PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
Dobbs, Crano / OUTGROUP ACCOUNTABILITY
Outgroup Accountability in the Minimal
Group Paradigm: Implications for Aversive
Discrimination and Social Identity Theory
Michael Dobbs
University of Arizona
William D. Crano
Claremont Graduate University
The minimal group paradigm (MGP) is a popular method of
testing intergroup phenomena. Originally created to facilitate
discovery of conditions necessary and sufficient to produce
ingroup favoritism, early MGP results suggested that simply
grouping people was sufficient to cause discrimination. More
recent research has uncovered factors that cause MGP-based dis-
crimination to disappear. The present experiment examined
outgroup accountability as explicatory of these variations. It was
found that requiring justification for allocations attenuated dis-
crimination. Outgroup accountability-based attenuation was
especially evident when the allocator was of majority (vs. minor-
ity) status, as expected on the basis of aversive racism consider-
ations. Allocators of minority status tended to discriminate more
when made accountable to the outgroup. Implications of these
results for theories of social identity and aversive racism are
discussed.
I ntergroup relations has long been a central research
theme in social psychology. The minimal group para-
digm (MGP) was developed to facilitate such research.
Recently, however, the MGP itself has come under close
methodological scrutiny. As a result, questions have been
raised regarding the interpretability and generality of
results produced in the MGP. The present research was
undertaken to provide data relevant to an alternative
interpretation of results obtained in the MGP. The
research is framed in the context of two competing theo-
retical perspectives that relate to intergroup phenom-
ena: social identity theory (SIT) (Tajfel & Turner, 1979,
1986) and aversive racism theory (Dovidio, in press;
Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986).
Intergroup research has progressed through a num-
ber of phases, each with a unique perspective on the
355
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on March 12, 2015
nature of the relationship between the social group and
the individual’s role in it. Early work emphasized compe-
tition over scarce resources as a primary impetus for dis-
criminatory intergroup behavior (Campbell, 1965;
Sherif, 1966; Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sherif,
1961). More recent studies have been guided by SIT,
which seeks to explain the cognitive and motivational
processes that individuals engage in when acting as
group members (Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986).
The MGP has been an important adjunct to progress
in the formation and evaluation of SIT. Developed by
Tajfel (1970) and his associates (Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, &
Flament, 1971), the MGP is used as a convenient para-
digm for conducting intergroup research in the labora-
tory. This article describes an MGP experiment that
examines causal factors underlying the common and
originally counterintuitive finding that merely categoriz-
ing people into distinct groups is a necessary and suffi-
cient condition for eliciting ingroup favoritism. We sug-
gest that the mere categorization effect might be
particularly easy to achieve in the MGP, which typically
does not include many common characteristics of real
intergroup contexts. Specifically, the research is con-
cerned with the possibility that the absence of account-
ability to outgroup members in the standard MGP might
increase the likelihood of discrimination. When group
Authors’ Note: This research was supported in part by a grant from the
National Institute on Drug Abuse (Grant No. R01-DA12578-01). We
are grateful to Rachel Smith for her help in conducting the research.
Requests for reprints may be addressed to either author at the Depart-
ment of Psychology, Claremont Graduate University, 123 E. 8th Street,
Claremont, CA 91711; e-mail: william.crano@cgu.edu.
PSPB, Vol. 27 No. 3, March 2001 355-364
© 2001 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.
356 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
members are accountable to the outgroup for their
actions, results contrary to the usual findings are
expected to ensue.
Tajfel’s Minimal Group Paradigm
Tajfel’s (1978) initial research, which was
designed to discover a baseline intergroup condition
of non- discrimination, was envisioned as the first of a
series of experiments that would begin by stripping away
all characteristics normally associated with groups:
face-to-face interaction between members, conflicts of
interest, previous hostility between groups, and so on. In
subsequent experiments, these characteristics were to be
systematically layered on until discrimination was
observed, to establish the necessary and sufficient condi-
tions to produce ingroup favoritism (Oakes, Haslam, &
Turner, 1994). The results of the first minimal group
experiments were surprising and unexpected: Partici-
pants favored members of their own ingroup at the
expense of the outgroup despite the lack of any apparent
reason for doing so. Group membership was completely
anonymous; the groups were artificial, created on the
basis of trivial criteria; and the participants had no prior
history of intergroup conflict. Discrimination was not
expected until later in the research program when some
key element (or combination of elements) of realistic
groups was added to the variable mix. Based on the
results of early minimal group studies, Tajfel and his
associates concluded that group formation and inter-
group discrimination had occurred as a result of social
categorization per se; they were not due to other factors
such as interpersonal friendships within the groups.
Later studies that implemented the paradigm replicated
the phenomenon (Allen & Wilder, 1975; Tajfel, 1974;
Turner, 1975).
Social Identity Theory
Tajfel and Turner’s (1979, 1986) SIT was developed
both to capitalize on and to make sense of the MGP
results. The theory posits that individuals strive to
achieve or maintain a positive social identity, defined as
“that part of an individual’s self-concept which derives
from his knowledge of his membership in a social group
(or groups) together with the value and emotional signifi-
cance attached to that membership” (Tajfel, 1978, p. 63).
Often, this positive valence can be achieved through an
appropriate intergroup social comparison. As pre-
sented, SIT is primarily a motivational theory that posits
that self-esteem drives individual behavior in intergroup
settings. Such an interpretation fits with the results of the
early minimal group experiments.
