The Minimal Group Paradigm is a methodology employed in social psychology to investigate the minimal conditions required for discrimination to occur between groups. This paradigm, where a number of assumptions, concepts, values or practices were accepted in order to better allow a view of reality in relation to the onset of human group formation and of the appearance of discriminatory behaviours was originally planned to provide a baseline in order to test subsequently the minimal necessary and sufficient conditions for in-group favouritism and out-group derogation to occur based on a sense of group membership.
Experiments using this approach have revealed that even arbitrary and virtually meaningless distinctions between groups can trigger a tendency to favour one's own group at the expense others.
Amongst the earliest and most influential studies or experiments in this field were two conducted under the overall direction of Henri Tajfel after his appointment as Professor of Social Psychology at Bristol University, England, in 1967 where English school boys were shown to discrimate, based on a very flimsy and objectively irrelevant sense of group membership, against a perceived out-group.
In Tajfel H, Billig M G, Bundy R P & Flament C. Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 1:149-77, 1971. [University of Bristol, England, and University of Aix-Marseille, France] Tajfel and his colleagues describe how they set out to investigate the conditions necessary for the establishment of a sense of group membership that would subsequently act to provide a basis for in-group / out-group discriminatory behaviours. Michael Billig later went on record as stating that in this study Henri Tajfel, who was of Polish-Jewish background and who had lost many family members and friends durinmg the years 1939-1945, was investigating "How is genocide possible?"
In an original experiment the schoolboy research subjects were randomly told that they were individually "overestimators" or "underestimators" of the number of dots in a display. In a second experiment such categorisation was achieved by, again randomly, telling 48, 14-15 year old, schoolboys that they were individually members of a "Klee" group or of a "Kandinsky" group after expressing their preferences, for a right or left hand painting, during a viewing of a succession of six pairs of un-labeled abstract paintings about which they were only told that one was painted by Paul Klee and the other Wassily Kandinsky. It can be suggested that there was no rationale for any of these schoolboys really feeling that they somehow "belonged" to such arbitrary, and in many ways meaningless, groups. Each boy could not feel that they had any important shared history with other group members who were just his school-fellows. He could not know if other boys he liked or disliked were in his "assigned" group or not.
It was found that even under very flimsy and apparently baseless assigned social categorisation into two distinct, and previously "unheard of" social categories, in-group favouritism and out-group derogation occured in the distribution, by the schoolboys as research subjects, of "rewards for participation" in the study.
This held true even where there was neither intra-group or inter-group interaction nor any opportunity to directly fulfil self-interests through such allocations or evaluations of such "rewards for participation". The finding in these studies, which have often been replicated by other researchers, show that under even under objectively meaningless social categorisation conditions in-group favoritism and out-group derogation tended to routinely occur.
Before these studies by Tajfel and his colleagues, which are regarded as classic findings of Social Psychology as a branch of science, established the Minimal Group Paradigm it had been presumed that pre-existing individual personality or social tensions between groups were necessary to give rise to prejudice or discrimination. It was held by Tajfel and his colleagues that the base condition for a sense of group membership was "categorisation" itself.
It is widely known that Plato, pupil of and close friend to Socrates, accepted that Human Beings have a " Tripartite Soul " where individual Human Psychology is composed of three aspects - Wisdom-Rationality, Spirited-Will and Appetite-Desire.
What is less widely appreciated is that such major World Faiths as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism see "Spirituality" as being relative to "Desire" and to "Wrath".
Human Nature - Tripartite Soul page
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Start of Minimal Group Paradigm Studies Two experiments by Henri Tajfel & colleagues
An official website of the United States government
The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
Publications
Account settings
My Bibliography
Collections
Citation manager
Save citation to file
Email citation, add to collections.
Create a new collection
Add to an existing collection
Add to My Bibliography
Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.
Search in PubMed
Search in NLM Catalog
Add to Search
The origins of the minimal group paradigm
Affiliation.
1 School of Psychology.
PMID: 32672993
DOI: 10.1037/hop0000164
The minimal group paradigm, published by Henri Tajfel and his colleagues in the early 1970s, is a widely used experimental technique for studying intergroup perceptions and behavior. In its original form, it involved the assignment of participants to one of two meaningless categories and asking them to make allocations of rewards to other (anonymous) members of those groups. Typically, discrimination in favor of the ingroup is observed in those reward allocations. In this article, I examine the historical origins of this paradigm, noting that it was first mooted by another social psychologist, Jaap Rabbie, in the 1960s, although he is seldom credited with this fact. The intellectual disagreements between Rabbie, Tajfel, and Turner over the nature and interpretation of the paradigm are also discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
PubMed Disclaimer
Similar articles
Minimal but not meaningless: Seemingly arbitrary category labels can imply more than group membership. Hong Y, Ratner KG. Hong Y, et al. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2021 Mar;120(3):576-600. doi: 10.1037/pspa0000255. Epub 2020 Aug 20. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2021. PMID: 32816512
Jacob Max Rabbie (1927-2013). Stroebe W, Zimbardo PG. Stroebe W, et al. Am Psychol. 2014 Jan;69(1):84. doi: 10.1037/a0034366. Am Psychol. 2014. PMID: 24446847
Intergroup emotional exchange: Ingroup guilt and outgroup anger increase resource allocation in trust games. Shore DM, Rychlowska M, van der Schalk J, Parkinson B, Manstead ASR. Shore DM, et al. Emotion. 2019 Jun;19(4):605-616. doi: 10.1037/emo0000463. Epub 2018 Jul 2. Emotion. 2019. PMID: 29963884
The social identity approach to disability: Bridging disability studies and psychological science. Dirth TP, Branscombe NR. Dirth TP, et al. Psychol Bull. 2018 Dec;144(12):1300-1324. doi: 10.1037/bul0000156. Epub 2018 Jul 12. Psychol Bull. 2018. PMID: 29999335 Review.
Group-based emotion regulation: A motivated approach. Porat R, Tamir M, Halperin E. Porat R, et al. Emotion. 2020 Feb;20(1):16-20. doi: 10.1037/emo0000639. Emotion. 2020. PMID: 31961172 Review.
