Cited by 64Social and Intergroup PsychologyDeath Anxiety and Social ExclusionExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies

A comparison of minimal group induction procedures

Pinter, Brad, Greenwald, Anthony G.·2011·Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

Abstract

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1368430210375251

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Even arbitrary distinctions (for example, a preference for the abstract painters Klee or Kandinsky) can lead to immediate intergroup discrimination.

    “Social psychologists have shown that even arbitrary distinctions (for example, a preference for the abstract painters Klee or Kandinsky) can lead to immediate intergroup discrimination13,14.”

    From Generative language models exhibit social identity biases (2024) · cites this paper as [14]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pinter, B., & Greenwald, A. G.
Affiliations
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Pinter, Brad
Venue
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations
Published
2010-10-27
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
81-98
ISSN
  • 1368-4302 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-7188
OpenAlex
W2098069028
Cited by
64
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 4
FWCI
13.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
Keywords
minimal groups, in-group favoritism, ingroup identification, random assignment, false feedback, intergroup bias

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review