Tests of SIT over the past 18 years have proved generally
supportive, although some of the theory’s central proposi-
tions have received mixed results. In a series of experi-
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on March 12, 2015
ments, Diehl (1988, 1989, 1990) examined a number of
potential alternative explanations for discrimination in
the MGP, including derivations from belief congruence
theory (Rokeach, 1960), equity theory (Walster, Walster, &
Berscheid, 1978), and category differentiation theory
(Doise, 1978). Results showed that SIT was the most par-
simonious explanation in most cases; however, certain
elements of real group interaction not modeled in the
typical MGP substantially attenuated outgroup discrimi-
nation. In particular, Diehl (1989) found that partici-
pants tended to reciprocate fairness to outgroup mem-
bers whom they believed had been fair to them. This
suggests the possibility that the lack of interindividual
mutuality in the standard MGP might foster discrimina-
tion, perhaps because participants need not justify their
allocation choices.
Another line of research that has questioned the asso-
ciation between social identity and positive distinctive-
ness as well as the mere categorization effect is found in
the work of Mummendey and her associates (Blanz,
Mummendey, & Otten, 1995; Buhl, 1999; Mummendey
et al., 1992; Otten, Mummendey, & Blanz, 1996). Among
other factors, this research has examined the effect of
allocating negative incentives (rather than positive
rewards) in the MGP. In Tajfel’s initial delineation of
minimal group requirements, penalties (in addition to
or in lieu of rewards) are specifically mentioned as
acceptable indicators of discrimination (see Tajfel et al.,
1971, pp. 153-154). However, the majority of MGP stud-
ies since the early 1970s have employed only positive
(usually monetary) reward allocations. Research com-
paring positive with negative allocations across different
settings, levels of group categorization, salience of cate-
gorization, and relative group size and status shows that
participants allocating positive rewards and evaluating
others on positive dimensions display the familiar
ingroup favoritism found in past MGP studies. However,
this effect disappears when negative allocations (such as
the time an ingroup or outgroup member must spend in
an uncomfortably noisy room) are made under the stan-
dard (baseline) conditions.
Discrimination on positive outcomes, and its absence
when negative allocations and evaluations are made, is
termed the positive-negative asymmetry bias in inter-
group discrimination. Obviously, positive-negative asym-
metry is not meant to imply that discrimination
expressed in terms of negatively valenced behavior does
not exist but rather that conditions beyond simple cate-
gorization may be necessary to provoke it. Mummendey
(1995) refers to this possibility as the “aggravation
hypothesis” because the conditions that intensify dis-
crimination in the positive case (i.e., salient categoriza-
tion and inferiority and/or minority status of the
ingroup) are needed simply to call it forth in the nega-
 Dobbs, Crano / OUTGROUP ACCOUNTABILITY
tive case. Thus, it appears that the mere categorization
effect does not hold under all circumstances. As sug-
gested by Diehl (1990), some of the characteristics of the
classic MGP, such as the consistent use of positive
resource allocations (and, we might add, the absence of
outgroup accountability), might present a misleading
picture of the ease with which discriminatory behavior is
elicited.
In explaining the mechanisms at work in the positive-
negative asymmetry effect, Mummendey (1995) specu-
lated that the different valences of allocations or evalua-
tion dimensions prime different cognitive styles or dif-
ferent styles of information processing. “Negative
stimuli may lead to a more analytic, more careful, more
accurate way of processing the information in the social
situation provided in the experiments” (Mummendey,
1995, p. 667). This more careful cognitive style could
lead to the decision to discriminate less, or not at all.
Careful cognitive deliberation may lead to
superordinate recategorization of the allocation target.
As Otten et al. (1996) speculate, this recategorization
process might personalize the allocation interaction,
thus lessening the likelihood of discrimination.
Aversive Racism
The study of aversive racism provides an alternative
means of conceptualizing allocation asymmetries in the
MGP. Throughout the past decade or so, proponents of
aversive racism theory have reported research findings
on real-world discrimination that may have relevance for
understanding the results of the MGP laboratory (e.g.,
Dovidio, Mann, & Gaertner, 1989; Gaertner & Dovidio,
1986; Murrell, Dietz-Uhler, Dovidio, Gaertner, & Drout,
1994). According to the aversive racism perspective,
many White people in the United States today readily
express a belief in egalitarianism, fairness, and equality.
In some situations, however, underlying prejudice
against Black people is manifest. Such discrimination
occurs as a result of ambivalence on the part of Whites: a
conflicting desire to conform outwardly to socially
accepted norms of fairness and equality between races
and a tendency to view Black people in a prejudicial
manner as a result of various cognitive, historical, and
sociocultural factors. Aversive racists avoid overt displays
of racial favoritism when the normative structure of a sit-
uation is clear, but when the situation is normatively
ambiguous, racial discrimination may occur (Gaertner &
Dovidio, 1986).
Although aversive racism studies have focused on race
as the basis of intergroup distinction, the logical frame-
work of this perspective lends itself to a broader interpre-
tation, as Crocker, Major, and Steele (1998) have
observed. When a situation is normatively ambiguous or
anonymous, fairness pressures are absent and familiar
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on March 12, 2015
357
patterns of intergroup bias such as those observed in the
typical MGP may become evident. Although we do not
speculate on its source, we may indeed possess a ten-
dency to discriminate against outgroups. However,
expression of ingroup favoritism may be masked when
circumstances require public allocations of resources or
merely careful thought about normative expectations.
When these conditions are absent, ingroup/outgroup
discrimination is more probable. This pattern of bias or
nonbias in allocation behavior follows logically from
aversive racism theory; for present purposes, we refer to
this composite allocation/evaluation pattern as aversive
discrimination.