Public management approaches to an aging workforce: organizational strategies for strategies for adaptability and efficiency. Wang Z, Fu J, Bai W. Wang Z, et al. Front Psychol. 2024 Jul 25;15:1439271. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1439271. eCollection 2024. Front Psychol. 2024. PMID: 39131863 Free PMC article.
Social network structure as a suicide prevention target. Cero I, De Choudhury M, Wyman PA. Cero I, et al. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2024 Mar;59(3):555-564. doi: 10.1007/s00127-023-02521-0. Epub 2023 Jun 21. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2024. PMID: 37344654
Grants and funding
Leverhulme Trust Major Research Fellowship/International
LinkOut - more resources
Full text sources.
American Psychological Association
Ovid Technologies, Inc.
Citation Manager
NCBI Literature Resources
MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer
The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.
Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Tajfel et al (1971): Minimal group paradigm experiments (Results:…
To provide evidence that merely belonging to one group and being aware another group existed would lead to discriminatory behaviour .
64 boys aged 14 & 15 from a Bristol comprehensive school
Came to laboratory in groups of 8
All knew each other well
48 boys from the same school
Arranged into 3 groups of 16
Showed 40 sets of dot clusters to the participants - Neutral condition : 4 groups of 8 boys were told that in these types of tasks, people overestimate or underestimate the number of dots , but these did not reflect accuracy - Value condition: another 4 groups of 8 were told that some people are more accurate than others
Tajfel told all of them he would look at their scores and allocate them to either the 'overestimater' or 'underestimator' group (creating group identity)
However he didn't look at their scores and put them into random groups
The boys, without knowing who is in the other group, selected a pair of numbers to give to people who are in the other group.
Tajfel was interested in the way the participants allocated the rewards
He wanted to see if the same strategies were being used when rewards were being given to members of their own group compared to rewards given to members of the other group
He wanted to 'make' discrimination appear based on meaningless tasks
The fair strategy for this matrix would be the 12/11 combination.
There have been replications of the minimal group paradigm experiments that all conclude social categorisation leads to out-group discrimination
Louse Lemyre and Philip Smith (1985) replicated Tajfel's findings, as well as stating that discriminating participants improved self-esteem , showing that personal identity ties in with social identity, and that discrimination enhances both aspects
Examines causes of prejudice and discrimination
The boys were deceived on the nature of the grouping , as well as reasons behind the experiment
Could be considered a biased sample as all participants were male, of similar age and from one school in one part of the country, so results cannot be generalised to females or other age groups
Laboratory based experiments encouraged a degree of demand characteristics ; the boys responded in the way that was expected of them
Also can be argued that the boys' tendency to ensure rewards for their group could be explained by competition and not favouritism
Weatherall (1982) suggests we should not conclude that inter-group conflicts are inevitable , based on her observation of New Zealand Polynesians where they favoured their out-group more than showing bias towards their own group
When allocating points to people who were in their in-group, they were fair by giving the 7/8 or 8/7 combination
When allocating points to people in their out-group, they were also fair by giving the 7/8 or 8/7 combination
When asked to allocate points to people in the in-group and out-group, there were signs of discrimination by giving their in-group 14 and the out-group 1
This is because we do not want people who are not 'the same' to have the same as someone who shares a characteristic with us
Overall, a large majority of the boys, in both conditions, gave more money to members of their own group, therefore intergroup discrimination was the strategy was used in making intergroup choices
Inter-group discrimination was the deliberate strategy adopted in making inter-group choices
In-group/in-group: maximum fairness
Out-group/out-group: boys gave more points to in-group than out-group members
Tajfel demonstrated in-group favouritism and out-group discrimination based on minimal group identity - Prejudice and discrimination is very easy to trigger - People have to behave in ways considered 'appropriate', we conform to social norms - Two social norms are 'groupies' and 'fairness'
Set up a second experiment due to the conditions not being adequate in the first experiment
Arranged into 3 groups of 16 and categorised into groups according to their preference of paintings of Klee and Kandinsky, but they didn't know which artists they belonged to
Tajfel 'saw' their scores and allocated them into either a 'Klee' or 'Kandinsky' group and asked them to again allocate points to other boys using matrices
Sat in separate cubicles and worked through a booklet of 18 matrices
They were told that the numbers in the matrices represented units of 1/10 of a penny and they were giving money to other boys
They were unaware of the identity of any member in either group
Experimenters were looking at three variables: maximum joint profit, largest possible reward to in-group and maximum difference
However, a Kandinsky member may have given their in-group member 7 points whilst giving an out-group member 1 point
Some boys went for the fairer option (13/13)
Overall the most important factor in making their choices was maximising the differences between the two groups
Book Reviews
Books We Can’t Stop Thinking About
Last Things on Earth
Film & Television
Monthly Editor Playlists
Search Curator
Support the Curator
How To Pitch Prose
It was in 1918 that Lev Kuleshov—film theorist, father of the Soviet Montage school of cinema, director of The Extraordinary Adventures of Mr. West in the Land of the Bolsheviks (1924), political partisan, teacher—ventured a hypothesis. The hypothesis: the dramatic effect of a film was found not in the content of its shots but rather in the edits that join them together.
Kuleshov put his hypothesis to the test. Taking an expressionless long shot of the actor Ivan Mozzhukhin peering into the camera—presumably, because footage of the original experiment has been lost— he broke it into three parts. Then he intercut each practically-identical segment with three other shots—a bowl of steaming soup, an attractive young woman, and a child lying dead in a coffin. When he showed the segments to audiences and polled their reactions, they swore that Mozzhukhin’s expression had changed from piece to piece. When staring at the soup, Mozzhukhin was hungry; at the young woman, lustful; at the child, mournful.
“The discovery stunned me,” Kuleshov wrote, “so convinced was I of the enormous power of montage.”
