F, MIP, MJP were not d i f f e r e n t from 1 , the chance l e v e l ; and t h a t the p u l l of F on FAV and of MJP on FAV were not d i f f e r e n t from z e r o . F u r t h e r m o r e , because c o n d i t i o n 4 was t o be compared t o c o n d i t i o n 2 on s e l f - e s t e e m , i t was p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t t o v e r i f y t h a t these two c o n d i t i o n s d i f f e r e d on d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n d i c e s . Moreover, the r e p l i c a t i o n of the r o l e of c a t e g o r i z a t i o n i n d i s c r i m i n a t i o n was of i n t e r e s t h e r e . A m u l t i v a r i a t e two-sample H o t e l l i n g ' s T Square was run on the seven T a j f e l i n d i c e s and t h r e e of Brewer's (Brewer's i n d i c e s e n t a i l l i n e a r dependency, as the frequ e n c y of t h r e e s t r a t e g i e s d e termine the fre q u e n c y of the f o u r t h ) . C o n d i t i o n s 2 and 4 d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y ( W i l k s lambda=.541, F(10,26)=2.30, p=.05; Heck value(1,4,12)=.459, p<.05). Namely, c a t e g o r i z e d s u b j e c t s showed more FAV (t(35)=4.l8, p<.00l), FAV on MJP (t(35)=2.77, p<.01) and FAV on F (t(35)=1.80, p=.08). 44 R e s u l t s on S e l f - E s t e e m C o r r e l a t i o n s among the f i v e measures of s e l f - e s t e e m a r e d i s p a y e d i n Tab l e I I . A l l were s i g n i f i c a n t beyond the .001 l e v e l . RSBRG c o r r e l a t e d about .60 w i t h JLNSD, SHRWD and SNGL; SNGL c o r r e l a t e d around .55 w i t h JLNSD and SHRWD. JLNSD and SHRWD showed the h i g h e s t c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h .75. The lowes t c o r r e l a t i o n s were found between TST and the o t h e r measures. A C l a s s i c a l Common F a c t o r A n a l y s i s e x t r a c t e d one e i g e n v a l u e g r e a t e r than 1 (3.14) which e x p l a i n e d 62.8% of the t o t a l v a r i a n c e . The f a c t o r m a t r i x i s shown i n Ta b l e I I I . T h i s f a c t o r l o a d e d h i g h l y on a l l s e l f - e s t e e m measures except TST (RSBRG .756, JLNSD .834, SHRWD .838, SNGL .714, TST .498). I n s e r t T a b l e s I I and I I I around here The group means on each of the f i v e s e l f - e s t e e m measures ar e d i s p l a y e d i n Tab l e IV. The f i r s t s et of a n a l y s e s c o ncerns the 2x2 c o r e d e s i g n b l o c k , w h i l e l a t e r a n a l y s e s w i l l i n c l u d e the supplementary c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n s . I n s e r t T a b l e IV around here A two-way MANOVA was performed on the f i v e measures of s e l f - e s t e e m : TST, RSBRG, JLNSD, SHRWD and SNGL. The f i r s t f a c t o r , c a t e g o r i z a t i o n , had two l e v e l s : C a t e g o r i z e d (C) and N o n - c a t e g o r i z e d (NC). The second f a c t o r , m a t r i x o r d e r , had two l e v e l s as w e l l : M a t r i x t a s k p r i o r t o the s e l f - e s t e e m assesment T a b l e I I C o r r e l a t i o n s among S e l f - E s t e e m M e a s u r e s TST RSBRG JLNSD SHRWD SNGL TST 1 RSBRG .34 4 1 JLNSD .398 .612 " 1 SHRWD .457 .605 .748 1 SNGL .364 .620 .572 .546 1 N o t e . N= 135 A l l c o r r e l a t i o n s a r e s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .001 l e v e l 46 T a b l e I I I Common F a c t o r A n a l y s i s on S e l f - E s t e e m M e a s u r e s S c a l e F a c t o r I C o m m u n a l i t y TST .498 .248 RSBRG .756 .572 JLNSD .834 .696 SHRWD .838 .703 SNGL .714 .510 N o t e . N= 135 The i n i t i a l f a c t o r e x t r a c t i o n y i e l d e d o n l y one r o o t g r e a t e r t h a n 1, e q u a l t o 3.14, e x p l a i n i n g 62.8% o f t h e v a r i a n c e . T a b l e I V Gro u p Means on S e l f - E s t e e m M e a s u r e s C o n d i t i o n n TST RSBRG JLNSD SHRWD SNGL 1 (NC-SE- -Mtx) 19 0 .140 5. 895 5 .444 5. 583 5. 316 2 (NC-Mtx-SE) 19 -0 .353 5 . 356 4 .912 5. 419 5 . 444 3 ; (C-SE-Mtx I/O) 17 0 .007 5 . 418 5 .039 5. 602 5 . 353 4 (C-Mtx I/O-SE) 18 0 .122 5. 822 5 .475 5. 457 5 . 611 5 (C-Mtx I / I - S E ) 13 -0 . 162 5 . 346 4 .915 5. 201 5. 333 6 (C-Mtx O/O-SE) 16 -0 .031 5. 862 4 . 806 5 . 370 5. 563 7 (C-Mtx F -SE) 17 -0 .135 5 . 341 4 .974 5 . 089 5 . 118 8 (C-Mtx D -SE) 16 -0 .040 5. 850 5 .278 5 . 446 5 . 563 48 (M) and No m a t r i x p r i o r t o the measures (NM). The fo u r c e l l s of t h i s 2x2 d e s i g n were r e p r e s e n t e d by c o n d i t i o n s 1 (NC-NM), 2 (NC-M), 3 (C-NM) and 4 (C-M). The two-way MANOVA showed no main e f f e c t s ; n e i t h e r a c a t e g o r i z a t i o n e f f e c t (p=.725), nor a m a t r i x t a s k e f f e c t (p=.317). The i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t , though, was h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t a c c o r d i n g t o both the L i k e l i h o o d R a t i o c r i t e r i o n and the G r e a t e s t C h a r a c t e r i s t i c Root approach ( W i l k s lambda = .700, F(5,63) = 5.39, p<.000l; Heck value(1,1.5,30.5) = .300, p<.01). S i n c e the m u l t i v a r i a t e t e c h n i q u e demonstrated t h a t the i n t e r a c t i o n was s i g n i f i c a n t w i t h i n the c o n s t r a i n t s of an ex p e r i m e n t - w i s e type I e r r o r r a t e of .05 a c r o s s the f i v e measures, two-way u n i v a r i a t e t e s t s (ANOVA) were performed t o see on which s c a l e s t h e r e were d i f f e r e n c e s . Two-way i n t e r a c t i o n s were s i g n i f i c a n t on TST (F(1,67)=6.41, p = . 0 l 4 ) , RSBRG (F(1,67)=4.97, p=.029), and on JLNSD (F(1,67)=5.40, p=.023). These i n t e r a c t i o n s a r e p l o t t e d i n F i g u r e s 1, 2 and 3. I n s e r t F i g u r e s 1, 2 and 3 around here For the t h r e e measures on which the i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t was s i g n i f i c a n t , post-hoc p a i r w i s e comparisons were done u s i n g a Simple E f f e c t A n a l y s i s t o f i n d which c e l l s d i f f e r e d . T t e s t s were c a r r i e d out a t .01 t y p e I e r r o r r a t e u s i n g Mean Square W i t h i n as the best e s t i m a t o r of the e r r o r v a r i a n c e . These post-hoc c o n t r a s t s showed t h a t c o n d i t i o n 2 (NC-M) was lower than c o n d i t i o n 1 (NC-NM) and 4 (C-M), t h e s e l a t t e r two not 49 TST . l - i 0 -.l - i -.2--. 3--. 4-La O • M ( M a t r i x ) O NM (No m a t r i x ) r NC I C C a t e g o r i z a t i o n F i g u r e 1. C a t e g o r i z a t i o n by m a t r i x i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t on TST N o t e . C o n d i t i o n s s h a r i n g t h e same s u b s c r i p t a r e n o t s t a t i s t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t . 50 RSBRG 5.9-5.8-5.7-5.6-5.5-5 . 4-5.3-• M (Matrix) O NM (No matrix) O i — NC ~c~ Categori zation Figure 2. Categorization by matrix interaction e f f e c t on RSBRG Note. Conditions sharing the same subscript are not s t a t i s t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t . 51 JLNSD 5.5-1 5.4-5.3-5.2-5.1-5.0-4.9-• M ( M a t r i x ) O NM (No m a t r i x ) O 3 V NC C a t e g o r i z a t i o n F i g u r e 3. C a t e g o r i z a t i o n by m a t r i x i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t on JLNSD N o t e . C o n d i t i o n s s h a r i n g t h e same s u b s c r i p t a r e n o t s t a t i s t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t . 52 b e i n g s t a t i s t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t ; and t h a t c o n d i t i o n 3 (C-NM) was a l s o lower than 1 and 4, except on TST. C o n d i t i o n s 2 and 3 were e q u a l , except on TST. C o n d i t i o n s 1 (NC-NM) and 4 (C-M) were not s t a t i s t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t on any s c a l e . L e t t e r s u b s c r i p t s i n d i c a t e these r e s u l t s on F i g u r e 1, 2, 3. In summary, the two-way MANOVA showed t h a t the i n t e r a c t i o n between c a t e g o r i z a t i o n and the m a t r i x t a s k was s i g n i f i c a n t , even w i t h a h i g h l y c o n t r o l l e d a l p h a r a t e . The next s e t of a n a l y s e s i n c l u d e s the supplementary c o n d i t i o n s 5 t o 8, and focu s e s on some s p e c i f i c c omparisons. F i r s t , a one-way MANOVA on the f i v e s e l f - e s t e e m measures a c r o s s a l l e i g h t c o n d i t i o n s was s i g n i f i c a n t ( W i l k s lambda=.66l, F(35,507)=1.50, p=.035; Heck value(5,.5,59)=.216, p<.01), y i e l d i n g a c l e a r , g l o b a l , s t a t i s t i c a l l y c o n s e r v a t i v e statement t h a t the c o n d i t i o n s d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y . The problem posed by t r y i n g t o d e s c r i b e t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s i n more d e t a i l i s not a t r i v i a l one, though. M u l t i p l e comparisons on each v a r i a b l e would o f f e r no s t a t i s t i c a l power s i n c e t h e r e e x i s t 140 p o s s i b l e c o n t r a s t s , p a i r w i s e o n l y . An exp e r i m e n t - w i s e type I e r r o r r a t e of .05 would imply c o n t r a s t s each a t the .0004 l e v e l , which i s beyond r e a s o n a b l e hope. In t h i s c o n t e x t where a m u l t i v a r i a t e treatment of the data was not e a s i l y manageable i t appeared more a p p r o p r i a t e t o a p p l y u n i v a r i a t e t e c h n i q u e s on a. g l o b a l summarizing index of s e l f - e s t e e m . In o r d e r t o reduce the d i m e n s i o n a l i t y of the s e l f - e s t e e m d a t a a P r i n c i p a l Component A n a l y s i s was a p p l i e d t o the f i v e dependent measures of s e l f - e s t e e m . The f i r s t p r i n c i p a l 53 component i s the be s t l i n e a r c o m b i n a t i o n of v a r i a b l e s t h a t maximizes v a r i a n c e and g i v e s the most r e l i a b l e c o n s i s t e n t i n d e x . I n c o n t r a s t t o Common F a c t o r A n a l y s i s which d e s c r i b e s the s t r u c t u r e of the v a r i a n c e i n the d a t a , P r i n c i p a l Component A n a l y s i s r e p r o d u c e s e x a c t l y the o r i g i n a l s c o r e s . T h e r e f o r e i t i s a more a p p r o p r i a t e index f o r comparison p u r p o s e s . The r e s u l t from P r i n c i p a l Component A n a l y s i s a re shown i n T a b l e V. Only one p r i n c i p a l component w i t h an e i g e n v a l u e g e a t e r than 1 was e x t r a c t e d and i t e x p l a i n e d 62.8% of the v a r i a n c e . A l l the v a r i a b l e s l o a d e d about e q u a l l y on t h i s f i r s t p r i n c i p a l component except TST which was somewhat lower (RSBRG .82, JLNSD -.86, SHWRD .86, SNGL .79, and TST .61). For each s u b j e c t a p r i n c i p a l component s c o r e (PC) was computed u s i n g t h e s e w e i g h t s i n l i n e a r c o m b i n a t i o n . U n i v a r i a t e a n a l y s e s between e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s c o u l d then be c a r r i e d out on t h i s new i n d e x . I n s e r t T a b l e V around here S i n c e o n l y some s p e c i f i c comparisons were of i n t e r e s t t o the h y p o t h e s e s , u n i v a r i a t e a p r i o r i B o n f e r r o n i t e s t s were e x e c u t e d on t h e g l o b a l index of s e l f - e s t e e m , the f i r s t p r i n c i p a l component (PC). T h i s p o w e r f u l t e c h n i q u e p r e s e r v e d a .05 e x p e r i m e n t - w i s e t y p e I e r r o r r a t e over the s i x c o n t r a s t s t h a t were m e a n i n g f u l i n t h i s c o n t e x t . C o n s i s t e n t w i t h the h y p o t h e s e s , some c o n t r a s t s were s u b m i t t e d t o o n e - t a i l e d t e s t s . T a b l e VI d i s p l a y s the group means on PC. Ta b l e V I I l i s t s the c o n t r a s t s and t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e r e s u l t s . 54 T a b l e V P r i n c i p a l Component A n a l y s i s on S e l f - E s t e e m M e a s u r e s s t Scale 1 P.C. Communality TST .609 .371 RSBRG .816 .665 JLNSD .859 .738 SHRWD .86 2 .74 4 SNGL .789 .623 Note. N= 135 The only eigen value greater than 1, was equal to 3.14, and explained 62.8% of the variance. 