Accountability
Consistent with both aversive discrimination and
Mummendey’s perspective, research on the effects of
accountability on individual judgment may shed light on
the processes that operate in the MGP. Tetlock (1983,
1992) found that “accountability to an individual of
unknown views motivates people to consider arguments
and evidence on both sides of [an] issue in order to pre-
pare themselves for a wide variety of possible critical
reactions to their views” (p. 75). Earlier, Cvetkovitch
(1978) claimed that accountability led to “less intuitive”
and “more analytic” modes of thought (p. 155). In the
MGP, participants are physically isolated from one
another, anonymous, and have no anticipation of inter-
acting with and/or justifying their choices to members
of the ingroup or outgroup. In real-life situations, this
normally is not the case. Individuals do typically interact
with one another and information about group mem-
bership often is readily available, if not blatantly appar-
ent (as with gender or race). In such situations, account-
ability is usually inferred to some degree and, as a result,
whereas one’s ingroup may be privately favored, the
behavioral manifestations of that favoritism may be sub-
tle or less likely to emerge (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1996).
Whereas accountability to an outgroup member may
cause people to think about the expression of their atti-
tudes and actions more carefully, and not necessarily
suppress them, the more thoughtful consideration of
group bias may restrain obvious favoritism or
discrimination.
In this way, accountability can also be viewed as simi-
lar to the concept of identifiability (to the ingroup or the
outgroup), as considered in the Social Identity
Deindividuation (SIDE) Model (Spears & Lea, 1994).
Within SIDE, identifiability is related to an individual’s
freedom to express the contents of a salient identity.
However, the issue of to whom the individual is account-
able is an important moderator in this context. Whereas
accountability to ingroup members may result in height-
ened conformity to ingroup norms and a more devout
358 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
adherence to ingroup identity maintenance strategies
(Noel, Wann, & Branscombe, 1995), being accountable
to outgroup members may suppress the expression of
ingroup-favoring actions. In this study, we consider the
latter. Reicher and Levine (1994) showed that individu-
als are more likely to endorse attitudes and behaviors of
an outgroup when in the presence of, and identifiable
by, a member of this group, especially when under the
threat of punishment for holding a counterattitudinal
position. Thus, highly identifiable individuals “may be
more inhibited to engage in behavior that is proscribed
by or detrimental to the outgroup for fear of disapproval
or sanction” (Spears & Lea, 1994, p. 447). It follows,
then, that introducing outgroup accountability in the
MGP may attenuate or conceal ingroup favoritism, just
as introducing negative allocations did in
Mummendey’s research. However, giving people a justi-
fiable reason to favor or defend their own ingroup may
cause discrimination to become manifest, consistent
with Mummendey’s hypothesis.
Central Variables and Hypotheses
This experiment compares the effects of a typical min-
imal group treatment with one that adds a layer of
accountability, whereby participants anticipate that they
will be required to justify their allocation choices to
outgroup members. In addition to accountability, the
research makes use of two other treatment variables,
minority/majority group status and task competence,
that have relevance to a comparison of SIT, the positive-
negative asymmetry hypothesis, and aversive discrimina-
tion theory. The manipulated variables promote different
predictions and facilitate comparison of the competing
models.
Predictions regarding the effects of accountability on
discrimination are not readily derived from either SIT or
aversive discrimination theory. However, as will be
argued, aversive discrimination does suggest a possible
interaction of outgroup accountability with group status.
A main effect of accountability can be derived from
Mummendey’s positive-negative asymmetry hypothesis
if we assume that outgroup accountability motivates
more careful thought and that this added consideration
is a driving force behind the allocation asymmetries that
she and her colleagues have discovered (Buhl, 1999).
As noted, SIT holds that group factors that affect
self-evaluations will have an important bearing on dis-
crimination. Thus, an individual whose ingroup is
threatened in some way is expected to reassert a positive
social identity by devaluating or disadvantaging a com-
peting outgroup. One way a group may be threatened is
by showing that its members are incompetent vis-à-vis a
comparison group. Another way may be to characterize
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on March 12, 2015
the group as a minority, in competition with the larger
collective. Otten et al. (1996) suggested that low compe-
tence and minority status constitute threats to social
identity. Accordingly, participants under such threats
may be prone to discrimination against an outgroup.
The aversive discrimination approach makes no
strong prediction for competence or group status
(main) effects. However, it fosters a prediction of an
interaction of group status with outgroup accountability;
discrimination should be exacerbated among un-
accountable majority members. The approach does not
predict this same discriminatory behavior for anony-
mous members of the minority.
The final possibility to be considered involves the
interaction of competence and group size. The aversive
discrimination model does not make a clear prediction
in this instance. SIT, however, holds that the minority
tendency to discriminate against the majority will be
exacerbated when their competence is threatened. The
double threat to identity in the minority-incompetent
condition of the study should pose the most extreme
menace to social identity. Thus, nonaccountable partici-
pants classified as members of incompetent minority
groups should exhibit the greatest discriminatory
reaction.
METHOD
Participants
Ninety-seven undergraduate communication stu-
dents at the University of Arizona served as participants
and were given extra credit and a small monetary reward
for their service. The study was conducted in groups that
ranged in size from 10 to 21 participants.
Design
Participants were randomly assigned to conditions in
a 2 (accountability vs. no accountability) × 2 (high com-
petence vs. low competence) × 2 (majority vs. minority)
factorial design. Effects of the independent variables on
monetary allocations, the dependent measure, were
assessed via Tajfel matrices (see Allen & Wilder, 1975;
Billig & Tajfel, 1973; Bourhis, Sachdev, & Gagnon, 1994;
Diehl, 1988; Otten et al., 1996; Tajfel et al., 1971). These
matrices are widely used; their application in the present
research allows comparison of results with previous min-
imal group studies.