The Power of Montage
And his amazement was catching. Soviet greats of the silent era, such as Vsevelod Pudovkin, Aleksandr Dovzhenko, Dziga Vertov, and Sergei M. Eisenstein, were likewise stunned. It’s only a slight exaggeration to say that the Soviet silent era, its “golden era,” was the flowering of a shared fascination with Kuleshov’s discovery.
Kuleshov experimented further. In Art of the Cinema , Kuleshov’s first book, he tells of several other tests, including the creation of a single woman from a hodgepodge of different women. He writes, “By montage alone we were able to depict the girl, just as in nature, because we shot the lips of one woman, the legs of another, the back of a third, and the eyes of a fourth.” It was “a totally new person.” And even though she was a composite, according to Kuleshov, she retained “the complete reality of the material.”
Kuleshov tended to exaggerate the implications of these constructs: “it was not important how the shots were taken, but how these shots were assembled.” Alfred Hitchcock, decades apart and worlds away, called it “pure cinema,” when the montage gives rise to meanings that exist nowhere to the eye, but only in the mind. This interplay between montage, perception, and meaning has come to be known as the “Kuleshov Effect.”
What Kuleshov actually discovered and what he thought he discovered are not necessarily one and the same. How successful would the Mozzhukhin experiment have been had he not appeared “neutral” but enraged, elated, or better yet, jogging in place? These montage composites are limited by plausibility (a woman has lips, legs, a back, and eyes) and the content of the shots themselves (neutral stares versus, say, directed actions, like, ‘appear as if you are frightened’).
Yet Kuleshov was right to emphasize the power that editing has over motion pictures, even to the point of bending the inner “reality” of shots. What stunned Kuleshov was the incredible flexibility of the medium, and, with that in mind, the power it granted him to provide moving pictures with new contextual meanings. Such authority over meaning strikes us as obvious today, but at the time the “photographic” image was held to be a totally faithful, “concrete,” inviolably “true” artifact, free of the shortcomings of subjectivity. This turned out to be false; or, rather, true in a limited sense. What Kuleshov was witnessing was the dissolution of a paradigm—which no doubt felt like the melting away of the thing itself.
Thinking about Film
Film historian Ronald Levaco called Kuleshov the “first aesthetic theorist of cinema,” a deserved appellation. Yet it’s an oddity of Soviet film that such a theorist, doing strange experiments in an editing room, could have so great of an effect. Indeed, without the total destruction of Russian cinema by a chain of sweeping social disasters—World War I, the October Revolution, the Civil War, Bolshevik rule, and the mass starvation of (conservative estimate) 5 million people—it would have been impossible. The Civil War devastated Russia’s cultural centers, and studio owners fled the Bolsheviks with their cameras and film stock in tow. The instruments of film, incredibly expensive, difficult to operate, and very hard to replace, were gone. “Moscow had 143 theatres operating before World War I,” historian Peter Kenez recounts, “but in the autumn of 1921 not a single one remained in operation.”
In 1920, Kuleshov joined Moscow’s All-Union Institute of Cinematography, established in 1919, as an instructor. The Institute was the world’s first film school—a film school without film stock. While Hollywood, during this time, was making film, the Soviets and Kuleshov were thinking about film; and thus developed a thickly theoretical and experimental approach to filmmaking, as was readily apparent as soon as film equipment became available to them. (One wonders, incidentally, what kind of cinema Hollywood would have made had it at least once been destroyed.)
Films without Film
Kuleshov’s workshops are legendary. Known as the Kuleshov Group, Pudovkin was one of his students; Eisenstein studied under him for three months, but was inspired—“influenced” is a better word—by Kuleshov for a lifetime; sometimes as a rival; later as a dear friend.
Kuleshov would direct his students in mock shoots of “films without film,” drilling them over and over again through a series of taxing acting exercises. He would position the actors before empty cameras and they would act out the scenario, pretending that their performances were being recorded, in preparation for the time when the Soviet Union once again had film.
Re-Centering Cinema
Meanwhile, Kuleshov continued his editing experiments—having no film with which to shoot did not mean there was no film with which to play. Using whatever films they could get their hands on—films left behind from the days of Tsar Nicholas II, foreign films allowed entrance into Soviet territory under Lenin’s New Economic Policy, and others which circulated illegally throughout the Soviet Union—Kuleshov and his cohort would break them down and reassemble them in a variety of configurations. They were especially captivated by the innovative (and supremely racist) films of D.W. Griffith, the American director behind The Birth of a Nation and Intolerance . Kuleshov studied Intolerance obsessively; swapping its parts; changing its order; and re-constituting its meaning and themes (a task made easier by its silence). Like a cinematic Doctor Frankenstein, Kuleshov poked and prodded; re-arranged and re-animated; then did it all again. Breakdown then re-assemble; breakdown then re-assemble. It was this breathless experimentalism that yielded the Kuleshov Effect.
Kuleshov became convinced of the vaporousness of the shot and, naturally, of the inconsequence of the director as a cinematographer. In such a psychological setting, the center of Soviet film shifted from the camera to the editing table; from “production” to “post-production.” From there it unleashed its “golden age.” For all of its deformities—or because of them—Soviet montage remains one of the truly lasting and perpetually fascinating movements in film.
The Hammer, the Sickle, and the Editing Table
So what of Kuleshov the filmmaker? The Extraordinary Adventures of Mr. West in the Land of the Bolsheviks (1924), his most famous film, was a financial success and one of the first feature length films in the Soviet Union. It’s a key point in cinema history, but not a great work of art. His best film was Po Zakonu (1926), based on a short story by Jack London; it’s very good, but, again, not great. The students of his cinematics—Pudovkin, Dovzhenko, Vertov, and especially Eisenstein—made far more compelling things of his theories and principles than he ever did. Yet his theories are implied in almost every aspect of their work. This makes him a minor filmmaker but a major figure in the history of film.