55 Insert Tables VI and VII around here For conditions in which subjects had been categorized, subjects who could discriminate (conditions 4 and 8) were higher on PC than those who could not (conditions 3, 5, 6, 7). Categorized subjects f i l l i n g in the matrices about two members of their own group (condition 5) were equivalent on post self-esteem to those who d i s t r i b u t e d points to two outgroup members (condition 6), both conditions being prevented from engaging in intergroup discrimination. These two l a t t e r non-discriminating conditions (5 and 6) were s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower on PC than those who had ingroup versus outgroup matrices and could discriminate (condition 4). The Forced Discrimination condition (8) was higher than the Forced Fairness one (7), but not d i f f e r e n t from the free discrimination condition (4). F i n a l l y , whether or not one performed the experimental matrix task did not influence self-esteem for those who could not engage in intergroup discrimination; conditions 5, 6, 7 were equal to 3. In summary, we v e r i f i e d that, given categorization, discriminative conditions were higher on PC than non-discriminative ones (conditions 4, 8 > 3, 5, 6, 7; 4 > 5 , 6; 8 > 7 ; 4 = 8 ; 5 = 6 ; 5, 6, 7 = 3 ) . Moreover, since the hypothesis was that discrimination led to higher self-esteem, an exploratory internal analysis of condition 4 was attempted. The aim was to see i f there was a relationship between the extent of discrimination and the level T a b l e V I Group Means on t h e F i r s t P r i n c i p a l Component o f t h e S e l f - E s t e e m M e a s u r e s (P.C.) C o n d i t i o n s P.C 1 (NC-SE-Mtx) 0.285 2 (NC-Mtx-SE) -0.225 3 (C-SE-Mtx I/O) -0.028 4 (C-Mtx I/O-SE) 0.303 5 (C-Mtx I / I - S E ) -0.275 6 (C-Mtx O/O-SE) 0.002 7 (C-Mtx F-SE) -0.334 8 (C-Mtx D-SE) 0.174 57 T a b l e V I I A P r i o r i B o n f e r r o n i T T e s t s  on t h e F i r s t P r i n c i p a l Component (P.C.) H y p o t h e s i s A c t u a l v a l u e C r i t i c a l S t a t i s t i c a l a b o u t c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e c o n t r a s t d i f f e r e n c e d e c i s i o n 4,8 > 3,5,6,7 5 = 6 4 > 5,6 8 > 7 4 > 8 5,6, 7 > 3 1.589 0.277 0 . 879 0 .507 0.130 •0.521 1.143 0 .922* 0 . 807 0 .460 0 .461 0 .680 4,8>3,5,6,7 5 = 6 4 > 5,6 8 > 7 4 = 8 5,6,7 = 3 N o t e . E x p e r i m e n t - w i s e t y p e I e r r o r r a t e o f .05, c o n t r a s t - w i s e e r r o r r a t e s m a l l e r t h a n .01 O n e - t a i l e d t e s t s , u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e s p e c i f i e d a T w o - t a i l e d t e s t 58 of s e l f - e s t e e m . C o r r e l a t i o n s between the f i r s t p r i n c i p a l component of the s e l f - e s t e e m measures and the m a t r i x i n d i c e s were computed, w i t h i n c o n d i t i o n 4; and a r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s was performed t o p r e d i c t P.C. from the s t r a t e g y i n d i c e s . The s m a l l number of ca s e s l i m i t e d a t t a i n t m e n t of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r the c o r r e l a t i o n s . The m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s brought out t h e s i g n i f i c a n t elements i n v o l v e d i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s e l f - e s t e e m and d i s c r i m i n a t i o n w h i l e t a k i n g c a r e of the i n t e r - c o r r e l a t i o n s among the s t r a t e g i e s . A m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t of .726 (p=.004) was a c h i e v e d from a s t e p w i s e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s which used as t h e two b e s t p r e d i c t o r s the p u l l of MIP+MJP on MD (beta=.6l8) and the p u l l of FAV on MJP ( b e t a - . 5 6 6 ) . • I n s e r t T a b l e V I I I around here Comparison of Brewer's and T a j f e l ' s M a t r i c e s The study o f f e r e d a good o p p o r t u n i t y t o compare Brewer's s t r a t e g y i n d i c e s from the 2 - c e l l m a t r i c e s and T a j f e l ' s p u l l s c o r e s from the 1 3 - c e l l m a t r i c e s . For t h i s a n a l y s i s o n l y c o n d i t i o n s 3 and 4 were c o n s i d e r e d as they were the o n l y ones t o oppose the i n g r o u p a g a i n s t the outgro u p , a l l o t h e r c o n d i t i o n s y i e l d i n g o n l y "pseudo" s t r a t e g y i n d i c e s . C o n s e q u e n t l y c o n d i t i o n 3 and 4 m a t r i x r e sponses were p o o l e d , f o r a t o t a l N of 35. T a b l e V I I I C o r r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n P.C. and t h e M a t r i x I n d i c e s i n C o n d i t i o n 4 S t r a t e g y r B r e w e r ' s FAV .15 F -.13 MIP -.18 MJP .13 T a j f e l 1 s FAV .38* FAV on F .36* FAV on MJP . 4 1 * * MD on MJP+MIP .25 F on FAV .13 MJP on FAV -.0 6 MJP+MIP o n MD .48** N o t e . N= 18 * p C .10 ** p < .05 60 To a s c e r t a i n t h a t the i n d i c e s were r e f l e c t i n g i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , a one-sample H o t e l l i n g ' s T Square was performed. I t c o n f i r m e d t h a t t h e s e s u b j e c t s had been d i s c r i m i n a t i n g . The .95 s i m u l t a n e o u s c o n f i d e n c e i n t e r v a l of the p u l l of FAV on F was from .364 t o 3.804 (t(33)=2.47, p<.02) and of FAV on MJP was from .964 t o 3.836 (t(33)=3.40, p<.005), both s i g n i f i c a n t . Under the s t r i n g e n t type I e r r o r c o n t r o l of the m u l t i v a r i a t e t e c h n i q u e , the c o n f i d e n c e i n t e r v a l o b t a i n e d f o r Brewer's FAV l a y between 0.971 and 1.772. T h i s r e s u l t would have a t t a i n e d s i g n i f i c a n c e i f the i n t e r v a l had not i n c l u d e d 1, the chance e x p e c t a t i o n . T a b l e IX shows the Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n s among a l l s t r a t e g y i n d i c e s . Quadrant I I d i s p l a y s Brewer's i n t e r - s t r a t e g y c o r r e l a t i o n s , and Quadrant IV the c o r r e l a t i o n s among T a j f e l ' s d i f f e r e n t p u l l s . Quadrant I I I g i v e s the between-set c o r r e l a t i o n s . I n s e r t T a b l e IX around here Brewer's FAV index c o r r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h a l l T a j f e l ' s i n d i c e s of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n : w i t h the p u l l of FAV (r=.35), the p u l l of FAV on F (r=.36), of FAV on MJP (r=.40) and of MD on MJP+MIP (r=.36). S i m i l a r l y Brewer's F c o r r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h T a j f e l ' s measure of f a i r n e s s , F on FAV ( r = . 5 l ) . MIP c o r r e l a t e d p o s i t i v e l y w i t h the p u l l of FAV (r=.28) but n e g a t i v e l y w i t h the p u l l of F on FAV (r=-.42). Brewer's MJP d i d not c o r r e l a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h MJP p u l l s . Table IX C o r r e l a t i o n s between M a t r i x I n d i c e s Brewer's frequencies T a j f e l ' s p u l l scores Brewer's FAV F MIP MJP T a j f e l ' s FAV 1 t47*** .24 .32* MIP MJP FAV FAV/F FAV/MJP MD/MJP+MIP F/FAV MJP/FAV MJP+MIP/MD 1 -.46***' -.38** 1 .05 FAV .35* -.09 -.28* -.02 1 FAV on F .36* -.20 -.07 -.10 .38** 1 FAV on MJP .40** -.19 -.17 -.06 _44*** .51*** 1 MD on MJP+MIP .36* -.13 -.02 -.25 .61*** .28* .41** 1 F on FAV -.14 .51*** -.42** -.13 -.27 -.17 -.35* -.23 1 MJP on FAV .01 -.22 .24 .06 -.03 .20 .09 .03 -.30* ' 1 MJP+MIP on MD -.03 -.01 -.04 .10 .16 .02 -.29* .09 .15 -.05 Note. N= 35 * p <.05, **p<.01, ***p<.005 62 Both m a t r i x systems seemed i n t e r n a l l y c o n s i s t e n t . W i t h i n Brewer's system F c o r r e l a t e d n e g a t i v e l y w i t h FAV (r= - . 4 7 ) , MIP (r=-.46) and MJP (r=-.38). MJP c o r r e l a t e d n e g a t i v e l y w i t h FAV too ( r = - . 3 2 ) , but MIP d i d not c o r r e l a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h e i t h e r of these two. In T a j f e l ' s system, d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n d i c e s a l l c o r r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y t o g e t h e r ( p u l l s of FAV, FAV on F, FAV on MJP, MD on MJP+MIP). The p u l l of FAV on MJP c o r r e l a t e d n e g a t i v e l y w i t h the p u l l of MJP+MIP on MD (r=-.29) and w i t h the p u l l of F on FAV (r= - . 3 5 ) . The l a t t e r a l s o r e l a t e d n e g a t i v e l y t o the p u l l of MJP+MIP on MD (r=-.29) Because of the l i n e a r dependency w i t h i n Brewer's system a Common F a c t o r A n a l y s i s c o u l d not be performed on the m a t r i x i n d i c e s . A component a n a l y s i s w i t h r o t a t i o n , though, y i e l d e d f o u r f a c t o r s w i t h e i g e n v a l u e s g r e a t e r than 1, e x p l a i n i n g r e s p e c t i v e l y 27.6, 18.8, 11.7 and 10.1 p e r c e n t of the v a r i a n c e , f o r a t o t a l of 68.2%. The t h i r d and f o u r t h f a c t o r s w i t h t h e i r e i g e n v a l u e s of 1.29 and 1.11 b a r e l y met the i n c l u s i o n c r i t e r i o n . I n s e r t T able X around here Table X d i s p l a y s the component s t r u c t u r e m a t r i x . The f i r s t f a c t o r l o a d e d h i g h l y on a l l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n d i c e s (FAV .701, p u l l of FAV .789, FAV on F .656, FAV on MJP .747, MD on MJP+MIP .712). The second f a c t o r was h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h f a i r n e s s : F (.747), F on FAV (.748) and MIP (-.812). R e g a r d i n g the t h i r d and f o u r t h f a c t o r s , each l o a d e d o n l y on one i n d e x , MJP+MIP on 63 T a b l e X Component S t r u c t u r e on M a t r i x I n d i c e s ( O b l i q u e R o t a t i o n ) F a c t o r I F a c t o r I I F a c t o r I I I F a c t o r I V Commu-n a l i t y B r e w e r ' s FAV .701 F -.309 MIP -.265 MJP -.165 T a j f e l ' s FAV .789 FAV o n F .6 56 FAV on MJP .74 7 MD on MJP+MIP .712 F on FAV -.3 55 MJP on FAV .073 MJP+MIP on MD .011 .109 .747 .812 .113 .056 -.150 -.128 -.133 .748 -.543 .109 086 ,024 .064 ,07 8 ,240 ,144 . 482 .242 .161 .143 .908 127 423 186 .9.5 3 .113 ,061 .120 .273 .202 .051 .077 .52 .75 . 86 .96 .72 .45 .77 .67 . 66 . 30 .84 E i g e n V a l u e 3.0 4 % o f v a r i a n c e 2 7.6 2.07 18.8 I . 29 I I . 7 1.11 10 .1 N o t e . N= 35 64 MD f o r one, and MJP f o r the o t h e r . P o s t e x p e r i m e n t a l Q u e s t i o n n a i r e The p o s t e x p e r i m e n t a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e was e x p l o r a t o r y i n n a t u r e , i t was aimed a t r e v e a l i n g s i g n s of s u s p i c i o u s n e s s and demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . One hundred t h i r t y s u b j e c t s completed the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . None mentioned s u s p e c t i n g t h a t d i f f e r e n t c o n d i t i o n s were run s i m u l t a n e o u s l y , nor t h a t the drawing of the s l i p of paper was d e c e p t i v e . A f a i r number of them even wrote t h e i r code on t h e i r answer s h e e t . No c a t e g o r i z e d s u b j e c t s acknowledged any doubt about the e x i s t e n c e of the two groups; many r e f e r r e d e x p l i c i t l y t o Group Red and Group B l u e . Most s u b j e c t s f o c u s e d on the s e l f - e s t e e m q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n t h e i r comments. They p e r c e i v e d i t as a p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t or s t r e n g t h of c h a r a c t e r measure, and r e l a t e d i t o f t e n t o the anagram t a s k . None a c t u a l l y s t a t e d the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t s e l f - e s t e e m was r e l a t e d t o i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . D i s c u s s i o n and C o n c l u s i o n s T h i s r e s e a r c h aimed a t t e s t i n g the r o l e of s e l f - e s t e e m i n i n t e r g r o u p r e l a t i o n s as p o s t u l a t e d by S o c i a l I d e n t i t y Theory. A c c o r d i n g t o the t h e o r y , i n d i v i d u a l s g a i n i n terms of s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n from the p o s i t i v e d i s t i n c t i v n e s s of t h e i r group on some e v a l u a t i v e d i m e n s i o n . C o n s e q u e n t l y , d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a g a i n s t an outgroup c o n t r i b u t e s t o s e l f - e s t e e m . In t h i s 65 experiment the h y p o t h e s i s t r a n s l a t e d i n t o the