Procedure
After arriving, participants were seated individually at
desks that were separated by shoulder-high dividers.
They could not see the other participants. To create a
basis for dividing participants into groups, they com-
 Dobbs, Crano / OUTGROUP ACCOUNTABILITY
pleted a trivial line estimation task. Although group
assignment was random, participants were led to
believe the division was based on overestimation or under-
estimation of the line lengths. All were given feedback
concerning their individual results on the line estima-
tion task as well as their membership in either the
overestimator or underestimator group. In addition, the
cover passage supplied participants with their group
member identification letter (all participants were listed
as member “N”).
Participants were led to believe that their ingroup was
of either high or low competence in line estimation. This
ability was defined as characteristic of overestimators or
underestimators. They were told that their group tended
to be more (or less) accurate judges in perceptual tasks,
such as line estimation. In addition, they were told that
their group represented a numerical majority (“80% of
the general population is also an over/underestimator”)
or minority (“20% of the general population . . . ”).
When participants finished reading the cover page,
they were instructed to answer 10 items taken from
Heatherton and Polivy’s (1991) State Self-Esteem Scale
(SSES) and then to read, as the experimenter carefully
recited aloud, the instructions for completing the alloca-
tion matrices that followed. As a manipulation check,
each participant was asked to write his or her group
name and group membership identification letter on
the next page before continuing on to the matrices. In
the accountability condition, participants also wrote
their group name and participant identification letter, as
well as their real name, on a name tag sticker that was
clipped to the booklet. These outgroup-accountable
participants were told they would later meet with mem-
bers of the opposite group.
When completing the allocation matrices, partici-
pants apportioned points (supposedly worth 25 cents
each) between an anonymous member of their own
ingroup and an anonymous member of the outgroup.
Each matrix pits particular arrangements of allocation
strategies against each other, as follows:
• maximum ingroup profit (MIP), in which the most pos-
sible points are awarded to the ingroup member, regard-
less of outgroup points;
• maximum joint profit (MJP), in which the most total
points is awarded to both ingroup and outgroup mem-
ber, regardless of which receives more;
• maximum difference in favor of ingroup (MD), in which
the difference between amount awarded to ingroup
member and amount awarded to outgroup member is
the greatest, with the ingroup member receiving more;
• favoritism (FAV), which is a combination of the MIP and
MD strategies; and
• parity (P), in which each person receives an equal
amount of money.
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on March 12, 2015
359
One matrix type pits the FAV strategy (a combination
of the MD and MIP strategies) against the MJP strategy.
The two remaining matrix types pit FAV against P and
MD against MIP + MJP.
Participants always awarded points to two other anon-
ymous players, never directly to themselves. They were
told they would receive the amount two other (anony-
mous) participants awarded them. Placement of in- and
outgroup awardees was counterbalanced in the matri-
ces, and the columns were reversed for each of the vari-
ous matrices, resulting in 3 (matrix types) × 2 (ingroup
or outgroup in top row position) × 2 (column reversal)
matrices. In all, participants completed 12 matrices.
In the accountability condition, participants were
told to wear their name tag sticker and that after they
filled out their booklets, they would discuss their alloca-
tion decisions with two members of the outgroup. This
manipulation formed the central accountability factor.
In the standard (control) condition, no mention was
made of other group members or revealing group mem-
bership during the experiment itself.
When all participants finished the matrices, the book-
lets were collected and participants were carefully
debriefed. In the interest of fairness, each participant
received $1.
RESULTS
Manipulation Checks
The manipulation check data reveal that all partici-
pants, save one, correctly identified their group mem-
bership. The errant individual’s data were excluded
from further analysis. A second analysis was conducted
to determine the effect of the manipulations on partici-
pants’ self-esteem. Heatherton and Polivy’s (1991) SSES
purports to assess momentary instantiations of an indi-
vidual’s overall well-being. The 10 items taken from the
SSES were combined (α = .76) and analyzed in a 2
(outgroup accountability: present/ absent) × 2 (relative
ingroup size: minority/majority) × 2 (ingroup compe-
tence: high/low) ANOVA. The analysis revealed a main
effect for group size, F(1, 89) = 3.66, p < .06; majority par-
ticipants displayed higher self-esteem scores than those
assigned to the minority condition (X = 40.56 and 38.48,
respectively). The analysis also revealed a statistically sig-
nificant Accountability × Competence interaction, F(1,
89) = 5.80, p < .02; participants in the high-competent
group who were accountable for their actions to
outgroup members displayed higher self-esteem than
incompetent, but accountable, participants (X = 41.43 vs.
38.19, respectively), F(1, 89) = 4.49, p < .05. These
results suggest that participants in the minority condi-
tion, or who were both accountable and a member of an
incompetent group, experienced identity threat. The
360 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
experimental treatments generally functioned as
planned.
Allocation Analyses
Allocation decisions on the Tajfel matrices were ana-
lyzed using pull scores, which measure participants’
preferences of one allocation strategy over another (see
Bourhis et al., 1994). Six pull scores were calculated for
each participant: the pull of FAV on MJP, MD on MIP +
MJP, FAV on P, MJP on FAV, MIP + MJP on MD, and P on
FAV. The first three of these strategies favor the ingroup
over the outgroup. The remaining strategies (MJP on
FAV, MIP + MJP on MD, and P on FAV) represent deci-
sions that are more fair and economically rational. In
testing pull score data, Bourhis et al. (1994) suggest both
within- and between-subjects analytic designs be used to
provide a complete data depiction. In the within-subjects
analysis, each pull score is examined via a t test, which
pits the mean pull against a hypothetical mean of zero.