Soviet Montage had a short-lived but high glory, lasting from 1924 to 1930, brought to an end by the artistic exhaustion of the theory, squabbles among the movement’s major figures, the rise of sound, and the disapproval of Stalin. Eisenstein, the greatest and most natural filmmaker of the group, explored both the roots and frontiers of Kuleshov’s doctrine—“the content of the shots in itself is not so important as is the joining of two shots of different content and the method of their connection and their alteration”—at once realizing its greatest triumphs while stretching it far beyond the sinews of plausibility. Strike! (1925) and The Battleship Potemkin (1925) are undoubtedly two of the greatest and most unique—because stylistically unrepeatable—films ever made. Eisenstein both fulfilled and exhausted Soviet Montage.
By 1930, the “Golden Age” which Kuleshov fathered came to an end. Soviet Montage had marched across the globe, deposited its greatest cinematic achievements, theories, and inventions into the tool chest of—something called—“global cinema” (a prestige genre cooked up by Hollywood and its California-based film schools), and was spent.
Back in the Soviet Union, Stalin and his party apparatchiks turned against the movement; and the names of its practitioners, especially Eisenstein’s, became bywords among political aspirants, encapsulating all that is wrong with its misguided adherents, decadent artists lost in sterile theory, too effete to portray the strengths and vigors appropriate to “the people’s” cinema.
It was in 1935, though, that Soviet Montage officially died. Under the motto “For a Great Cinema Art,” on January 8 through 13, Stalin convened the All-Union Creative Conference of Cinematographic Workers, with Stalin himself present on the final day to distribute awards for cinematic achievement. Stalin orchestrated the proceedings to denigrate Soviet Montage and to elevate Socialist Realism in its stead as the single aesthetic of “Great Cinema Art.”
For five days, Kuleshov’s theories were officially disavowed, but Eisenstein, who had become most popularly associated with the movement, was the named target. Director Leonid Trauberg criticized Eisenstein (and through him the movement) for making “stupid poetry”; director Sergei Yutkevich read aloud a letter from George Sand to Flaubert—which accused Flaubert of too much intellectual study—and pointed its finger at Eisenstein: “You are a fool who roots around in his straw and eats his gold.” Even Dovzhenko, the coward, himself a Soviet montage filmmaker, feeling the heat, took a turn: “If I knew as much as he does I would literally die.” He then threatened Eisenstein, whose lack of production—he had not completed a film in six years—noticeably displeased Stalin: “If you fail to make a film within twelve months at the latest, I beg you never to make one at all. We will have no need of it and neither will you.”
Only one man, during these five tense days, came to Eisenstein’s defense: his mentor, rival, and friend, Kuleshov. “You have talked about him here with very warm, tearful smiles as if he were a corpse which you are burying ahead of time.” Kuleshov slapped back: “I must say to him, to one who is very much alive, and to one whom I love and value greatly: Dear Sergei Mikhailovich, no one ever bursts from too much knowledge but from too much envy.” Then he took his leave: “That is all I have to say.”
Kuleshov defended the man who explored his theories the most ingeniously and made them known to the world—but the movement he had founded was dead.
In the late 1920s, several years prior to Eisenstein’s public flaying, Kuleshov had found himself, like Eisenstein, the object of intense scrutiny and renunciation by party wannabes. Four of his adoring students, one of whom was Pudovkin, came to his defense:
Some of us who had worked in the Kuleshov Group are regarded as having “outstripped” our teacher. It is a shallow observation…
We make films—Kuleshov made cinematography.
Share this:
Previous Next
NON-TRIVIALITY OF THE RESULTS OF MILGRAM FIELD EXPERIMENT IN MOSCOW AND NEW YORK SUBWAY
December 2017
RUDN Journal of Psychology and Pedagogics 14(3):255-272
14(3):255-272
This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.
Abstract and Figures
Discover the world's research
25+ million members
160+ million publication pages
2.3+ billion citations
P.M. Bentler
Jerry D. Goodman
Stanley Milgram
ADV EXP SOC PSYCHOL
Carl A. Kallgren
Raymond R. Reno
T M Al'-Batal
New York Times
V A Petrovskii
Recruit researchers
Join for free
Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up
The Most Popular Prioritization Techniques and Methods: MoSCoW, RICE, KANO model, Walking Skeleton, and others
15 min read
Business , UX Design
Published: 16 May, 2019
No comments Share
A brief comparison of popular methods of task prioritization
MoSCoW method: the simplest and most widespread approach for small products
MoSCoW is an acronym that stands for “Must, Should, Could, Won’t.” It’s arguably one of the simplest methods to evaluate the relative importance of each task. Being a part of the Dynamic Systems Development Method (DSDM) techniques, which helps companies adopt business agility practices , it’s also very popular among waterfall-based enterprises.
The MoSCoW method requires breaking down all story points into four groups. Must: These features are mandatory. Neglect any of them and the current sprint most likely fails. Should: Features here can be described as great to have, but not top priority. Simply put, they don’t have much impact on delivery success now, though eventually, they must be implemented. Could: These are small-scale improvements that don’t take considerable resources, but they aren’t essential. Their absence won’t affect almost anything, or at least wouldn’t do any harm to the release. Won’t: These items are of the lowest importance. They don’t match stakeholders’ current challenges, needs, and requirements. Thus, they may be easily omitted or rescheduled for future releases.
Pros of MoSCoW prioritization
Given such operational friendliness, the benefits of MoSCoW prioritization are quite obvious. Simplicity. The MoSCoW method doesn’t require deep understanding or complicated calculations. So, it’s easy for a team to keep in line with the whole prioritization process using a simple language. This promotes mutual understanding between team and stakeholders. Scheduling with MoSCoW is fast and transparent. Agility for scheduling and implementation. Since this prioritization method has no strict time limits, except for the Must-have category, it allows for changing suitable timeframes per feature. That way, a team can adjust feature deliveries or releases on favorable terms.
Cons of the MoSCoW approach
With such simplicity come some challenges. Lacks a clear consistency of implementation. Though the priorities may be easily set, the MoSCoW method does not introduce any sequencing of tasks and lacks planning. At the end of the day, it might put the entire release at risk. Lack of big picture focus. With MoSCoW suggesting the most-to-least critical requirements or features, the stakeholders still might not see a full picture of priorities. If the focus must be concentrated on key features that are important for a business, MoSCoW may mislead the team. So, the stakeholders have to allocate business goals by themselves. Creates imbalance between the required and slightly desirable. Often, the blurred lines between categories make it hard to decide on features that go into, say, Must and Should lists. That’s why floating tasks between all categories should be approached with great thought and care.