main p r e d i c t i o n s of a c a t e g o r i z a t i o n by m a t r i x t a s k i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t , i n the 2x2 d e s i g n , w i t h the e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t the c o n d i t i o n of c a t e g o r i z a t i o n and d i s c r i m i n a t i o n would r e s u l t i n the h i g h e s t s e l f - e s t e e m . C o n s i d e r i n g the supplementary c o n d i t i o n s , the d i s c r i m i n a t i v e groups (4 and 8) were expected t o be h i g h e r than the ones p r e v e n t e d from i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ( c o n d i t i o n s 3, 5, 6, 7 ) . A d d i t i o n a l hypotheses p r e d i c t e d s m a l l c a t e g o r i z a t i o n and m a t r i x t a s k main e f f e c t s i n the f a c t o r i a l d e s i g n , and f o r t h e supplementary c o n d i t i o n s a c o g n i t i v e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n e f f e c t , and some o t h e r s p e c i f i c d i f f e r e n c e s which w i l l be d i s c u s s e d l a t e r . The g e n e r a l c o n c l u s i o n t o emerge from t h e r e s u l t s i s t h a t the major p r e d i c t i o n s r e g a r d i n g s e l f - e s t e e m were v e r i f i e d . The two-way i n t e r a c t i o n , c a t e g o r i z a t i o n by m a t r i x , was s i g n i f i c a n t , and among the supplementary c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n s the d i s c r i m i n a t i v e groups were s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r on s e l f - e s t e e m than the n o n - d i s c r i m i n a t i v e ones. However, no main e f f e c t s i n the 2x2 d e s i g n were s i g n i f i c a n t . C o n d i t i o n 4 ( c a t e g o r i z e d and d i s c r i m i n a t i v e ) was s t a t i s t i c a l l y e q u i v a l e n t t o the b a s e l i n e , c o n d i t i o n 1. No e f f e c t s on s e l f - e s t e e m of s i m p l e c o g n i t i v e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n were e v i d e n c e d . These b r i e f s t a t e m e n t s need t o be d i s c u s s e d i n more d e t a i l . F i r s t l y , m a n i p u l a t i o n checks r e v e a l e d t h a t c a t e g o r i z e d s u b j e c t s d i d indeed d i s c r i m i n a t e i f g i v e n the o p p o r t u n i t y t o do so. C o n d i t i o n 4 r e s u l t e d i n s i g n i f i c a n t i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m , as p r e d i c t e d and n e c e s s a r y t o the s e l f - e s t e e m h y p o t h e s i s . C e n t r a l 66 t o the d e s i r e d c o m p a r i s o n s , c o n d i t i o n s 4 (C-M) and 2 (NC-M) were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t on the m a t r i x i n d i c e s , the former showing more i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m , the l a t t e r more f a i r n e s s . T h i s r e s u l t r e p l i c a t e s B i l l i g and T a j f e l ' s (1973) experiment and the g e n e r a l f i n d i n g s of the minimal group l i t e r a t u r e . Mere c a t e g o r i z a t i o n i n t o an i n g r o u p and an outgroup can be s u f f i c i e n t t o c r e a t e i n g r o u p b i a s e s and d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . The e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the independent v a r i a b l e h a v i n g been c o n f i r m e d , t h e s e l f - e s t e e m r e s u l t s can be d i s c u s s e d . The 2x2 d e s i g n , m a n i p u l a t i n g c a t e g o r i z a t i o n and o r d e r of p r e s e n t a t i o n of the m a t r i x t a s k , y i e l d e d a h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n , but no main e f f e c t s . Care s h o u l d be t a k e n when i n t e r p r e t i n g the two-way d e s i g n . At the t h e o r e t i c a l l e v e l the two f a c t o r s were not o r t h o g o n a l t o one a n o t h e r , a l t h o u g h t h e i r o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n s were. The m a t r i x t a s k f a c t o r had d i f f e r e n t i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r c o n d i t i o n s 2 and 4. For the c a t e g o r i z e d c o n d i t i o n (4) the p o i n t a l l o c a t i o n t a s k e n a b l e d i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , whereas such a s t r a t e g y was not d e f i n a b l e f o r n o n - c a t e g o r i z e d s u b j e c t s ( c o n d i t i o n 2 ) . Moreover c o n d i t i o n s 1 and 2 d i d not d i f f e r i n terms of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n per se but r a t h e r w i t h r e s p e c t t o the p s y c h o l o g i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of the p o i n t d i s t r i b u t i o n t a s k . The s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n p a t t e r n was r e p e a t e d on t h r e e of the f i v e s e l f - e s t e e m measures: TST, RSBRG and JLNSD. C o n d i t i o n 4 (C-M) was e q u i v a l e n t t o c o n d i t i o n 1, the b a s e l i n e (NC-NM). Both were h i g h e r than c o n d i t i o n s 2 (NC-M) and 3 (C-NM). T h i s c o n f i g u r a t i o n of r e s u l t s s u g gests t h a t i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n d i d not "enhance" s e l f - e s t e e m , 67 but r a t h e r r e s t o r e d and m a i n t a i n e d i t . S i n c e c o n d i t i o n 3 was lower than c o n d i t i o n 1, and c o n d i t i o n 4 e q u a l t o c o n d i t i o n 1, a p l a u s i b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s t h a t i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m reduced a t h r e a t t o s e l f - e s t e e m . Under t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , c a t e g o r i z a t i o n i n i t i a t e d a need f o r p o s i t i v e group-wise s o c i a l comparison t h a t was not e x p e r i e n c e d by the s u b j e c t s i n c o n d i t i o n 1. S i n c e t h i s comparison was as y e t u n r e s o l v e d i n c o n d i t i o n 3 when s e l f - e s t e e m was measured, p r i o r t o the m a t r i x t a s k , i t was p e r c e i v e d as t h r e a t e n i n g . C o n s e q u e n t l y lower s e l f - e s t e e m was o b s e r v e d at t h a t p o i n t . S u b j e c t s i n c o n d i t i o n 2 were i n v o l v e d i n an i n d i v i d u a l - w i s e comparison t a s k i n which they c o u l d not c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e i r own p o s i t i o n . Perhaps they s u s p e c t e d t h a t o t h e r p a r t i c i p a n t s were making d e c i s i o n s about them, and they c o n s e q u e n t l y too p e r c e i v e d a t h r e a t e n i n g , u n r e s o l v e d s i t u a t i o n ; as a r e s u l t t h e i r s e l f - e s t e e m d e c r e a s e d . As shown by the s t a t i s t i c a l r e s u l t s on the main e f f e c t s , c a t e g o r i z a t i o n i n i t s e l f was not enough t o r a i s e s e l f - e s t e e m ; nor was the m a t r i x t a s k i f p e o p l e c o u l d not a c t i n f a v o r of t h e i r r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n i n t h e c o m p a r i s o n . On t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e s e two c o n d i t i o n s appeared t o be t h r e a t e n i n g compared t o c o n d i t i o n 1. Ingroup f a v o r i t i s m , though, r e s t o r e d s e l f - e s t e e m f o r c a t e g o r i z e d s u b j e c t s . Maybe d i r e c t s e l f - f a v o r i t i s m would have had the same b e n e f i c i a l impact, but i n t h i s experiment i t was not an a v a i l a b l e s o l u t i o n . An a l t e r n a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a t t r i b u t e s the d e c r e a s e d s e l f - e s t e e m t o c o g n i t i v e a m b i g u i t y . S u b j e c t s i n c o n d i t i o n 2 and 3 were c o n f r o n t e d w i t h , r e s p e c t i v e l y , a p u z z l i n g t a s k or an 6 8 i r r e l e v a n t c a t e g o r i z a t i o n ; whereas i n c o n d i t i o n 4 s u b j e c t s c o u l d use t h e s e two p i e c e s of i n f o r m a t i o n t o g e t h e r and engage i n i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m . T h i s " c o g n i t i v e a m b i g u i t y " h y p o t h e s i s though i s weakened by the r e s u l t s from the supplementary c o n d i t i o n s . The a d d i t i o n a l c o n d i t i o n s demonstrated c l e a r l y t h a t f o r c a t e g o r i z e d s u b j e c t s , d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n f a v o r of the i n g r o u p r a i s e d s e l f - e s t e e m compared t o n o n - d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . C o n d i t i o n s 4 and 8 were h i g h e r on s e l f - e s t e e m than 3 , 5 , 6 and 7 . F o r c e d and f r e e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n r e s u l t e d i n e q u i v a l e n t s e l f - e s t e e m l e v e l s . In n o n - d i s c r i m i n a t i v e c o n d i t i o n s , i t d i d not m atter whether s e l f - e s t e e m was a s s e s s e d a f t e r the c a t e g o r i z a t i o n ( c o n d i t i o n 3 ) , i f a t a s k had been making the group membership s a l i e n t ( c o n d i t i o n s 4 and 5 ) , or i f the t a s k had been op p o s i n g s i m u l t a n e o u s l y the i n g r o u p and the outgroup ( c o n d i t i o n 7 ) . These f o u r c o n d i t i o n s d i d not d i f f e r s t a t i s t i c a l l y . These r e s u l t s a r e h i g h l y c o n s i s t e n t w i t h S o c i a l I d e n t i t y Theory; g i v e n c a t e g o r i z a t i o n , d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n f a v o r of one's own group i s n e c e s s a r y f o r p o s i t i v e s e l f - e s t e e m . C a t e g o r i z a t i o n i n i t s e l f was not s u f f i c i e n t , nor was c o g n i t i v e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of the i n g r o u p and the outgroup i f not p a i r e d w i t h an e v a l u a t i v e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n as w e l l . The r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s a l s o added s u p p o r t t o the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n was the c r u c i a l v a r i a b l e . W i t h i n c o n d i t i o n 4 i n which c a t e g o r i z e d s u b j e c t s had a chance t o d i s c r i m i n a t e , s e l f - e s t e e m was s i g n i f i c a n t l y p r e d i c t e d by the amount of i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m . G i v e n the s m a l l 69 number of c a s e s i n t h i s s p e c i f i c c o n d i t i o n t h i s i s weak e v i d e n c e , but n e v e r t h e l e s s c o n s i s t e n t . O v e r a l l , S o c i a l I d e n t i t y Theory was s u p p o r t e d . P o s i t i v e s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n c o u l d be a c h e i v e d by means of p o s i t i v e group d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s . In t h i s s i t u a t i o n where s u b j e c t s c o u l d not d e r i v e p e r s o n a l s e l f - e s t e e m d i r e c t l y , t hey c o u l d use t h e i r group membership t o e s t a b l i s h a f a v o r a b l e comparison v i a i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . The r e s u l t s a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h Oakes and Turner (1980) and Turner and S p r i g g s ' s (1982) f i n d i n g s i n t h a t c a t e g o r i z e d and d i s c r i m i n a t i v e s u b j e c t s showed h i g h e r s e l f - e s t e e m , w h i l e making a s t o n g e r c a s e m e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y and s t a t i s t i c a l l y . The e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s p r o v i d e d a b e t t e r p s y c h o l o g i c a l e q u i v a l e n c e between t a s k s and c o v e r e d a range of a l t e r n a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n s . M u l t i v a r i a t e t e c h n i q u e s of a n a l y s i s a s s u r e d a c o n s e r v a t i v e s t a t i s t i c a l t r e a t m e n t . Oakes and Turner (1980) o b t a i n e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r s e l f - e s t e e m f o r the d i s c r i m i n a t i o n c o n d i t i o n on the Twenty Statements Test and J u l i a n ' s semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l s , and on t h e i r common f a c t o r s c o r e . In t h e i r e x p e r i m e n t , Rosenberg's s c a l e d i d not r e a c h s i g n i f i c a n c e , but i t i s worth n o t i n g t h a t they