This analysis indicates intensity of a given strategy in the
reward allocation process. Next, effects of the manipu-
lated between-groups variables are investigated for those
strategies whose pull scores exceed zero. In the present
study, this analysis will require two 2 (accountable/not
accountable) × 2 (relative ingroup size: majority vs.
minority) × 2 (group competence: high vs. low)
MANOVAs on the combined discriminatory and the
combined nondiscriminatory strategies.
Within-Subject Analyses
Each of the six allocation strategies was analyzed via
one-sample t tests. This test was used to determine the
difference between the observed mean pull score on
each strategy and a hypothetical value of zero, which sug-
gests the absence of any appreciable pull. The results of
these analyses are presented in Table 1. As shown, signifi-
cant pull scores were found for five of the six allocation
strategies. Only the maximum joint profit on favoritism
(MJP on FAV) pull score, an egalitarian strategy, was not
significantly different from zero. These results suggest
that with one exception, participants employed both dis-
criminatory and egalitarian strategies in the allocation of
resources.
A second within-subjects analysis also was calculated.
In this (nonparametric) analysis, the two rank compo-
nents of the pull scores were compared via Wilcoxon
ranked pairs tests. The results of these nonparametric
comparisons are presented in the final column of Table 1.
As shown, both the Wilcoxon and the one-sample in-
dependent t-test analyses yielded essentially identical
results. Following previous analyses (e.g., Mullin &
Hogg, 1998; Otten et al., 1996), Table 2 summarizes the
mean pull score differences (from zero) within each of
the extended experimental treatment cells. The table
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on March 12, 2015
TABLE 1: Mean Pull Scores for Each Strategy Across All Participants
Strategy Orientation M (SD) t Value z Value
FAV on MJP 1.98 (4.20) 4.65*** 4.46***
MD on MIP + MJP 1.80 (3.85) 4.61*** 3.98***
FAV on P 1.53 (4.06) 3.70*** 3.54*
MJP on FAV 0.21 (3.81) 0.55 0.43
MIP + MJP on MD 1.27 (5.14) 2.43* 2.34***
P on FAV 5.77 (5.09) 11.18*** 7.39***
NOTE: t tests represent difference from a hypothetical mean of zero; Z
scores obtained via Wilcoxon ranked pairs test compare the two rank
components of each pull score. Significant values suggest that the strat-
egy was used at greater than chance levels. FAV = ingroup favoritism,
MJP = maximum joint profit, MD = maximum difference in favor of
ingroup, MIP = maximum ingroup profit, and P = parity.
*p < .05. ***p < .001.
shows that participants in the accountable majority con-
ditions did not make use of any of the discriminatory
strategies. In the nonaccountable conditions, each sub-
group employed at least one of the discriminatory strate-
gies. A more precise parametric appraisal of the effects
of the manipulated variables on variations in distribu-
tion behaviors is provided in the between-subjects analy-
ses that follow.
Between-Subject Analyses:
Discriminatory Distribution Strategies
Pull scores on the three discriminatory distribution
strategies (FAV on MJP, MD on MIP + MJP, and FAV on P)
were analyzed in a 2 (outgroup accountability) × 2 (rela-
tive ingroup size) × 2 (ingroup competence) MANOVA.
The MANOVA revealed a significant main effect of
accountability, F(3, 87) = 2.71, p < .05. This result sug-
gests the general tendency of outgroup-accountable par-
ticipants to discriminate less across the three strategies
than those not held accountable to the outgroup.
Univariate ANOVAs on each of the three discriminatory
strategies disclosed a significant main effect of outgroup
accountability for the FAV on MJP strategy, F(1, 89) =
4.49, p < .05. Participants who were made accountable to
the outgroup for their allocations were significantly
less discriminatory than were nonaccountable partici-
pants (M pull = 1.13 vs. 2.94 for accountable and
nonaccountable participants, respectively; higher scores
indicate greater discriminatory pull). Neither the com-
petence nor the group status manipulation produced
significant univariate main effects.
The MANOVA on the discriminatory strategies also
disclosed two substantial first-order interactions. The
first was the Multivariate Outgroup Accountability × Rel-
ative Ingroup Size interaction, F(3, 87) = 2.18, p < .10.
Univariate ANOVAs revealed significant Accountability ×
Group Status interactions for both FAV on P and MD on
MIP + MJP, F(1, 89) = 4.12 and 5.30, respectively, both ps <
.05. These interactions, presented in Figure 1, show that
 Dobbs, Crano / OUTGROUP ACCOUNTABILITY 361

TABLE 2: Mean Pull Scores by Accountability, Relative Ingroup Size, and Relative Group Status

Minority Majority
Allocation Strategy Low Status High Status Low Status High Status

Not accountable
FAV on MJP 1.50 (3.52)* 3.15 (6.25) 3.41 (5.06)* 3.68 (4.33)*
MD on MIP + MJP –0.38 (2.51) 3.19 (5.02)* 4.00 (4.42)* 2.05 (2.23)*
FAV on P .92 (2.54) 1.15 (5.84) 2.05 (5.02) 2.45 (4.90)
MJP on FAV –0.73 (5.45) 0.54 (2.87) 1.77 (6.47) 0.04 (2.64)
MIP + MJP on MD 2.23 (6.98) 1.88 (5.68) 1.45 (6.30) 1.95 (6.01)
P on FAV 8.31 (3.95)*** 2.85 (5.56) 3.86 (7.07) 6.64 (4.84)**
Accountable
FAV on MJP 0.32 (2.93) 2.32 (3.70) 0.46 (3.90) 1.42 (2.41)
MD on MIP + MJP 2.14 (4.10) 2.86 (3.26)* 0.82 (3.88) 0.42 (3.41)
FAV on P 3.64 (3.54)** 1.68 (4.00) 0.11 (3.52) 0.88 (2.13)
MJP on FAV –0.77 (4.20) 0.50 (1.25) 0.61 (2.63) –0.19 (3.05)
MIP + MJP on MD 0.86 (4.39) 1.68 (5.33) 0.39 (3.31) –0.12 (3.25)
P on FAV 5.91 (3.77)*** 6.68 (4.82)** 5.54 (4.21)*** 6.42 (5.24)**

NOTE: Standard deviations are in parentheses. Pull scores for each allocation strategy can range from –12 to +12. FAV = ingroup favoritism, MJP =
maximum joint profit, MD = maximum difference in favor of ingroup, MIP = maximum ingroup profit, and P = parity. Cell ns range from 11 to 14.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001, two-tailed t tests.

