Interpreting in-group-favouring allocations in the minimal group paradigm

Within social identity theory, in‐group‐favouring allocations in the minimal group paradigm are interpreted as strivings to differentiate positively one's in‐group from an out‐group (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). An alternative interpretation, derived from equity theory (Adams, 1965), suggests that in‐group‐favouring allocations represent the perceived worth of one's in‐group relative to an out‐group (Bruins, Platow & Ng, 1995). We evaluated predictions based on these two interpretations in two studies. In Study 1 (N = 73), relative in‐group and out‐group worth were directly manipulated. A main effect for out‐group worth obtained, with participants making in‐group‐favouring allocations when the out‐group had high but not low worth. In Study 2 (N = 42), participants were categorized into conditions based on median splits of their a priori reported levels of perceived in‐group worth and personal self‐esteem. In‐group‐favouring allocations were made by participants with high personal self‐esteem and low perceived in‐group worth, and low personal self‐esteem and high perceived in‐group worth. Overall, the data from these two studies are more consistent with a social identity analysis than the relative in‐group worth hypothesis. Implications for social identity and equity theoretical interpretations of minimal intergroup allocations are discussed.