When to use MoSCoW
The MoSCoW method is simple but it’s not always effective. For instance, if you have a complicated backlog with many time-sensitive releases, consider choosing other methods or complementing MoSCoW with 2 or 3 more comprehensive approaches.
On the other hand, it’s quite reasonable to use MoSCoW with small products that don’t have many technical limitations and dependencies.
Kano Model: customer-driven prioritization
The Kano technique was created by the Japanese researcher Noriaki Kano in the 1980s. In a nutshell, it’s based on different levels of users’ satisfaction with a product’s features and behavior.
There’s a large variety of Kano model implementations. The most fundamental and go-to version suggests dividing user backlog points by five criteria: Must-be, Attractive, One-Dimensional, Indifferent, and Reverse. As the method revolves around user satisfaction and is based on user opinion, it requires conducting Kano surveys and user interviews before prioritization practice. Must-be: The customers consider the product functional only if these features are included. One-dimensional: These features have a dual nature. While they aren’t a must for a product to work, they remain extremely desirable to customers. The category is closely related to foreseeing customer needs and expectation. When a product includes what customers would be happy to get, they stay satisfied. But if you fail to deliver them, users are more likely to experience disappointment. Attractive: Features in this section add extra satisfaction, or even enjoyment and gratification. Basically, they are unexpected but nice-to-have features. On the other hand, their absence doesn’t leave customers dissatisfied. Indifferent: The attributes here represent the least possible impact on customers satisfaction. In a nutshell, they have no value. Reverse: The features falling into this category are considered to be the most annoying. Their presence has a rather negative effect on customer satisfaction. Alternatively, when they are not introduced, customers consider it a plus.
Pros of the Kano model
Highlighting the potential strengths and weaknesses of a product. One of the most valuable features of the Kano model is user feedback. The results of the Kano questionnaire help realize the future product’s advantages and disadvantages. It allows product managers to specify the product/market fit early in development. Ranking product features by their value for customers. The Kano model helps rate the product properties from the value proposition standpoint and tailor it to user needs.
Cons of the Kano model
Provides no details on resources required. Although the Kano model gives a more comprehensive picture on how to establish the priorities from the customer vantage point, it doesn’t account for time and costs that are necessary for a given release or a particular feature. Time-consuming practice. Since the Kano model originally involves the Kano survey – which may target a lot of potential customers – the efforts to process and estimate the results might be quite significant. It slows down the time-to-market and, consequently, distracts the team from execution. Restricted by customers’ opinion and knowledge. Given that the Kano model appreciates the level of customer satisfaction, it still has pitfalls from the other side: The backlog may introduce a plain wishlist and be limited to expectations of customers who have no technical background. This caveat can lead to unstable releases. To make Kano efficient, you have to discuss the technical concepts separately.
When to use the Kano Model
If you are a startup striving to generate user feedback for the initial UX design, it will be quite efficient to submit your concept in tandem with the Kano survey. Given that it’s always better to demonstrate than describe, the combination of a prototype and the questionnaire will help distill the value. But if your product entails technical complexity and various hidden blockers, you should balance Kano or completely substitute it with more specific methods.
RICE: balanced, but time-consuming method for mature products
The RICE method is one of those involving calculations. It provides a rate-scoring model for setting priorities.
RICE stands for Reach, Impact, Confidence, and Effort. These are the factors to estimate each feature separately when prioritizing. Reach usually reflects the number of people who will use the feature or be able to use it in a particular time period. It’s assessed with real product metrics such as Daily or Monthly Active Users. E.g. if you’re assessing the improvements to a customer support page, the number of users visiting this page per month will be your reach metric. Impact shows the feature contribution to the overall product promotion. To align them with each other, a multiple-choice scale is recommended: 3 for “massive impact,” 2 for “high,” 1 for “medium,” 0.5 for “low,” and finally 0.25 for “minimal.” Confidence . Based on the knowledge obtained, you estimate how sure you are about the given feature benefit. Here, it is also recommended to use multiple-choice scale: 100 percent for “high confidence,” 80 for “medium,” and 50 for “low.” Anything below will mean a shot in the dark. Effort shows the time taken by product, design, and engineering teams. This can be calculated in “person-months,” and to round it up to whole numbers usually half a month is taken as a minimum. Upon obtaining rates from each of the categories, the following formula is applied: RICE= Reach*Impact*Confidence/Effort The bigger the rate is, the higher the priority.
Pros of RICE
Gives a comprehensive picture. The inclusion of such versatile factors helps formulate a fuller vision on the product and estimate its success and further promotion from different points of view. Actionable metrics and numbers. This prioritization technique is mostly based on numbers and KPIs, which is the true evidence of product progression. The numbers can be later estimated to make improvements in further releases. Appreciating the customer value. The used metrics concentrate on user engagement, and can also take into account the level of their satisfaction. That is to say, the RICE method considers user experience very important.
Cons of RICE
Time-consuming. The approach involves a lot of calculation. To take into account all metrics equally, grade the rates, and do calculations per each backlog item requires a lot of time. Depends on data that you may not have. That said, the RICE method may stretch the release time. When the product or a feature is time-sensitive, but the data hasn’t been calculated yet, you either use another method or move the deadline. Not clear about responsibility. Since the given prioritization method involves grading such factors as impact and confidence, the team faces the challenge of taking responsibility for these decisions. Consequently, it isn’t obvious who is in charge of that. Are these addressed within the whole team, or does a product owner/manager do it alone? The lines here are still blurred.
When to use
The RICE prioritization is a very efficient technique that allows for taking a comprehensive look at the product from multiple sides. However, it is not applicable in every prioritization case. For instance, rating via RICE looks reasonable when the application has been rolled out and started its product lifecycle . As the method is quite metrics-intensive, you must have at least some data at hand. So, RICE wouldn’t work for MVP for the same reason.