majority participants were significantly less discrimina-

tory when held accountable to the outgroup (minority)
for both the FAV on P, t(95) = 1.50, p < .07, and the MD on
MIP + MJP strategies, t(95) = 2.24, p < .025. This pattern
was not found among minority allocators.
The Relative Group Size × Competence interaction
was the final substantial multivariate effect found in the
MANOVA on discriminatory strategies, F(3, 87) = 4.51,
p < .005. Univariate ANOVAs on the three strategies
revealed that this interaction was significant for the MD
on MIP + MJP strategy, F(1, 89) = 4.81, p < .05. Inspection
of this interaction, graphically depicted in Figure 2,
reveals a set of results that, although unanticipated,
may prove useful for theory development. The interac-
tion suggests that minority participants discriminated
more than majority when both were members of high-
competence groups, t(95) = 1.66, p < .05. However, in the
low-competence condition, minority participants
tended to discriminate less than the majority, t(95) =
1.44, p < .08.
The MANOVA on the egalitarian/economic strate-
gies (MJP on FAV, MIP + MJP on MD, and P on FAV)
revealed no significant multivariate main effects or
interactions.

DISCUSSION

The initial within-subjects analyses demonstrated that

the participants made substantial use of both discrimina-
tory and egalitarian strategies. However, outgroup
accountability impeded discrimination, especially
among members of the majority, a finding anticipated by
the aversive discrimination model. Multivariate analysis
of the three discrimination strategies confirmed the
Figure 1 Outgroup Accountability × Relative Group Size interac-
tion: Pull of FAV on P (top view) and MD on MIP + MJP
(bottom view).
NOTE: Higher scores indicate greater discrimination. FAV = ingroup
favoritism, P = parity, MD = maximum difference in favor of ingroup,
MIP = maximum ingroup profit, and MJP = maximum joint profit.

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on March 12, 2015
362 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
Figure 2 Ingroup Competence × Relative Group Size interaction:
Pull of MD on MIP + MJP.
NOTE: Higher scores indicate greater discrimination. MD = maximum
difference in favor of ingroup, MIP = maximum ingroup profit, and
MJP = maximum joint profit.
expectation that participants held accountable to the
outgroup for their decisions show less ingroup favorit-
ism than those not held accountable. Univariate analysis
revealed that this result held only for one of the three dis-
criminatory strategies (FAV on MJP), but among these
strategies, FAV on MJP is arguably the most self-serving.
At one end of the FAV on MJP matrix, one can obtain the
highest ingroup profit for one’s group along with the
maximum positive between-groups differential (the FAV
strategy). This outcome contrasts with an outgroup-
favoring allocation at the other end of the choice matrix.
The realistic choice for even mildly discriminatory par-
ticipants appears obvious in this case. The proper choice
is not so evident in the other discriminatory matrices.
For example, to generate a positive differential in the
MD on MIP + MJP matrix, the discriminating allocator is
forced to take less, whereas FAV on P demands a choice
of clear favoritism over equality rather than outgroup
favoritism. Thus, whereas a significant pull score for any
of the discriminatory strategies indicates bias, the FAV
on MJP strategy may represent the most obvious form of
favoritism available. This is consistent with Buhl’s (1999)
approach, which used only the FAV on MJP strategy
when agglomerating results of earlier selected MGP
studies in his meta-analytic summary.
Three possibilities suggest themselves as responsible
for the outgroup accountability effect. Consistent with
Mummendey’s (1995) reasoning, those who are aware
that they will be held accountable for, and possibly asked
to defend, their allocation behavior to outgroup mem-
bers may adopt a more careful thought-processing style.
The accountability results are consistent, too, with
expectations based on aversive racism theory. This
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on March 12, 2015
approach holds that White aversive racists are mindful of
the appropriateness of their behavior in situations that
feature clear normative guidelines, but this mindful con-
sideration is attenuated in situations that are less well
defined. Finally, it is possible that outgroup-accountable
participants become repersonalized, moving from
group-level identification to the individual level. In a
mindful, normatively unambiguous, personalized con-
text, the complementary tendencies to identify with an
ingroup and discriminate against an outgroup would
diminish. Although these possibilities were not tested
directly, the results suggest provocative possibilities that,
at a minimum, encourage future research on the mecha-
nisms responsible for accountability effects.