computed Rosenberg's s c a l e s c o r e as the number of p o s i t i v e items endorsed r a t h e r than the a c t u a l r a t i n g , from 1 t o 4, a t t r i b u t e d t o each sentence by the s u b j e c t . The Group c o n d i t i o n s i n Turner and S p r i g g s (1982) experiment can be compared t o t h i s s t u d y . C o m p e t i t i o n , which i m p l i e d more i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m than c o o p e r a t i o n , y i e l d e d h i g h e r s e l f - e s t e e m on Rosenberg's t e s t and J u l i a n ' s semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e s , as 70 w e l l as on t h e i r common f a c t o r s c o r e . These r e s u l t s a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the p r e s e n t ones, which were s i g n i f i c a n t f o r TST, RSBRG and JLNSD, and f o r the s e l f - e s t e e m index d e r i v e d from a p r i n c i p a l component a n a l y s i s . As may be r e c a l l e d from the i n t r o d u c t i o n , Zander e t ' a l . (1960) had found analoguous r e s u l t s i n a d i f f e r e n t c o n t e x t . Success had more impact on i n d i v i d u a l s e l f - e s t e e m i f people i d e n t i f i e d w i t h a h i g h l y u n i t e d group t h a t i f they c o n s i d e r e d themselves o n l y as an u n u n i f i e d c o l l e c t i o n of p e r s o n s . T h i s e x p e r i m e n t a l d e m o n s t r a t i o n t h a t i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n can a f f e c t s e l f - e s t e e m i s a l l the more s i g n i f i c a n t because i t was demonstrated i n the m i n i m a l group paradigm, and was based on a random c r i t e r i o n . C a t e g o r i z a t i o n was d e t e r m i n e d s i m p l y by drawing a s l i p of paper l e a d i n g t o the most t r i v i a l and temporary group membership. Yet they engaged i n i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and moreover, g a i n e d s e l f - e s t e e m as a consequence. A p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t i n g f e a t u r e of the r e s u l t s c o n cerns the e v i d e n c e s u g g e s t i n g t h a t c a t e g o r i z a t i o n a l o n e induces a t h r e a t t o s e l f - e s t e e m and t h a t i n t e r g r o u p d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n can r e l i e v e i t . T h i s f i n d i n g t h a t i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n r e s t o r e d a l o s s of s e l f - e s t e e m caused by c a t e g o r i z a t i o n was not p r e d i c t e d by S o c i a l I d e n t i t y Theory. The t h e o r y d i s c u s s e s how i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , g i v e n c a t e g o r i z a t i o n , c o n t r i b u t e s t o s e l f - e s t e e m , but i t has not y e t e l a b o r a t e d on the e f f e c t of c a t e g o r i z a t i o n per se on s e l f - e s t e e m . In t h i s r e s p e c t Oakes and T u r n e r ' s (1980) experiment a d d r e s s e d o n l y one a s p e c t of the 71 q u e s t i o n s i n c e i t c o n s i d e r e d o n l y c o n d i t i o n s • w i t h c a t e g o r i z a t i o n . Turner and S p r i g g s (1982) had n o n - c a t e g o r i z e d c o n d i t i o n s but t h i s v a r i a b l e was confounded w i t h the S e l f v e r s u s Other m a t r i x t y p e . Our d e s i g n , however, p e r m i t t e d the o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t c a t e g o r i z a t i o n a l o n e has a d e t r i m e n t a l e f f e c t on s e l f - e s t e e m . T h i s adds t o our model of the r e l a t i o n between i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and s e l f - e s t e e m i n a n o v e l manner t h a t has not p r e v i o u s l y been i n v e s t i g a t e d . S i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s were o b t a i n e d on t h r e e s c a l e s : RSBRG, JLNSD, and TST. Rosenberg's measure of s e l f - e s t e e m has been w i d e l y v a l i d a t e d (Rosenberg, 1965) and h i g h l y recommended (McCarthy & Hoge, 1982; Robinson & Shaver, 1973; W y l i e , 1974). The semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l s a r e , a c c o r d i n g t o Colman and O l v e r (1978) and J u l i a n e t a l . (1966), the best way t o e v a l u a t e s t a t e s e l f - e s t e e m . The Twenty Statements Test seems a l s o t o be a good measure of spontaneous s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n (Kuhn & M c P a r t l a n d , 1954; McGuire & Padawer-Singer, 1976). No s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s were found on Sherwood's S e l f - C o n c e p t I n v e n t o r y , which o f f e r e d an a p p p e a l i n g f a c e v a l i d i t y but no e v i d e n c e of p s y c h o m e t r i c q u a l i t y (Robinson & Shaver, 1973). As t o the s i n g l e g l o b a l r a t i n g (SNGL), the unique s c a l e may have made i t too s u c c i n c t a measure t o be s e n s i t i v e enough. The c o r r e l a t i o n s between the f i v e d i f f e r e n t measures were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h H a m i l t o n ' s (1971), and they y i e l d e d a unique common f a c t o r as i n Oakes and Turner (1980), and Turner and S p r i g g s (1982). B e s i d e s the main f o c u s of t h i s r e s e a r c h , some secondary i s s u e s a r e worth d i s c u s s i n g . Brewer's and T a j f e l ' s m a t r i c e s 72 were a n a l y s e d and compared, u s i n g the d a t a from c o n d i t i o n 3 and 4 p o o l e d t o g e t h e r . C o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h i n each system showed t h a t b o th were i n t e r n a l l y c o h e r e n t . Brewer's d i f f e r e n t s t r a t e g y i n d i c e s c o r r e l a t e d n e g a t i v e l y among t h e m s e l v e s . A l l T a j f e l ' s i n d i c e s of i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m c o r r e l a t e d p o s i t i v e l y w i t h each o t h e r . Obverse p u l l s ( e . g . the p u l l of FAV on MJP and the p u l l of MJP on FAV) were u n c o r r e l a t e d . C r i t i c s have argued t h a t c o m p u t a t i o n s of o p p o s i t e p u l l s e n t a i l l i n e a r dependency (Aschenbrenner & S c h a e f f e r , 1980; B r a n t h w a i t e et a l . , 1979). Turner (1980, 1983) has defended, on the c o n t r a r y , t h a t they were independent i n d i c e s . These r e s u l t s s u pport T u r n e r ' s p o s i t i o n . - F u r t h e r m o r e , the two systems seem c o n s i s t e n t w i t h one a n o t h e r , even though they a r e based on q u i t e d i f f e r e n t s c o r i n g methods. Between b a t t e r y c o r r e l a t i o n s showed t h a t T a j f e l ' s i n d i c e s of i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m c o r r e l a t e d p o s i t i v e l y w i t h Brewer's measure of i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m (FAV). Both f a i r n e s s measures a l s o c o r r e l a t e d p o s i t i v e l y . Brewer's a b s o l u t e i n g r o u p p r o f i t (MIP) c o r r e l a t e d n e g a t i v e l y w i t h T a j f e l ' s p u l l of f a i r n e s s on f a v o r i t i s m . None of T a j f e l ' s p u l l s c o r e s c o r r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h Brewer's j o i n t p r o f i t i n d e x . The one s l i g h t i n c o n s i s t e n c y between the two systems l i e s i n the f a c t t h a t Brewer's MIP c o r r e l a t e d n e g a t i v e l y w i t h T a j f e l ' s pure p u l l of FAV. The f a c t o r a n a l y s i s e x e c u t e d on a l l the i n d i c e s combined t o g e t h e r showed t h a t Brewer's and T a j f e l ' s i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m measures l o a d e d on the same f a c t o r w i t h s i m i l a r weight and r e p r e s e n t e d the main component. F a i r n e s s c o n s t i t u t e d the second most i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r l o a d i n g e q u a l l y on Brewer's F and 73 T a j f e l ' s p u l l of F on FAV, and. n e g a t i v e l y on Brewer's a b s o l u t e i n g r o u p p r o f i t , MIP. The two m a t r i x systems seemed b a s i c a l l y t o agr e e on t h e i r d e s c r i p t i o n of s u b j e c t s ' s t r a t e g i e s . T a j f e l ' s p u l l s c o r e s o f f e r a more complex p i c t u r e i n t h a t they q u a l i f y the r e l a t i v e s t r e n g t h of d i f f e r e n t s t r a t e g i e s . H i s format d i s p l a y s more o b v i o u s l y the p o s s i b l e s t r a t e g i e s whereas Brewer's t w o - c e l l f o r c e d c h o i c e s seem more l i k e l y t o l e a v e the s u b j e c t s unaware t h a t t h e i r s t r a t e g i e s can be decoded. No r e s e a r c h has y e t examined whether s u b j e c t s ' awareness of the s t r a t e g y they a r e u s i n g i s i n f l u e n t i a l . A problem w i t h Brewer's system i s t h a t because i t d e a l s w i t h f r e q u e n c i e s of occurence i t conveys an i n h e r e n t l i n e a r dependency. F r e q u e n c i e s of t h r e e s t r a t e g i e s n e c e s s a r l y d etermine the freq u e n c y of the f o u r t h . C o n s e q u e n t l y some m u l t i v a r i a t e t e c h n i q u e s cannot be a p p l i e d on the whole s e t of v a r i a b l e s . The i m p o r t a n t p o i n t t o c o n c l u d e on i s t h a t both systems are c o m p a t i b l e . Thus, i n summary, t h i s experiment s u p p o r t e d S o c i a l I d e n t i t y Theory. I t demonstrated t h a t , g i v e n s o c i a l c a t e g o r i z a t i o n , i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n c o u l d c o n t r i b u t e t o s e l f - e s t e e m . The r e s u l t s a l s o suggested t h a t c a t e g o r i z a t i o n a l o n e c o u l d i n duce t h r e a t t o s e l f - e s t e e m . Q u e s t i o n s about e x t e r n a l v a l i d i t y may be r a i s e d . Turner (1979) has a v e r y i n t e r e s t i n g d i s c u s s i o n on the m a t t e r . He agrees t h a t l a b o r a t o r y e x p e r i m e n t s can c e r t a i n l y be a r t i f i c i a l e v e n t s t h a t do not resemble the r e a l w o r l d , but he c o n s i d e r s them e x t r e m e l y v a l u a b l e as a t e c h n i q u e f o r t h e o r e t i c a l r e s e a r c h . " E x p e r i m e n t a l s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g y g e n e r a l i z e s t o the 74 r e a l w o r l d t h r o u g h e x t e n d i n g i t s t h e o r i e s , not i t s e m p i r i c a l d a t a " ( T u r n e r , 1979, p.30). For Turner e c o l o g i c a l i m p o r t a n c e , the degree t o which a s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l law has some p r a c t i c a l p urpose, i s the key c o n c e p t . C o n s e q u e n t l y , he s t r e s s e s the d i s t i n c t i o n s t h a t s h o u l d be made between e c o l o g i c a l importance and mundane r e a l i s m ( the e x t e n t t o which t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l s i m u l a t i o n resembles a r e a l w o r l d s e t t i n g ) , and e c o l o g i c a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s ( the e m p i r i c a l g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of p o p u l a t i o n and environment s a m p l e s ) . The p r e s e n t experiment may o n l y have s a t i s f i e d the demands of e c o l o g i c a l i m p o r t a n c e . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h i s experiment must be c o n s i d e r e d i n the p a r t i c u l a r c o n t e x t of t e s t i n g some s p e c i f i c hypotheses from a t h e o r y . The aim was not t o j u s t i f y the v a l i d i t y , g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y or a p p l i c a b i l i t y of the t h e o r y , but t o e x p e r i m e n t a l l y v e r i f y some of i t s p r e d i c t i o n s . R e g a r d i n g i n t e r n a l v a l i d i t y , the d e s i g n , the f a c t t h a t a l l c o n d i t i o n s were run s i m u l t a n e o u s l y , e x p o s i n g s u b j e c t s t o the v e r y same pro c e d u r e i n s u r e d the i n t e g r i t y of the f i n d i n g s . N e e d l e s s t o say, t h i s experiment i s not p e r f e c t and does not i n i t s e l f c o n s t i t u t e a p r o o f , but knowledge and s c i e n c e emerge out of the a c c u m u l a t i o n of e v i d e n c e . T h i s d e m o n s t r a t i o n c o u l d have been s t r o n g e r . I t would have b e n e f i t e d from a n i n t h c o n d i t i o n , i n which the m a t r i c e s would be m a n i p u l a t e d t o c r e a t e a F o r c e d Loss s i t u a t i o n . S u b j e c t s would have f i l l e d i n m a t r i c e s f o r which o n l y o u t g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m was p o s s i b l e , the i n g r o u p always g e t t i n g l e s s than the outgroup. S e l f - e s t e e m s h o u l d have been lower f o r t h i s group 75 than f o r the F o r c e d D i s c r i m i n a t i o n c o n d i t i o n i n which the i n g r o u p was f a v o r e d . Futhermore, the experiment u n f o r t u n a t e l y s t i l l l e a v e s some doubt about the r o l e of c o g n i t i v e a m b i g u i t y . The d i s c r i m i n a t i v e c o n d i t i o n s may have "made more sense" t o the s u b j e c t s than the n o n - d i s c r i m i n a t i v e c o n d i t i o n s . T h i s s t a t e of a f f a i r s may have c o n s e q u e n t l y a f f e c t e d s e l f - e s t e e m . F u t u r e r e s e a r c h u s i n g d i f f e r e n t paradigms w i l l e l u c i d a t e t h i s p o i n t . One must note however t h a t even i f t h i s was the c a s e , i t would not r e f u t e the S o c i a l I d e n t i t y Theory h y p o t h e s i s , but merely l e a d t o the subsequent q u e s t i o n : Why does d i s c r i m i n a t i o n "make more sense" than f a i r n e s s under m i n i m a l group c o n d i t i o n s ? More r e s e a r c h i s needed t o i n v e s t i g a t e the r o l e of s e l f - e s t e e m i n i n t e r g r o u p r e l a t i o n s . F u t u r e a t t e m p t s s h o u l d c o n f r o n t i n d i v i d u a l - v e r s u s group-mediated s e l f - e s t e e m . T u r n e r ' s (1978, 1981) s e l f v e r s u s o t h e r m a t r i c e s c o u l d be used t o compare the impact on s e l f - e s t e e m of i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m and of d i r e c t s e l f - f a v o r i t i s m . L o c k s l e y e t a l . ' s (1980) ex p e r i m e n t , i n which s u b j e c t s r e c e i v e d p e r s o n a l feedback from the o utgroup c o u l d be d u p l i c a t e d w i t h the a d d i t i o n of s e l f - e s t e e m measures. D i s t r i b u t i o n of p e n a l t i e s r a t h e r than rewards c o u l d be e x p l o r e d i n r e l a t i o n t o s e l f - e s t e e m ; the e f f e c t of s i m i l a r i t y m a n i p u l a t i o n s s h o u l d be i n v e s t i g a t e d as w e l l . At the t h e o r e t i c a l l e v e l , t h e impact of c a t e g o r i z a t i o n a l o n e and t h e r o l e of t h r e a t t o s e l f - e s t e e m s h o u l d be e l a b o r a t e d on ( S m i t h , 1983). Moreover, o t h e r v a r i a b l e s w i l l e v e n t u a l l y have t o be i n c l u d e d i n the t h e o r y , such as the r o l e of c u l t u r e and of 76 s o c i a l i z a t i o n i n the ways s e l f - e s t e e m can be enhanced. P e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s such as c h r o n i c l e v e l s of s e l f - e s t e e m may a l s o be of i n t e r e s t . Some e v i d e n c e a l r e a d y s u g g e s t s d i f f e r e n t i a l p a t t e r n s of s o c i a l behavior- between i n d i v i d u a l s of h i g h and low s e l f - e s t e e m (Colman & O l v e r , 1968; Jo n e s , 1973), a l t h o u g h t h i s has not y e t been i n v e s t i g a t e d i n the c o n t e x t of s o c i a l g r oups. F i n a l l y , the i m p l i c a t i o n s of a m o t i v a t i o n a l h y p o t h e s i s w i l l have t o be a n a l y z e d i n terms of c a u s a l i t y r e l a t i o n s h i p s and i n t e n t i o n s : I s i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n made i n o r d e r t o enhance s e l f - e s t e e m , as Turner (1982) s u g g e s t s ? No r e s e a r c h has d i r e c t l y a d d r e s s e d t h i s q u e s t i o n of i n t e n t i o n a l i t y y e t . T h i s experiment c o n f i r m s t h a t i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n can c o n t r i b u t e t o i n d i v i d u a l s e l f - e s t e e m . Doing so, i t s u p p o r t s S o c i a l I d e n t i t y Theory, which o f f e r s an e x p l a n a t i o n f o r i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n the m i n i m a l group paradigm as w e l l as i n the " r e a l w o r l d " . I t proposes t h a t s o c i a l c a t e g o r i z a t i o n l e a d s t o s o c i a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , t h e n , t o s o c i a l comparison and s o c i a l d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n . I n d i v i d u a l s d e f i n e and e v a l u a t e themselves i n terms of t h e i r group memberships. The way one p e r c e i v e s groups and h i s or her r e l a t i o n w i t h them, d e t e r m i n e s how she or he w i l l behave towards them and t h e i r members. S o c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and i n t e r g r o u p r e l a t i o n s i n g e n e r a l a r e c o n s e q u e n t l y i n t e r p r e t e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o e v a l u a t i v e s o c i a l c omparison p r o c e s s e s about s o c i a l i d e n t i t i e s t h a t i n f l u e n c e i n d i v i d u a l s e l f - e s t e e m . 7 7 R e f e r e n c e s A l l e n , V.L. & Wilder,D.A. ( 1 9 7 5 ) . C a t e g o r i z a t i o n , b e l i e f s i m i l a r i t y and group d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . J o u r n a l of  P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 3 2 , 9 7 1 - 9 7 7 . Aschenbrenner, K.M. & S c h a e f e r , R.E. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . M i n i m a l group s i t u a t i o n s : Comments on a m a t h e m a t i c a l model and on a r e s e a r c h paradigm. European J o u r n a l of S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , J _ 0 , 3 8 9 - 3 9 8 . A u s t i n , W. & Wor c h e l , S. ( 1 9 7 9 ) The S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y of  I n t e r g r o u p R e l a t i o n s . Montery: B r o o k s / C o l e s . B i l l i g , m. ( 1 9 7 6 ) . S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y and I n t e r g r o u p R e l a t i o n s . London: Academic P r e s s . B i l l i g , M. & T a j f e l , H. ( 1 9 7 3 ) . S o c i a l c a t e g o r i z a t i o n and s i m i l a r i t y i n i n t e r g r o u p b e h a v i o r . European J o u r n a l of  S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 3 , 7 - 5 2 . B r a n t h w a i t e , A., D o y l e , S. & Ligh t b o w n , N. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . The b a l a n c e between f a i r n e s s and d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . European J o u r n a l of  S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 9 , 1 4 9 - 1 6 3 . Brewer, M.B. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . Ingroup b i a s i n the m i n i m a l i n t e r g r o u p s i t u a t i o n : A c o g n i t i v e - m o t i v a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 8 6 , 3 0 7 - 3 2 4 . Brewer, M.B. & S i l v e r , M. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . Ingroup b i a s as a f u n c t i o n of t a s k c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . European J o u r n a l of S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 8 , 3 9 3 - 4 0 0 . Brown, R., T a j f e l , H. & T u r n e r , J.C. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . M i n i m a l group s i t u a t i o n s and i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n : Comments on the paper by Aschenbrenner and S c h a e f f e r . European J o u r n a l of  S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1 0 , 3 9 9 - 4 1 4 . Brown, R.J. & T u r n e r , J.C. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . The c r i s s - c r o s s c a t e g o r i z a t i o n e f f e c t i n i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of S o c i a l and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1 8 , 3 7 1 - 3 8 3 . Brown, R. & T u r n e r , J.C. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . I n t e r p e r s o n a l and i n t e r g r o u p b e h a v i o r s . i n T u r n e r , J.C. & G i l e s , H. (eds) I n t e r g r o u p  B e h a v i o r . O x f o r d : B l a c k w e l l . Colman, N.M. & O l v e r , K.R. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . R e a c t i o n s t o f l a t t e r y as a f u n c t i o n of s e l f - e s t e e m : Self-enhancement and c o g n i t i v e c o n s i s t e n c y t h e o r i e s . B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of S o c i a l and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1 7 , 2 5 - 2 9 . 78 Deschamps, J.C. & D o i s e , W. (1978). C r o s s e d c a t e g o r y membership i n i n t e r g r o u p r e l a t i o n s . i n T a j f e l , H. (ed.) D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between S o c i a l Groups: S t u d i e s i n  I n t e r g r o u p B e h a v i o r . London: Academic P r e s s . D i o n , K.L. (1973). C o h e s i v e n e s s as a d e t e r m i n a n t of i n g r o u p -o utgroup b i a s . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 28, 163-171. D o i s e , W. (1978). Groups and I n d i v i d u a l s . Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . D o i s e , W. , C s e p e l i , G., Dann, H.D., Gouge, C , L a r s e n , K., & O s t e l l , A. (1972). An e x p e r i m e n t a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o the f o r m a t i o n of i n t e r g r o u p r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s . European J o u r n a l  of S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 2, 202-204. D o i s e , W., Deschamps, J.C. & Meyer, G. (1978). The a c c e n t u a t i o n of i n t e r g r o u p s i m i l a r i t i e s . i n T a j f e l , H. ( e d ) . D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between S o c i a l Groups. London: Academic P r e s s . D o i s e , W. & S i n c l a i r , A. (1973). The c a t e g o r i z a t i o n p r o c e s s i n -i n t e r g r o u p r e l a t i o n s . European J o u r n a l of S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 3, 145-157. E p s t e i n , S. (1973). The s e l f - c o ncept r e v i s i t e d , or a t h e o r y of a t h e o r y . American P s y c h o l o g i s t , 28, 404-416. Ferg u s o n , C.K. & K e l l y , H.H. (1964). S i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r s i n o v e r e v a l u a t i o n s of own group's p r o d u c t . J o u r n a l of  Abnormal S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 69, 223-228. F e s t i n g e r , L. (1954). A t h e o r y of s o c i a l comparison p r o c e s s e s . Human R e l a t i o n s , 1_, 117-140. G e r a r d , H.B. & Hoyt, M.F. (1974). D i s t i n c t i v e n e s s of s o c i a l c a t e g o r i z a t i o n and a t t i t u d e toward i n g r o u p members. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 29, 836-842. G i l e s , H. & Johnson, P. (1981). The r o l e of language i n e t h n i c group r e l a t i o n s . i n T u r n e r , J.C. & G i l e s , H. (eds) I n t e r g r o u p B e h a v i o r . O x f o r d : B l a c k w e l l . H a m i l t o n , D. (1971). A c o m p a r a t i v e study of f i v e methods of a s s e s s i n g s e l f - e s t e e m , dominance and dogmatism. E d u c a t i o n a l and P s y c h o l o g i c a l Measurement, 31, 441-452. Hewstone, M. , Finchman, F.D. & J a s p a r s , J.M. (1981). S o c i a l c a t e g o r i z a t i o n and s i m i l a r i t y i n i n t e r g r o u p b e h a v i o r ; a r e p l i c a t i o n w i t h p e n a l t i e s . European J o u r n a l of S o c i a l  P s y c h o l o g y , 11, 101-107. 79 H i l g a r d , E.R. (1949). Human mo t i v e s and the concept of the s e l f . American P s y c h o l o g i s t , 374-382. Howard, J.W & R o t h b a r t , M. (1980). S o c i a l c a t e g o r i z a t i o n and memory f o r i n g r o u p and outgroup b e h a v i o r . J o u r n a l of  P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 38, 301-310. Jo n e s , J.C. (1973). S e l f and i n t e r p e r s o n a l e v a l u a t i o n s : esteem t h e o r i e s v e r s u s c o n s i s t e n c y t h e o r i e s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l  B u l l e t i n , 79, 185-199. J o n e s , K.A., Sense n i n g , J . & Maley, J.V. (1974). S e l f -d e s c r i p t i o n s : C o n f i g u r a t i o n s of c o n t e n t and o r d e r e f f e c t s . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 30, 36-45. J u l i a n , J . W . , B i s h o p , D.W. & F i e d l e r , F.E. (1966). Q u a s i -t h e r a p e u c t i c e f f e c t s of i n t e r g r o u p c o m p e t i t i o n . J o u r n a l of  P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 3, 321-327. Kuhn, M.H. & M c P a r t l a n d , T.S. (1954). An e m p i r i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n of s e l f - a t t i t u d e s . American S o c i o l o g i c a l  Review, 19, 68-76. L i n v i l l e , P.W. & Jones, E.E. (1980). P o l a r i z e d a p p r a i s a l s of out g r o u p members. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 38, 689-703. L o c k s l e y , A., O r t i z , V. & Hepburn, C. (1980). S o c i a l c a t e g o r i z a t i o n and d i s c r i m i n a t o r y b e h a v i o r : E x t i n g u i s h i n g the m i n i m a l i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n e f f e c t . J o u r n a l of  P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 39, 773-783. Mancuso, J.C. (1976). C u r r e n t m o t i v a t i o n a l models i n the e l a b o r a t i o n of p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t t h e o r y . Nebraska  Symposium on M o t i v a t i o n , 24, 43-97. McCarthy, JD. & Hoge, D.R. (1982). A n a l y s i s of age e f f e c t s i n l o n g i t u d i n a l s t u d i e s of a d o l e s c e n t s e l f - e s t e e m . Developmental P s y c h o l o g y , 18, 372-379. M c F a r l i n , DB & B l a s c o v i c h , J . (1981). E f f e c t s of s e l f - e s t e e m and performance feedback on f u t u r e a f f e c t i v e p r e f e r e n c e s and c o g n i t i v e e x p e c t a t i o n s . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and  S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 40, 521-531. McGuire, W.J. & Padawer-Singer, A. (1976). T r a i t s a l i e n c e i n the spontaneous s e l f - c o n c e p t . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and  S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 33, 743-754. M i l n e r , D. (1981). R a c i a l p r e j u d i c e . i n T u r n e r , J.C. & G i l e s , H. (eds) I n t e r g r o u p B e h a v i o r s . O x f o r d : B l a c k w e l l . 80 Norem-Hebeisen, A.A. & Johnson, D.W. (1981). The r e l a t i o n s h i p between c o o p e r a t i o n , c o m p e t i t i o n and i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c a t t i t u d e and d i f f e r e n t i a t e d a s p e c t s of s e l f - e s t e e m . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 49, 415-416. Oakes, P.J.T. & T u r n e r , J.C. (1980). S o c i a l c a t e g o r i z a t i o n and i n t e r g r o u p b e h a v i o r : Does m i n i m a l i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n make s o c i a l i d e n t i t y more p o s i t i v e ? European J o u r n a l of S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 10, 295-301. Pa r k , B. & R o t h b a r t , M. (1982). P e r c e p t i o n of out-group homogeneity and l e v e l s of s o c i a l c a t e g o r i z a t i o n : memory f o r the s u b o r d i n a t e a t t r i b u t e s of i n g r o u p and ou t g r o u p members. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 42, 1051-1068. Rabb i e , J.M. & W i l k e n s , G. (1971). I n t e r g r o u p c o m p e t i t i o n and i t s e f f e c t s on i n t r a g r o u p and i n t e r g r o u p r e l a t i o n s . European J o u r n a l of S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , _1_, 215-234. Robin s o n , J.P. & Shaver, P.R. (1973). Measures of S o c i a l  P s y c h o l o g i c a l A t t i t u d e s . M i c h i g a n : I n s t i t u t e f o r S o c i a l R e s e a r c h . Rosenberg, M. (1965). S o c i e t y and The A d o l e s c e n t S e l f - i m a g e . New-Jersey: P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Shaw. M.E. (1981). Group Dynamics. USA: M c G r a w - H i l l . S h e r i f , M. (1966). Group C o n f l i c t and C o o p e r a t i o n : T h e i r S o c i a l  P s y c h o l o g y . London: R o u t l e d g e & Kegan. S h e r i f , M. (1979). S u p e r o r d i n a t e g o a l s i n the r e d u c t i o n of i n t e r g r o u p c o n f l i c t : An e x p e r i m e n t a l e v a l u a t i o n , i n A u s t i n , W. & Worchel, D.S (eds) The S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y of  I n t e r g r o u p R e l a t i o n s . Montery: B r o o k s / C o l e . S m i t h , P.M. (1983). S o c i a l i d e n t i t y , s e l f - e s t e e m and i n t e r g r o u p b e h a v i o r . U n p u b l i s h e d m a n u s c r i p t . U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C olumbia. S.S.H.R.C. g r a n t p r o p o s a l . S t - C l a i r e , L. & T u r n e r , J.C. (1982). The r o l e of demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n s o c i a l c a t e g o r i z a t i o n . European J o u r n a l  of S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 12, 307-314. T a j f e l , H. (1959). Q u a n t i t a t i v e judgement i n s o c i a l p e r c e p t i o n . B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of P s y c h o l o g y , 10, 16-29. T a j f e l , H. (1970). E x p e r i m e n t s i n i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . S c i e n t i f i c American, 23, 5, 96-102. T a j f e l , H. (1972). La c a t e g o r i s a t i o n s o c i a l e . i n M o s c o v i c i , S. ( e d ) . I n t r o d u c t i o n a l a P s y c h o l o g i e S o c i a l e P a r i s : L a r o u s s e . 81 T a j f e l , H. (1974). S o c i a l i d e n t i t y and i n t e r g r o u p b e h a v i o r . S o c i a l S c i e n c e I n f o r m a t i o n , 9_, 113-144. T a j f e l , H. (1978). D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s between S o c i a l Groups:  S t u d i e s i n I n t e r g r o u p R e l a t i o n s . London: Academic P r e s s . T a j f e l , H. (1981). Human Groups and S o c i a l C a t e g o r i e s .London: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . T a j f e l , H. & B i l l i g , M. (1974). F a m i l i a r i t y and c a t e g o r i z a t i o n i n i n t e r g r o u p b e h a v i o r . J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l S o c i a l  P s y c h o l o g y , H), 159-170. T a j f e l , H., Flament, C , B i l l i g , M. & Bundy, R.F. (1971). S o c i a l c a t e g o r i z a t i o n and i n t e r g r o u p b e h a v i o r . European  J o u r n a l of S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , j _ , 149-178. T a j f e l , H. & T u r n e r , J . (1979). An i n t e g r a t i v e t h e o r y of i n t e r g r o u p c o n f l i c t , i n A u s t i n , W.G. & Worchel, S. (eds) The S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y of I n t e r g r o u p R e l a t i o n s . Montery: B r o o k s / C o l e . T a j f e l , H. & W i l k e s , A.L. (1963). C l a s s i f i c a t i o n and q u a n t i t a t i v e judgement. B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of P s y c h o l o g y , 54, 101-114. T e s s e r , A. (1980). S e l f - e s t e e m maintenance i n f a m i l y dynamics. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 39, 77-91. T e s s e r , A. & Campb e l l , J . (1980). S e l f - d e f i n i t i o n : The impact of the r e l a t i v e performance and s i m i l a r i t y of o t h e r s . S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y Q u a t e r l y , 43, 341-347. T e s s e r , A. & P a u l h u s , D. (1983). The d e f i n i t i o n of s e l f : P r i v a t e and p u b l i c s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n management s t r a t e g i e s . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 44, 672-682. T u r n e r , J.C. (1975). S o c i a l comparison and s o c i a l i d e n t i t y : Some p r o s p e c t s f o r i n t e r g r o u p b e h a v i o r . European J o u r n a l  of S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 5, 5-34. Tu r n e r , J.C. (1978). S o c i a l c a t e g o r i z a t i o n and s o c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n the m i n i m a l group paradigm, i n T a j f e l , H. (ed) D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between S o c i a l Groups: S t u d i e s i n the S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y of I n t e r g r o u p R e l a t i o n s . London: Academic P r e s s . T u r n e r , J.C. (1979). Some c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n g e n e r a l i z i n g e x p e r i m e n t a l s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g y . i n Stephenson, GM & D a v i s , J.H. (eds) P r o g r e s s i n A p p l i e d S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y . London: W i l e y . 82 T u r n e r , J.C. (1980). F a i r n e s s or d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n i n t e r g r o u p b e h a v i o r ? A r e p l y t o B r a n t h w a i t e , Doyle and Lightbown. European J o u r n a l of S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 10, 131-147. T u r n e r , J.C. (1981). The e x p e r i m e n t a l s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g y of i n t e r g r o u p b e h a v i o r . i n T u r n e r , J.C. & G i l e s , H. (eds) I n t e r g r o u p B e h a v i o r . O x f o r d : B l a c k w e l l . T u r n e r , J.C. (1982). S o c i a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and p s y c h o l o g i c a l group f o r m a t i o n . U n p u b l i s h e d m a n u s c r i p t . T u r n e r , J.C. (1983). Some commments on..."the measurement of s o c i a l o r i e n t a t i o n s i n the mi n i m a l group paradigm" European J o u r n a l of S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 13, i n p r e s s . T u r n e r , J.C. & Brown, R. (1978). S o c i a l s t a t u s , c o g n i t i v e a l t e r n a t i v e s and i n t e r g r o u p r e l a t i o n s . i n T a j f e l , H. (ed) D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between S o c i a l Groups. London: Academic P r e s s . T u r n e r , J . C , Brown, R., & T a j f e l , H. (1979). S o c i a l comparison and group i n t e r e s t i n i n g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m . European J o u r n a l  of S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 9, 187-204. T u r n e r , J.C. & S p r i g g s , D. (1982). S o c i a l c a t e g o r i z a t i o n , i n t e r g r o u p b e h a v i o u r and s e l f - e s t e e m : A r e p l i c a t i o n . U n p u b l i s h e d m a n u s c r i p t . W e l l s , L.E. & M a r w e l l , ;>G. (1976). S e l f - Esteem: I t s C o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n and Measurement. U.S.A.: Sage P u b l i c a t i o n s . W e t h e r e l l , M. (1982). C r o s s - c u l t u r a l s t u d i e s of m i n i m a l groups: I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the s o c i a l i d e n t i t y t h e o r y of i n t e r g r o u p r e l a t i o n s . i n T a j f e l , H. (ed) S o c i a l I d e n t i t y  and I n t e r g r o u p R e l a t i o n s . Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . White, R. (1959). M o t i v a t i o n r e c o n s i d e r e d : The concept of competence. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 66, 297-333. W i l d e r , D.A. (1978). R e d u c t i o n of i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n t h r o u g h i n d i v i d u a t i o n of the outgroup. J o u r n a l of  P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 36, 1361-1374. W y l i e , R.C. (1961). The S e l f - Concept: A C r i t i c a l Survey of  P e r t i n e n t Research L i t e r a t u r e . L i n c o l n : U n i v e r s i t y of Nebraska P r e s s . W y l i e , R.C. (1974). The S e l f - Concept: A Review of M e t h o d o l o g i c a l C o n s i d e r a t i o n s and Mea s u r i n g I n s t r u m e n t s . L i n c o l n : U n i v e r s i t y of Nebraska P r e s s . 83 Zander, A., S t o t l a n d , E. & Wolfe, D. (1960). U n i t y of group i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h group, and s e l f - e s t e e m of members. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y , 28, 463-478. 