Eisenhower matrix: a straightforward way for time-management
The technique originated from Dwight D. Eisenhower’s decision-making matrix, which later transformed into a four-quadrant visualization that some teams use to prioritize tasks in backlog. It’s another uncomplicated take on prioritization that you can use straight away without preparations.
Eisenhower decision matrix
Features of the Eisenhower matrix
The technique suggests allocating tasks across four different sections on the diagram. The matrix considers two prioritization dimensions – importance and urgency.
High Priority: urgent and important.
Medium Priority : important but not urgent. You can additionally divide this quadrant into 2 parts: The requirements on the left side are of a higher priority and must be implemented first.
Urgent but not important . The features included are urgent but without a significant impact on a product’s business aspects, so the team must decide whether they are really needed. Similar to the medium priority part, this quadrant is also divided into 2 parts; the requirements on the left side are of a higher priority than those on the right.
Low Priority: neither urgent, nor important.
Pros of the Eisenhower matrix
Plain. A simple structure doesn’t need multi-layered composition. Open. The matrix doesn’t have decision dependencies and multiple results variation. So, the product team doesn’t have to think about some pitfalls when deciding what priority to put first. Business-targeted. The method is business centric. The higher priority is given to those items that are more relevant and useful from a business point of view.
Cons of the Eisenhower matrix
No evidence base. The Eisenhower decision matrix is completely outside of a data-driven approach. It doesn’t need any calculations, metrics, KPIs, or other actionable insights to concentrate on. As a consequence, some misconceptions or discussions may occur within the product team. May lack the technical aspect. Concentrating on a business aspect of the product, the method may, however, miss the other side – the technical one, which may affect the overall product flow and performance.
You can use the Eisenhower matrix for the whole backlog but its simple nature better fits for individual time planning, given that you have a stronger method for the whole product. Otherwise, a delivery team must agree on all requirements, their urgency, and priority.
Value vs Complexity/Effort matrix: a lightweight approach to balance tech and value
Value vs. Complexity is one of the prioritization principles used by product managers to grade features on the product roadmap . The value vs complexity (or sometimes the effort word is used) method takes a balanced approach to business and tech aspects of development.
Value vs Complexity/Effort
Similar to the Eisenhower matrix, the features are allocated across four quadrants with two dimensions: value and complexity. The approach prioritizes low-hanging fruit, meaning that the most value and least complexity tasks go first. Then the matrix suggests building the highest value and the most complex features; it questions the significance of low-value items, recommending ditching complex, low-value tasks. Value. The product team estimates the value of a feature from a long-term perspective. The value criteria are arbitrarily defined by the team rather than dictated by the method. They may be:
market demand
customer acquisition potential
customer retention
customer engagement
expected revenue etc.
Complexity. The product team estimates a feature total cost to the business and represents it as a proxy for complexity or effort necessary to realize it. On the other hand, the team may divide the effort scoring into certain categories, such as operational costs, developer hours, time on the schedule, customer training, risks, and in-house development skills.
Pros of the Value vs Complexity/Effort matrix
You can use it without detailed calculations. Even though the matrix suggests using specific metrics, it doesn’t dictate any restrictions. If you don’t have time for specifying value and complexity metrics, you still can resort to eyeballing them. Flexibility. As you can arbitrarily define the value, you can do the same with the second dimension. Instead of complexity, you can put risks, costs, time, etc.
Cons of the Value vs Complexity matrix
Has a subjective nature. Since there’s no well-specified scoring formula, the prioritization method is still quite open to debate. Proves no valuable asset for a big comprehensive product. The use of the given method is quite time-consuming for big product teams with extensive product features. Additionally, it may result in high-cost coordination expenses.
It works better within the teams of smaller products and limited timeframes or budgets, especially when you build a product from the ground up. As your application matures, you may run out of low-hanging fruit and the only approach would be to embark on some bigger features. Here’s when this matrix won’t be as effective.
Weighted Shortest Job First (WSJF): lean but time-consuming way to introduce minimum marketable features
Weighted Shortest Job First is an element of the SAFe Lean-Agile framework, which tends to be used in medium-to-big companies. It suggests scoring each feature by dividing the cost of delay by job duration. At its core, WSJF is similar to Value vs Complexity, but provides more detailed guidance.
Cost of Delay (CoD). This metric defines how much the company loses if the given feature isn’t implemented. Traditionally, CoD is a sum of three elements:
User-business value – How important is the feature to business and customers?
Time criticality – Will the user-business value reduce over time?
Risk reduction – Does the feature reduce business and technical risks?
The values that you put into these variables must start with 1 as the lowest and the others set relative to that. Job duration. The duration is also measured in relative points and defines the time needed for implementation. So, in the end you get this formula: WSJF = CoD/Job duration The higher the rate is, the higher its priority. When the rate is calculated, features are introduced in the following order:
Non-comprehensive features with high-added value.
Complex features with high-added value.
Non-comprehensive features of lesser-added value.
Complex features with lesser-added value.
Pros of Weighted Shortest Job First
Gives accuracy and consistency. With more detailed calculation, stakeholders can expect higher consistency and predictability of results. Focuses on increasing the ROI with limited human resources. WSJF is quite beneficial for teams with limited human resources.
Cons of Weighted Shortest Job First
Time-consuming calculations. Since the WSJF has many metrics per each backlog item, the product team is supposed to spend significant time to prioritize each task. Limits complex tasks. If the stakeholders have a sustainable business idea, but the WSJF calculations show it’s not so urgent, they will have to postpone it, making the method a bit restrictive in implementing long-term business ideas. Relative scales. Even though we mentioned that WSJF enables accuracy and consistency, it only works if the relative scales are set up right. Since it’s hard to align all metrics and assumptions to achieve balance, the method has room for errors.
WSJF is a great technique to assess and introduce minimum marketable features. However, you should not always rely on WSJF. For example, there are always features in the product that are supposed to be implemented by default and without any discussion.