Whereas both positive-negative asymmetry and
aversive racism produce predictions regarding the main
effect of accountability, SIT does not. However, SIT does
form the basis for predictions of the main effects of both
relative group size and group competence on alloca-
tions. The theory fosters the prediction that an individ-
ual characterized as belonging to an incompetent
group, or thrust unexpectedly into minority status, may
suffer a threat to social identity. Ellemers, Van Rijswijk,
Roefs, and Simons (1997) point out that the degree of
perceived stability and legitimacy in an intergroup situa-
tion featuring groups of unequal status may moderate
the perception of threat. As such, membership in a
low-status group (i.e., minority and/or low competence)
does not automatically constitute a social identity threat.
However, our self-esteem data show that participants in
this study did perceive such a threat when in a minority
or an accountable, low-competence group. This should
prompt the individual to discriminate more than a per-
son of majority status and/or high competence. Con-
trary to these expectations, the analysis revealed no sig-
nificant multivariate or univariate main effects for either
group competence or group status.
The absence of group competence and relative group
size main effects does not mean that the variables had no
impact on allocation behavior. They did, but their
impact was moderated, as shown in the significant inter-
action effects obtained. The aversive discrimination per-
spective fosters the expectation that majority-status allo-
cators will discriminate less when held accountable to
the outgroup for their actions. SIT makes a different pre-
diction: Experiencing a threatened social identity, mem-
bers of a minority group should discriminate more in gen-
eral, regardless of accountability. The positive-negative
asymmetry hypothesis would seem to support a similar
(main effect) prediction. The results provide strong sup-
port for the aversive discrimination prediction: Account-
ability interacted with group status. Majority allocators
discriminated more when not held accountable to the
outgroup for their actions, whereas minority members
 Dobbs, Crano / OUTGROUP ACCOUNTABILITY
did not discriminate differentially on the basis of
outgroup accountability. In short, consistent with
aversive racism, in the absence of normative guidelines,
majorities discriminated; when made accountable to the
outgroup for their actions, majority bias was attenuated.
Similar accountability variations on discrimination were
not found in members of minority status. This pattern of
findings fits well with expectations based on aversive rac-
ism; it is less successfully anticipated by the other theoret-
ical orientations considered to this point.
The lack of main effects of relative group size and
competence was contrary to expectations based on SIT.
The particular form of the interaction of these two vari-
ables also was unanticipated. It was expected that partici-
pants in the minority/incompetent group treatment
condition would experience the greatest identity threat
and, thus, the greatest need to discriminate against the
outgroup (in this case, the majority). Such discrimina-
tion was not evident. In fact, the opposite was found.
When the minority was competent, it tended to discrimi-
nate more than the majority. When informed that they
were part of an incompetent group, minority members
tended to discriminate less than their majority counter-
parts in their allocation behavior. These findings lend lit-
tle support for the standard SIT approach. Of course, it
could be argued that the theory does not necessarily
require that minority or members of incompetent
groups discriminate against the outgroup. Other mecha-
nisms of self-enhancement may be employed. The rever-
sal of the predicted results, however, is less comforting
than a mere null finding and should motivate serious
consideration.
Accountability Effects and the MGP
In examining the results of this experiment, it is
apparent that accountability played a powerful role in
participants’ allocation decisions. Consistent with our
expectations, the findings indicated that discrimination
was attenuated when participants felt they would have to
justify their allocation decisions to outgroup members.
Such results support the hypothesis initially proposed by
Mummendey and her associates that discrimination in
terms of a mere categorization effect may obtain only
under certain conditions that incidentally happened to
be present in the classic minimal group studies. When
certain factors or layers (such as negative allocations or,
in the present case, accountability) are added to the min-
imal intergroup situation, discrimination disappears.
Thus, this experiment may have uncovered a new kind of
inconsistency effect that, in keeping with Mummendey’s
(1995) nomenclature, can be thought of as an “account-
ability asymmetry effect.” The accountability findings
are consistent with Mummendey’s speculation that
more careful thought is at least partly responsible for the
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on March 12, 2015
363
attenuation of discrimination. Although this hypothesis
was not directly tested here, research suggests that the
accountability construct represents a more direct link-
age to careful thought than allocation valence
(Cvetkovich, 1978; Tetlock, 1992).
Conclusions
The results of this experiment suggest that the tradi-
tional conceptualization of a minimal group is at least
partially misleading. Instead of establishing a
ground-level intergroup situation, the MGP appears to
present respondents with a scenario in which discrimi-
nation is fostered, so that adding certain layers of real
group characteristics (in this case, outgroup account-
ability) to the paradigm can result in less, rather than
more, discrimination. Thus, when Tajfel and his asso-
ciates attempted to remove these intergroup charac-
teristics, they were, in fact, unwittingly adding certain
elements, such as positive reward allocations and
n o n a c c o u n t a b i l i t y, w h i c h s e r v e t o p r o m o t e
discrimination.
Our findings suggest that it might be fruitful to take a
closer look at the MGP. Arguably, a central goal of
research in intergroup relations is to understand the
processes at work in negative social interactions, to
understand how and why we discriminate, so that harm-
ful real-world discrimination might be reduced. By ana-
lyzing behavior through the MGP, a technique funda-
mentally characterized by trivial criteria and unrealistic
conditions, we may be limiting ourselves in the pursuit of
this important understanding. The baseline conditions
established in the early minimal group experiments may
have led to a baseline understanding that may be unreal-
istic. By systematically moving toward more realistic
groups and examining various group characteristics
across studies, the knowledge we already have can be
combined with new discoveries about the effects of the
various components of group membership and the psy-
chological, behavioral, and communicative effects they
have both in isolation and in interaction with each other.
In this way, existing theories might be refined and
expanded to better predict and explain intergroup
relations.