84 Appendix A T a j f e l ' s and Brewer's Matrices 85 M a t r i c e s T a j f e l ' s T h e s e numbers a r e r e w a r d s f o r ; Member 31 o f G r o u p I n 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 Member 42 o f G r o u p O u t 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 The c h o s e n c o l u m n g i v e s : t o member 3JL o f G r o u p In_ : t o member 4_2 o f G r o u p O u t : V a r i a t i o n s Type 1 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 I n a t t o p row FAV Ou t a t top. row Type 2 F F, FAV 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 25 23 21 19 17 15 13 11 9 7 5 3 1 I n a t t o p row MJP Ou t a t t o p row MJP, FAV Type 3 FAV 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 I n a t t o p row Ou t a t t o p row MD Type 4 MJP, FAV MJP, MIP 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I n a t t o p row FAV Out a t t o p row FAV 86 B r e w e r ' s T h e s e numbers a r e r e w a r d s f o r Member 3_1 o f G r o u p I n Member 42 o f G r o u p O u t The c h o s e n c o l u m n g i v e s : t o member 3_1 o f G r o u p I r i : t o member _42_ o f G r o u p O u t : V a r i a t i o n s l i i i i n P a i r A I n O u t 12 O u t a b a b c h o i c e s ( a , a ) = F (a,b)=MJP (b,a)=FAV (b,b)=MIP I n O u t P a i r B I n O u t a b a b c h o i c e s (a,a)=MJP ( a , b ) = F (b,a)=MIP (b,b)=FAV I n O u t P a i r C I n O u t 7 1 0 a b a b c h o i c e s ( a , a ) = F (a,b)=FAV (b,a)=MJP (b,b)=MIP I n O u t P a i r D I n O u t 9 H2 a b s a b c h o i c e s (a,a)=FAV (.a,b)=F (b,a)=MIP (,b,b)=MJP A p p e n d i x B C o n s e n t Form, S l i p o f P a p e r , Anagram S h e e t , T i t l e Page a n d I n s t r u c t i o n s f o r t h e M a t r i x Ta 88 C o n s e n t Form T h i s r e s e a r c h i s c o n c e r n e d w i t h d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g . Y o u w i l l be a s k e d t o a n s w e r a few q u e s t i o n s a n d t o make d e c i s i o n s a b o u t o t h e r p e o p l e a n o n y m o u s l y . A c o m p l e t e d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e a i m s o f t h i s r e s e a r c h w i l l be g i v e n a t t h e e n d o f t h e s e s s i o n . Y o u r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s s t u d y i s c o m p l e t e l y v o l u n t a r y . You a r e f r e e t o w i t h d r a w f r o m t h e e x p e r i m e n t a t a n y t i m e . No p e r s o n a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f any k i n d w i l l e v e r be r e q u i r e d a s we w a n t t o p r e s e r v e c o m p l e t e a n o n y m i t y . A c c e s s t o y o u r a n s w e r s w i l l be s t r i c t l y l i m i t e d t o t h e m a i n i n v e s t i g a t o r s , a n d no o t h e r u s e o f t h e d a t a w i l l be made e x c e p t f o r t h e a i m o f t h i s r e s e a r c h . S t r i c t c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y i s e n s u r e d . I h a v e r e a d a n d u n d e r s t o o d t h e a b o v e , and I a g r e e t o p a r t i c -i p a t e i n t h i s e x p e r i m e n t o f my own f r e e w i l l . ( s i g n e d ) Thank y o u . 89 S l i p o f P a p e r F o r N o n - c a t e g o r i z e d S u b j e c t s Y o u r p e r s o n a l c o d e number i s : 16  W r i t e y o u r p e r s o n a l c o d e number on t h e s e c o n d page o f y o u r b o o k l e t p l e a s e , a n d a t t h e b a c k o f t h e a n a g r a m s h e e t . Make s u r e n o b o d y s e e s i t . F o l d up t h i s s l i p o f p a p e r a nd p u t i t i n t h e e n v e l o p e p r o v i -d e d p l e a s e . F o r C a t e g o r i z e d S u b j e c t s F o r t h i s s t u d y y o u w i l l be d i v i d e d i n t o 2 g r o u p s , RED and B L U E : ; T h i s s l i p o f p a p e r y o u drew d e t e r m i n e s t h a t y o u a r e i n : G r o u p RED X Group BLUE an d y o u r p e r s o n a l c o d e number i s : 16 ( p e o p l e i n G r o u p RED h a v e 2 - d i g i t p e r s o n a l c o d e n u m bers; p e o p l e i n G r o u p B l u e h a v e 3 - d i g i t p e r s o n a l c o d e numbers.) W r i t e y o u r g r o u p m e m b e r s h i p a n d p e r s o n a l c o d e number on t h e s e c o n d page o f y o u r b o o k l e t p l e a s e a n d a t t h e B a c k o f t h e anagram s h e e t . Make s u r e n o b o dy e l s e s e e s them. F o l d up t h i s s l i p o f p a p e r and p u t i t i n t h e e n v e l o p e p r o v i d e d , p l e a s e . 9 0 Anagrams E B A T L : F G I T : T R P A E C : E 0 T S V : A 0 D I R : N I W R T E : G S R D U : P 0 T R S : N D C A E : ; I M S U C : L U 0 C D : C P N E L I : L S 0 0 H C : N Y A C D : Y S O T : L N I A : I R N A : E A M G : N L P T S A : 91 T i t l e Page o f t h e B o o k l e t F o r N o n - c a t e g o r i z e d S u b j e c t s S t u d y on D e c i s i o n M a k i n g Y o u r p e r s o n a l c ode number i s : T h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s made up o f two p a r t s . Y o u w i l l be m a k i n g d i f f e r e n t s o r t s o f d e c i s i o n s . - Do t h e p a g e s i n t h e o r d e r t h e y come; do n o t go b a c k a n d f o r t h - Read t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r e a c h p a r t c a r e f u l l y - Do n o t t a l k ; i f y o u ha v e any q u e s t i o n r a i s e y o u r hand F o r C a t e g o r i z e d S u b j e c t s S t u d y on D e c i s i o n M a k i n g Y o u b e l o n g t o G r o u p : a n d y o u r p e r s o n a l c o d e number i s : T h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s made up o f two p a r t s . Y o u w i l l be m a k i n g d i f f e r e n t s o r t s o f d e c i s i o n s . - Do t h e p a g e s i n t h e o r d e r t h e y come; do n o t go b a c k a nd f o r t h - Read t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r e a c h p a r t c a r e f u l l y - Do n o t t a l k ; i f y o u h a v e any q u e s t i o n r a i s e y o u r h a n d 92 I n s t r u c t i o n s f o r t h e M a t r i x P a r t  F o r N o n - c a t e g o r i z e d S u b j e c t s P a r t I ( I I ) T h i s p a r t i s a p o i n t a l l o c a t i o n t a s k . Y o u m u s t d e c i d e how many p o i n t s t o a l l o c a t e b e t w e e n two o t h e r p a r t i c i p a n t s . On e a c h page y o u w i l l f i n d an a r r a y o f numbers w h i c h r e p r e -s e n t p o i n t s . They w i l l be d i s p l a y e d by p a i r s i n c o l u m n s . E a c h number o f a p a i r r e p r e s e n t s t h e number o f p o i n t s y o u g i v e t o t h e p e r s o n i d e n t i f i e d a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e l i n e b y t h e i r c o d e num-b e r . Y o u h a v e t o c h o o s e o n e , and o n l y o n e , c o l u m n p e r p a g e . S o m e t i m e s y o u w i l l c h o o s e among 13 c o l u m n s , s o m e t i m e s b e t w e e n o n l y 2. Y o u a l s o h a v e t o w r i t e down t h e numbers o f t h e c o l u m n y o u c h o s e . F o r e x a m p l e : T h e s e numbers a r e r e w a r d s f o r : P e r s o n * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. 10 11 12 13 P e r s o n @ : 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The c h o s e n c o l u m n g i v e s : P e r s o n * : P e r s o n @ : L i k e i n t h i s e x a m p l e y o u c i r c l e one c o l u m n , a n d w r i t e down i t s d e t a i l s . I t may seem a b i t s t r a n g e t o do t h i s , b u t remember t h a t i n e v e r y d a y l i f e p e o p l e h a v e o f t e n t o make d e c i s i o n s w i t h o n l y m i n i m a l i n f o r m a t i o n . T h i s t a s k i s an e x p e r i m e n t a l a n a l o g u e . N o t e : - T h e r e a r e no r i g h t o r w r o n g a n s w e r s . We a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n y o u r s p o n t a n e o u s d e c i s i o n s . - I t i s c o m p l e t e l y anonymous. -Do a l l t h e p a g e s , i n t h e o r d e r t h e y come (do n o t go b a c k and f o r t h ) - C h o o s e one c o l u m n p e r p a g e , f o r e a c h p a g e . - W r i t e down t h e numbers o f t h e c h o s e n c o l u m n b e s i d e t h e p e r s o n s i d e n t i f i e d . F o r C a t e g o r i z e d S u b j e c t s P a r t I ( I I ) T h i s p a r t i s a p o i n t a l l o c a t i o n t a s k . Y o u must d e c i d e how many p o i n t s t o a l l o c a t e b e t w e e n two o t h e r p a r t i c i p a n t s , one f r o m e a c h g r o u p RED a n d BLUE. On e a c h page y o u w i l l f i n d an a r r a y o f numbers w h i c h r e p r e -s e n t p o i n t s . They w i l l be d i s p l a y e d b y p a i r s i n c o l u m n s . E a c h number o f a p a i r r e p r e s e n t s t h e number o f p o i n t s y o u g i v e t o the p e r s o n i d e n t i f i e d a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e row by t h e i r g r o u p m e m b e r s h i p a n d c o d e number. Y o u ha v e t o c h o o s e o n e , and o n l y one,, c o l u m n p e r p a g e . S o m e t i m e s y o u w i l l c h o o s e among 13 c o l u m n s , s o m e t i m e s b e t w e e n o n l y 2. You a l s o h a v e t o w r i t e down t h e numbers o f t h e c o l u m n y o u c h o s e . F o r e x a m p l e : T h e s e numbers a r e r e w a r d s f o r : member 100 o f Group *: 1 2 3 . 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 member 101 o f G r o u p @ : 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The c h o s e n c o l u m n g i v e s : t o member 100 o f G r o u p *: t o member 101 o f G r o u p @_: L i k e i n t h i s e x a m p l e y o u c i r c l e one c o l u m n , a nd w r i t e down i t s d e t a i l s . I t may seem a b i t s t r a n g e t o do t h i s , b u t remember t h a t i n e v e r y d a y l i f e p e o p l e h a v e o f t e n t o make d e c i s i o n s w i t h o n l y m i n i m a l i n f o r m a t i o n . T h i s t a s k i s an e x p e r i m e n t a l a n a l o g u e . N o t e : - T h e r e a r e no r ^ g h t o r w r o n g a n s w e r s . We a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n y o u r s p o n t a n e o u s d e c i s i o n s . - I t i s c o m p l e t e l y anonymous. -Do a l l t h e p a g e s i n t h e o r d e r t h e y come, (do n o t go b a c k a n d f o r t h ) - C h o o s e one c o l u m n p e r p a g e , f o r e a c h p a g e . - W r i t e down t h e numbers o f t h e c h o s e n c o l u m n b e s i d e t h e p e r s o n i d e n t i f i e d . Appendix C Oral Instructions O r a l I n s t r u c t i o n s From now on p l e a s e do n o t t a l k t o e a c h o t h e r a n d do n o t c o m m u n i c a t e i n any way. L i s t e n c a r e f u l l y t o t h e s e i n s t r u c t i o n s a n d e x p l a n a t i o n s . T h i s i s a s t u d y on d e c i s i o n m a k i n g . Y o u w i l l be a s k e d t o make a l l s o r t s o f d e c i s i o n s t h r o u g h o u t t h e s e s s i o n . B u t b e f o r e s t a r t i n g , we w i l l a s k y o u t o r e a d a n d s i g n a c o n s e n t f o r m w h i c h we w i l l be p a s s e d a r o u n d . T h i s i s a f o r m a l i t y t h e u n i v e r s i t y r e q u e s t s . P l e a s e s i g n i t a n d p u t i t f a c e down on y o u r d e s k . We w i l l c o l l e c t them l a t e r . A t t h e same t i m e we w i l l p a s s a s h e e t w i t h anagrams and an e n v e l o p e w h i c h w i l l be u s e d l a t e r o n . So r e a d t h e c o n s e n t f o r m w h i c h s a y s : ( . . . ) . S i g n t h e c o n s e n t f o r m a n d p u t i t f a c e down on y o u r d e s k . A s h e e t w i t h anagrams h a s a l s o b e e n p a s s e d t o y o u . Anagrams a r e w o r d s w i t h t h e l e t t e r s a l l m i x e d up. The t a s k i s t o r e c o n s r t r u c t t h e w o r d . W h i l e w a i t i n g d u r i n g t h i s s e s s i o n we w o u l d l i k e y o u t o t r y t o do t h e s e a n a g r a m s . I n f a c t i t i s j u s t a f a v o r we a r e a s k i n g y o u ; i t i s t o e s t a b l i s h a b a s e l i n e f o r a n o t h e r s t u d y . T r y them w h e n e v e r y o u h a v e s p a r e t i m e , when we a r e p a s s i n g m a t e -r i a l a r o u n d , o r a t t h e e n d when y o u w i l l be f i n i s h e d . To g a r a n t e e y o u r c o m p l e t e a n o n y m i t y y o u w i l l u s e a p e r s o n a l c o d e number r a t h e r t h a n y o u r name t h r o u g h o u t t h e s e s s i o n . I t i s v e r y i m p o r t a n t t h a t y o u k e e p y o u r own c o d e number s e c r e t . Do n o t t e l l i t t o a n y b o d y a nd make s u r e n o b ody s-ees- i t . Y ou w i l l draw y o u r p e r s o n a l c o d e number f r o m a b a g i n a m i n u t e . Make s u r e t o 96 t a k e o n l y one s l i p o f p a p e r . Read i t , w r i t