Walking Skeleton: the best way to prioritize MVP stories
The Walking Skeleton prioritization method appeared in the early 2000s. It was advocated by Dr. Alistair Cockburn, an expert in Agile software development. The Walking Skeleton is used in prioritizing features in MVP and defines which of them are absolutely critical for the product to work.
Walking Skeleton may be smaller than the actual MVP but it puts the necessary features first
The method doesn’t imply requirements falling into certain categories. However, it has distinct features that focus on user stories. Key features first. When using the Walking Skeleton, a delivery team ranks the necessary user stories first. The system must function. Due to the focus on the implementation of the essential points, the key functionality forms a fully operational product, without any additions. Reflects the business concept of a future product. The Walking Skeleton advocates showing business value. That is why the story maps are lined up to display the core system elements within the restricted technical basis. Completed with tests. Since the Walking Skeleton involves the whole production pipeline, including delivery and deployment, the testing is applied as well.
Pros of Walking Skeleton
Fast prioritization. One of the key benefits of Walking Skeleton prioritization for stakeholders is that defining the core features won’t take much time. Key functionality only. When estimating the business value of a future product, it’s often hard to focus on the core element, as there’s always a temptation to make it as comprehensive as possible. The Walking Skeleton helps avoid this situation, putting the operating MVP with the greatest validity first. Fast market validation. Arguably one of the most significant advantages for the Walking Skeleton is that its prioritization results help to quickly get the feedback from users. Therefore, the stakeholders assess the product-market fit and the business idea as a whole. In further releases, they can suit it up.
Cons of Walking Skeleton
Lacks important functionality. While the basic working framework is included, the Walking Skeleton will not involve other additional though still important features. It might play a critical role at some point. Late first release. Although the Walking Skeleton is a rather quick prioritization technique, the first release won't be fast as you still must ship a functioning product. The risk to cut corners. When trying to roll out the basic version of a product as fast as possible, the stakeholders may try to refuse the basic functional features to accelerate the release. That is why when prioritizing the backlog, the team should focus on keeping the basics without omitting them in favor of fast delivery. Otherwise, the very first – and viable – product version is at risk of turning into a prototype that is not ready for the market.
Walking Skeleton is extremely useful when releasing a Minimum Viable Product . Being good in tandem, these two can provide tangible results. However, Walking Skeleton is not the one to rely on when delivering a more sustainable and complex product with numerous extra features or additional business value. For the latter, the stakeholders should consider something more comprehensive and detailed.
As you may have noticed, it’s a bad idea to think that any prioritization approach is suitable for every single product or company. In a nutshell, there are few different sets of methods that fall within the particular categories of products. For instance, if you’re building an MVP, consider combining the Walking Skeleton and Kano model. The Kano model is also a perfect match for building a prototype and gathering feedback on the UX from the target audience. MoSCoW and Eisenhower’s decisions matrix are the best fit for prioritizing backlog requirements when building small products with some preliminary agreements. Equally efficient here is Value vs Complexity/Effort. Working on a ready-made product with already existing lifecycle, consider RICE. Of course, we haven’t covered many prioritization methods. For instance, many teams still rely on the HiPPO method (Highest-Paid Person Opinion). With it being stigmatized, in some cases it works, given that the team lacks expertise and ultimate understanding of a product. Tell us what you use. Are there methods that we missed? Please share.
Social Identity Theory: Introduction to the Minimal Group Studies
PPT
Schematic of experiment set up and minimal group assignment. In each
Tajfel et al (1971): Minimal group paradigm experiments (Results:…
Creating the Minimal Group Paradigm (Video)
Creating the Minimal Group Paradigm (Video)
COMMENTS
Minimal group paradigm
The minimal group paradigm is a method employed in social psychology. [1] [2] [3] Although it may be used for a variety of purposes, it is best known as a method for investigating the minimal conditions required for discrimination to occur between groups.Experiments using this approach have revealed that even arbitrary distinctions between groups, such as preferences for certain paintings, [4 ...
Key Studies: Minimal Group Paradigm (SIT
The minimal group paradigm is the typical design used in experiments that inspired and support SIT. The basic idea is that participants (adults and children have been used in studies) are randomly divided into groups. They are then asked to award rewards, prizes or even money to other participants in specially designed booklets.
Minimal Group Paradigm
The minimal group paradigm is a procedure that researchers use to create new social groups in the laboratory. The goal is to categorize individuals into groups based on minimal criteria that are relatively trivial or arbitrary. For example, the classic procedure involves asking participants to rate paintings made by two artists with similar ...
What is Minimal Group Paradigm?
The experiments performed under this paradigm showed that people are prone to 'group-like' behavior even when the group distinctions are entirely meaningless. Exploring the Minimal Group Paradigm The Basic Procedure. In a typical MGP experiment, participants are divided into groups based on trivial criteria.
Social Identity Theory And The Minimal Group Paradigm
Tajfel and colleagues came up with a neat solution for testing their idea, which is referred to as the minimal group paradigm. From this experiment and others like it Henry Tajfel developed social identity theory. Participants, who were 14 and 15 year-old boys, were brought into the lab and shown slides of paintings by Klee and Kandinsky.
The origins of the minimal group paradigm.
The minimal group paradigm, published by Henri Tajfel and his colleagues in the early 1970s, is a widely used experimental technique for studying intergroup perceptions and behavior. In its original form, it involved the assignment of participants to one of two meaningless categories and asking them to make allocations of rewards to other (anonymous) members of those groups.
The Minimal Group Paradigm and its Minimal Psychology:
Tajfel and Turner's (1979, 1986) social identity theory, the minimal group paradigm with which the theory is associated and two core findings stemming from that paradigm are the focus of this paper. The development of the social identity concept is reviewed, and particular detail is devoted to the empirical basis of the theory, given that the ...
The Minimal Group Paradigm and its maximal impact in ...
One of the most influential paradigms in research on intergroup relations is the Minimal Group Paradigm. Initially motivated by an interest in understanding the basic determinants of social discrimination, this paradigm investigates the impact of social categorization on intergroup relations in the absence of realistic conflicts of interests, and for social categories that are arbitrary and novel.