The direction of research being advocated is neither
meant to diminish SIT nor to discount the role of SIT
and the MGP in furthering understanding and promot-
ing research. Rather, it is suggested that the considerable
energies that have been devoted to these issues be har-
nessed and perhaps redirected so that the ultimate aim
of the field may be achieved. If studied logically and sys-
tematically, the utility and possible integration of other
empirically supported perspectives such as aversive dis-
crimination and the positive-negative asymmetry effect
can lead to a better understanding of intergroup rela-
364 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
tions. Tajfel (1978) once referred to the original mini-
mal group studies as “crutches” on which to base further
thinking (p. 77). It seems as though research since his
death has largely forgotten his important advice. It is
hoped that the results of this experiment will serve as a
reminder of his wise observation.
REFERENCES
Allen, V. L., & Wilder, D. A. (1975). Categorization, belief similarity,
and group discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
32, 971-977.
Billig, M. G., & Tajfel, H. (1973). Social categorization and similarity in
intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 27-52.
Blanz, M., Mummendey, A., & Otten, S. (1995). Perceptions of relative
group size and relative group status on intergroup discrimination
in negative evaluations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25,
231-247.
Bourhis, R. Y., Sachdev, I., & Gagnon, A. (1994). Intergroup research
with the Tajfel matrices: Methodological notes. In M. P. Zanna & J. M.
Olson (Eds.), The psychology of prejudice: The Ontario symposium
(Vol. 7). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Buhl, T. (1999). Positive-negative asymmetry in social discrimination:
Meta-analytical evidence. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 2,
51-58.
Campbell, D. T. (1965). Ethnocentric and other altruistic motives. In
D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 13). Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press.
Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In D. T.
Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychol-
ogy (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 504-553). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Cvetkovitch, G. (1978). Cognitive accommodation, language, and
social responsibility. Social Psychology, 41, 149-155.
Diehl, M. (1988). Social identity and minimal groups: The effects of
interpersonal and intergroup attitudinal similarity on intergroup
discrimination. British Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 289-300.
Diehl, M. (1989). Justice and discrimination between minimal groups:
The limits of equity. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 227-238.
Diehl, M. (1990). The minimal group paradigm: Theoretical explana-
tions and empirical findings. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.),
European review of social psychology (Vol. 1). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Doise, W. (1978). Groups and individuals: Explanations in social psychol-
ogy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Dovidio, J. F. (in press). Combating bias at its roots: Individual and
intergroup approaches. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and
discrimination. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1996). Affirmative action, uninten-
tional racial biases, and intergroup relations. Journal of Social Issues,
52, 51-75.
Dovidio, J. F., Mann, J. A., & Gaertner, S. L. (1989). Resistance to affir-
mative action: The implication of aversive racism. In F. A.
Blanchard & F. J. Crosby (Eds.), Affirmative action in perspective
(pp. 83-102). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Ellemers, N., Van Rijswijk, W., Roefs, M., & Simons, C. (1997). Bias in
intergroup perceptions: Balancing group identity with social real-
ity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 186-198.
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (Eds.). (1986). The aversive form of rac-
ism. In Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 61-89). Orlando, FL:
Academic Press.
Heatherton, T. F., & Polivy, J. (1991). Development and validation of a
scale for measuring state self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 60, 895-910.
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on March 12, 2015
Mullin, B., & Hogg, M. A. (1998). Dimensions of subjective uncertainty
in social identification and minimal intergroup discrimination.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 345-365.
Mummendey, A. (1995). Positive distinctiveness and social discrimina-
tion: An old couple living in divorce. European Journal of Social Psy-
chology, 25, 671-688.
Mummendey, A., Simon, B., Dietze, C., Grunert, M., Haeger, G.,
Kessler, S., Lettgen, S., & Schaferhoff, S. (1992). Categorization is
not enough: Intergroup discrimination in negative outcome allo-
cation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 125-144.
Murrell, A. J., Dietz-Uhler, B. L., Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., &
Drout, C. (1994). Aversive racism and resistance to affirmative
action: Perceptions of justice are not necessarily color blind. Basic
and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 71-86.
Noel, J. G., Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1995). Peripheral
ingroup membership status and public negativity toward
outgroups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 127-137.
Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & Turner, J. C. (1994). Stereotyping and social
reality. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Otten, S., Mummendey, A., & Blanz, M. (1996). Intergroup discrimina-
tion in positive and negative outcome allocations: Impact of stimu-
lus valence, relative group status, and relative group size. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 568-581.
Reicher, S., & Levine, M. (1994). On the consequences of
deindividuation manipulations for the strategic communication of
self: Identifiability and the presentation of social identity. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 511-524.
Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books.
Sherif, M. (1966). Group conflict and co-operation: Their social psychology.
London: Routledge Kegan Paul.
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W.
(1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robber’s Cave experi-
ment. Norman: University of Oklahoma Book Exchange.
Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1994). Panacea or panopticon? The hidden
power in computer-mediated communication. Communication
Research, 21, 427-459.
Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific
American, 223, 96-102.
Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science
Information, 13, 65-93.
Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity, and social com-
parison. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups
(pp. 61-76). New York: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. F., & Flament, C. (1971). Social cate-
gorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psy-
chology, 1, 149-177.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup
conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of
intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-
group behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of
intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Tetlock, P. E. (1983). Accountability and complexity of thought. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 74-83.
Tetlock, P. E. (1992). The impact of accountability on judgment and
choice: Toward a social contingency model. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 331-376). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Turner, J. C. (1975). Social comparison and social identity: Some pros-
pects for intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5,
5-34.
Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and
research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Received May 24, 1999
Revision accepted March 8, 2000