e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n down on t h e s e c o n d page o f t h e b o o k l e t y o u w i l l be g i v e n i n a few m i n -u t e s , and a t t h e b a c k o f t h e a n a gram s h e e t . T h e n , f o l d up t h e s l i p o f p a p e r so t h a t o t h e r p e o p l e c a n n o t s e e i t a n d p u t i t i n t h e e n v e l o p e y o u w e r e g i v e n a m i n u t e a g o . F o r t h e f i r s t two p a r t s o f t h i s s e s s i o n we w i l l u s e b o o k l e t s l i k e t h i s o n e . E a c h b o o k l e t c o n t a i n s 2 s e c t i o n s . One i s a q u e s t -i o n n a i r e . A n s w e r a l l q u e s t i o n s s p o n t a n e o u s l y a n d g e n u i n e l y . F o l l o w t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s c a r e f u l l y . The o t h e r s e c t i o n o f t h e b o o k l e t i s a p o i n t a l l o c a t i o n t a s k . Y o u w i l l h a v e t o make d e c i -s i o n s a b o u t d i s t r i b u t i n g p o i n t s b e t w e e n d i f f e r e n t p e o p l e . On e a c h page y o u w i l l f i n d an a r r a y o f numbers l i k e t h i s (...) w i t h two p e o p l e i d e n t i f i e d a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f e a c h row by t h e i r c o d e number. You w i l l h a v e t o c h o o s e one and o n l y one c o l u m n o f numbers t h a t r e p r e s e n t s t h e number o f p o i n t s y o u w i s h t o g i v e t o t h e two d i f f e r e n t p e r s o n s i d e n t i f i e d a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e row. Y o u c i r c l e t h e c o l u m n y o u c h o o s e and w r i t e down t h e numbers o f t h e c o l u m n c h o s e n b e s i d e t h e p e r s o n s i d e n t i f i e d . Y o u c a n n o t c h o o s e one number f r o m t h e t o p row and one number f r o m a n o t h e r c o l u m n on t h e b o t t o m row. Y o u h a v e t o c h o o s e o n l y one c o l u m n . S o m e t i m e s y o u w i l l c h o o s e among 13 c o l u m n s , s o m e t i m e s b e t w e e n o n l y 2, d e p e n d i n g on t h e p a g e . You w i l l a l w a y s be d e c i d i n g a b o u t p e o p l e o t h e r t h a n y o u r s e l f . B u t a t t h e end y o u w i l l be '. t o l d t h e t o t a l number o f p o i n t s t h a t h a d b e e n a w a r d e d t o y o u p e r s o n a l y by o t h e r p e o p l e . T h i s t a s k may seem a l i t t l e b i t 97 . u n u s u a l a t f i r s t b u t do i t anyway. You w i l l g e t u s e d t o i t r a p i d l y . Do n o t s p e n d t o o much t i m e on e a c h p a g e . A n s w e r s p o n t a n e o u s -l y a n d f a i r l y q u i c k l y . Y o u s h o u l d be done i n a b o u t 15 o r 20 m i n u t e s . I f y o u ha v e any q u e s t i o n r a i s e y o u r h a n d , do n o t t a l k . You s h o u l d be a b l e t o a n s w e r e v e r y t h i n g e a s i l y w i t h t h e i n s t r u c -t i o n s p r o v i d e d i n t h e b o o k l e t . I t i s i m p o r t a n t t o n o t e t h a t : (a) i t i s c o n f i d e n t i a l and anonymous, (b) t h e r e a r e no r i g h t o r w r o n g a n s w e r s , a n d , (c) we a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n y o u r s p o n t a n e o u s d e c i s i o n s . A n s w e r e v e r y t h i n g o n e v e r y p a g e . Do t h e p a g e s i n t h e o r d e r t h e y come, do n o t go b a c k a nd f o r t h . Read t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s c a r e f u l l y . A f t e r p a r t I i n t h e b o o k l e t go s t r a i g h t on t o p a r t I I . When y o u f i n i s h , c l o s e y o u r b o o k l e t , p u t i t f a c e down on y o u r d e s k and w a i t f o r t h e o t h e r p h a s e o f t h e s t u d y . You may t r y t h e anagrams d u r i n g t h a t t i m e . Now we w i l l p a s s t h e b o o k l e t s , and w i l l go a r o u n d w i t h a b a g f r o m w h i c h y o u w i l l draw y o u r s l i p o f p a p e r w i t h p e r s o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n w r i t t e n o n i t . Make s u r e t o t a k e o n l y one s l i p o f p a p e r . Y o u c a n s t a r t on t h e a n a g r a m s , b u t a s s o o n a s y o u g e t y o u r b o o k l e t s t a r t on i t . (...) O.K. Thank y o u v e r y much. T h i s i s t h e e n d o f t h e e x p e r i -m e n t a l p a r t . We w i l l p a s s a s h e e t t o g e t y o u r comments. Be g e n u i n e , i t i s anonymous. When y o u f i n i s h a n s w e r i n g t h i s s h e e t f o l d i t a nd p l a c e i t i n s i d e y o u r b o o k l e t . A f t e r , we w i l l d i s c u s s the study. Make sure to give us back a l l the material: consent form anagram sheet, envelope and the booklet. Thank you. Appendix D Postexperimental Questionnaire 10Q Postexperimental Questionnaire What do you think this experiment i s about? What do you think the hypothesis of this experiment i s ? What do you think you had to do? Comments: Thanks. 10,1 A p p e n d i x E F o r c e d D i s c r i m i n a t i o n and F o r c e d F a i r n e s s M o d i f i e d M a t r i c e s 102 F o r c e d D i s c r i m i n a t i o n M a t r i c e s T a j f e l ' s f o r m a t RED BLUE 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 RED 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 BLUE 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 RED BLUE 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 RED BLUE 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 BLUE RED 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 BLUE 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 RED 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 BLUE RED 25 23 21 19 17 15 13 11 9 7 5' 3 1 27 25 23 21 19 17 15 13 11 9 . 7 5 3 BLUE RED 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 1 0 3 B r e w e r ' s f o r m a t RED B L U E 6 7 2 3 8 9 6 7 B L U E 6 8 2 1 RED 7 9 8 7 3 6 10.4 F o r c e d F a i r n e s s M a t r i c e s T a j f e l ' s f o r m a t RED (BLUE) BLUE (RED) 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 RED (BLUE) 25 23 21 19 17 15 13 11 9 7 5 3 1 BLUE (RED) 25 23 21 19 17 15 13 11 9 7 5 3 1 BLUE (RED) 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 RED (BLUE) 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 BLUE (RED) RED (BLUE) 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 B r e w e r ' s f o r m a t RED 6 7 3 4 8 7 6 5 BLUE 5 6 3 4 6 5 7 6 BLUE 4 3 6 5 LT 8 7 8 RED 3 2 6 5 9 6 8 9 Appendix F Self-Esteem Questionnaire 106 S e l f - E s t e e m Q u e s t i o n n a i r e P a r t I ( I I ) Now we w a n t y o u t o a n s w e r t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s SPONTANEOUSLY a c c o r d i n g t o how y o u f e e l r i g h t now. Twenty S t a t e m e n t T e s t (TST) A) T h e r e a r e t e n b l a n k l i n e s b e l o w . P l e a s e w r i t e down o n e a c h l i n e 10 a d j e c t i v e s t h a t d e s c r i b e t h e way y o u f e e l a b o u t y o u r s e l f  r i g h t now. W r i t e o n l y one w o r d p e r l i n e . J u s t g i v e 10 d i f f e r e n t a n s w e r s as t h e y o c c u r t o y o u . Do n o t w o r r y a b o u t l o g i c s o r i m p o r t a n c e . A n s w e r a s i t was o n l y t o y o u r s e l f , n o t t o somebody e l s e . I am: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 107 R o s e n b e r g ' s S e l f - E s t e e m S c a l e (RSBRG) B) A n s w e r t h e f o l l o w i n g 10 q u e s t i o n s a c c o r d i n g t o how much y o u a g r e e w i t h t h e s t a t e m e n t a t t h i s moment. W r i t e i n f r o n t o f e a c h s t a t e m e n t t h e number, f r o m 1 t o 7, t h a t c o r r e s p o n d s t o y o u r l e v e l o f a g r e e m e n t . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s t r o n g l y do n o t s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e know a g r e e I f e e l t h a t I am a p e r s o n o f w o r t h , a t l e a s t on a n e q u a l b a s i s w i t h o t h e r s . I f e e l t h a t I h a v e a number o f g o o d q u a l i t i e s . A l l i n a l l I am i n c l i n e d t o f e e l t h a t I am a f a i l u r e . I am a b l e t o do t h i n g s a s w e l l a s m o s t p e o p l e . I f e e l I do n o t h a v e much t o be p r o u d o f . I t a k e a p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e t o w a r d s m y s e l f . On t h e w h o l e I am s a t i s f i e d w i t h m y s e l f . I w i s h I c o u l d h a v e more r e s p e c t f o r m y s e l f . I c e r t a i n l y f e e l u s e l e s s a t t i m e s . A t t i m e s I t h i n k I am no g o o d a t a l l . J u l i a n e t a l . ' s s e m a n t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e s (JLNSD) C) Now c i r c l e on e a c h l i n e t h e number a t w h i c h y o u s i t u a t e y o u r s e l f r i g h t now on e a c h o f t h e s e a t t r i b u t e s . 1) p l e a s a n t u n p l e a s a n t I 2 3 4 5 6 7 108 2) u n f r i e n d l y f r i e n d l y 1 3) good 2 3 4 5 .6 7 b a d 1 4) h a r d w o r k i n g 2 3 4 5 6 7 l a z y 1 5) d i s t a n t 2 3 4 5 6 7 c l o s e 1 6) c o l d 2 3 4 5 6 7 warm 1 7) s e l f - a s s u r e d 2 3 4 5 6 7 h e s i t a n t 1 8) i n e f f i c i e n t 2 3 4 5 6 7 e f f i c i e n t 1 9) f a i r 2 3 4 5 6 7 u n f a i r 1 2 3 4 5 6, 7 S h e r w o o d ' s S e l f -C o n c e p t I n v e n t o r y (SHRWD) 10) t o l e r a n t ( o f o t h e r s ) c r i t i c a l '(of o t h e r s ) 1 2 3 11) a b l e t o do m o s t t h i n g s w e l l 4 5 6 7 u n a b l e t o 1 12) e n t h u s i a s t i c 2 3 4 5 6 7 "unen.t hu s i-a s t i c 1 13) d i s h o n e s t 2 3 4 5 6 7 h o n e s t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 109 14) n o t l i k e a b l e l i k e a b l e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15) c o o p e r a t i v e c o m p e t i t i v e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16) l e a d e r f o l l o w e r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17) i m m o r a l m o r a l 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18) f r u s t r a t e d s a t i s f i e d 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19) i n t e l l i g e n t u n i n t e l l i g e n t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20) a n x i o u s c a l m 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21) u s e f u l u s e l e s s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22) s e l f - c o n f i d e n t l a c k o f s e l f - c . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 H a m i l t o n ' s s i n g l e g l o b a l r a t i n g (SNGL) D) F i n a l l y , c i r c l e o n t h i s s c a l e f r o m 1 t o 7 y o u r o v e r a l l l e v e l o f s e l f - o p i n i o n o r s e l f - e s t e e m , t h a t i s how h i g h o r l o w y o u p r e s e n t l y j u d g e y o u r t o t a l p i c t u r e o f y o u r s e l f ? h i g h l o w 1 1 0 Appendix G T a j f e l ' s p u l l score computations o 111 T a j f e l ' s p u l l s c o r e c o m p u t a t i o n s E a c h t y p e o f T a j f e l ' s m a t r i c e s was p r e s e n t e d t w i c e , o n c e w i t h t h e i n g r o u p on t h e t o p row and t h e o u t g r o u p on t h e b o t t o m row ( I n / O u t ) , o n c e w i t h t h e o r d e r i n v e r t e d ( O u t / I n ) . F o r e a c h p r e s e n t a t i o n t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e c h o s e n c o l u m n was s c o r e d f r o m 1 t o 13, 1 b e i n g a t t h e e x t r e m e l e f t . P u l l s c o r e s w e r e o b t a i n e d by>-the f o l l o w i n g o p e r a t i o n s on t h e s u b j e c t s ' c h o i c e s ( c h c ) . Type 1 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 p u l l o f FAV on F = c h c ( O u t / I n ) - c h c ( I n / O u t ) p u l l o f F on FAV = c h c ( O u t / I n ) + c h c ( I n / O u t ) - 14 Type 2 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 25 23 21 19 17 15 13 11 9 7 5 3 1 p u l l o f FAV on MJP = c h c ( I n / O u t ) - c h c ( O u t / I n ) p u l l o f MJP on FAV = 14 - c h c ( I n / O u t ) - c h c ( O u t / I n ) Type 3 1 3 . 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 p u l l o f MD on.MJP+MIP = c h c ( I n / O u t ) - c h c ( O u t / I n ) p u l l o f MJP+MIP on MD = c h c ( O u t / I n ) + c h c ( I n / O u t ) 14 Type 4 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 p u l l o f FAV = c h c ( O u t / I n ) - c h c ( I n / O u t ) 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0095780/manifest

Comment

Related Items