Creating the Minimal Group Paradigm
The minimal group paradigm is widely used in social psychology to study the most basic elements of intergroup relations. ... Figure 2: Typical payout matrices used in this experiment. Each matrix consists of two rows, reflecting monetary tradeoffs that affect other in-group or out-group members. Matrix types (A, B, and C) are indicated on the ...
The minimal group paradigm: Categorization into two versus three groups
The minimal group paradigm (Tajfel, Billig, Bundy and Flament, 1971) has been influential in the study of intergroup relations. Thus far, most minimal group experiments have divided the subjects either into two groups, or have categorized them on two separate dichotomous dimensions in cross-categorization experiments.
Minimal Group Experiments
Abstract. The 'minimal group paradigm' is an experimental method in which people are assigned to arbitrary groups, and then required to allocate rewards to members of their group or another group. The surprising result of these studies is that ingroup favoritism is elicited under these conditions, suggesting that merely placing people into ...
Minimal Group Paradigm Study experiments Henri Tajfel
Two experiments by Henri Tajfel & colleagues. The Minimal Group Paradigm is a methodology employed in social psychology to investigate the minimal conditions required for discrimination to occur between groups. This paradigm, where a number of assumptions, concepts, values or practices were accepted in order to better allow a view of reality in ...
Minimal Group Procedures and Outcomes
Research using the Minimal Group Paradigm has demonstrated the power of arbitrary group membership to produce prejudice and discrimination on a variety of measures. Despite the continued prominence of this paradigm in the social and behavioral sciences, the relative efficacy of minimal group induction procedures and methodological variations in producing intergroup biases remains largely ...
Minimal Group Paradigm Studies experiments Henri Tajfel
Minimal Group Paradigm Studies. Two experiments by Henri Tajfel & colleagues. The Minimal Group Paradigm is a methodology employed in social psychology to investigate the minimal conditions required for discrimination to occur between groups. This paradigm, where a number of assumptions, concepts, values or practices were accepted in order to ...
The origins of the minimal group paradigm
The minimal group paradigm, published by Henri Tajfel and his colleagues in the early 1970s, is a widely used experimental technique for studying intergroup perceptions and behavior. In its original form, it involved the assignment of participants to one of two meaningless categories and asking them to make allocations of rewards to other ...
Henri Tajfel and the "Minimal Group Paradigm" with Matt Williams
Henri Tajfel and colleagues originally developed the minimal group paradigm in the early 1970s as part of their attempt to understand the psychological basis...
PDF Key$study:$Tajfel$(1970)$Minimal$group$paradigm Background
The aim of Tajfel's research was to investigate if intergroup discrimination would take place based on being put into different groups with consequent categorisation into in-‐groups and out-‐groups in a situation where people had just met. Tajfel hypothesised that it would and that categorisation and discrimination operate automatically ...
Tajfel et al (1971): Minimal group paradigm experiments
There have been replications of the minimal group paradigm experiments that all conclude social categorisation leads to out-group discrimination ; Louse Lemyre and Philip Smith (1985) replicated Tajfel's findings, as well as stating that discriminating participants improved self-esteem, showing that personal identity ties in with social identity, and that discrimination enhances both aspects
PDF Scientometrics, 15(1-2): p.7-12, 1989
the section of mathematical theory of experiment in the interfaculty laboratory of statistical methods (headed by academician A. N. Kolmogorov). Later Nalimov said that the atmosphere within the laboratory with its freedom of scientific research greatly promoted the research in scientometrics and other branches ofscience.
Kuleshov's Effect: The Man behind Soviet Montage
Film historian Ronald Levaco called Kuleshov the "first aesthetic theorist of cinema," a deserved appellation. Yet it's an oddity of Soviet film that such a theorist, doing strange experiments in an editing room, could have so great of an effect. Indeed, without the total destruction of Russian cinema by a chain of sweeping social ...
(Pdf) Non-triviality of The Results of Milgram Field Experiment in
In a group of 8 real Moscow experiments the result (53.9%) of the theoretically minimal in passengers' response to the experimental situation (a young male experimenter and a
The minimal group paradigm: Categorization into two versus three groups
The minimal group paradigm (Tajfel, Billig, Bundy and Flament, 1971) has been influential in the study of intergroup relations. Thus far, most minimal group experiments have divided the subjects either into two groups, or have categorized them on two separate dichotomous dimensions in cross-categorization experiments.
Most Popular Prioritization Techniques and Methods
The Most Popular Prioritization Techniques and Methods: MoSCoW, RICE, KANO model, Walking Skeleton, and others. A product backlog is one of the key artefacts used in software development and specifically in Agile-based frameworks. It's used as a source of story points or tasks to complete in the next sprint.
IMAGES
COMMENTS
The minimal group paradigm is a method employed in social psychology. [1] [2] [3] Although it may be used for a variety of purposes, it is best known as a method for investigating the minimal conditions required for discrimination to occur between groups.Experiments using this approach have revealed that even arbitrary distinctions between groups, such as preferences for certain paintings, [4 ...
The minimal group paradigm is the typical design used in experiments that inspired and support SIT. The basic idea is that participants (adults and children have been used in studies) are randomly divided into groups. They are then asked to award rewards, prizes or even money to other participants in specially designed booklets.
The minimal group paradigm is a procedure that researchers use to create new social groups in the laboratory. The goal is to categorize individuals into groups based on minimal criteria that are relatively trivial or arbitrary. For example, the classic procedure involves asking participants to rate paintings made by two artists with similar ...
The experiments performed under this paradigm showed that people are prone to 'group-like' behavior even when the group distinctions are entirely meaningless. Exploring the Minimal Group Paradigm The Basic Procedure. In a typical MGP experiment, participants are divided into groups based on trivial criteria.
Tajfel and colleagues came up with a neat solution for testing their idea, which is referred to as the minimal group paradigm. From this experiment and others like it Henry Tajfel developed social identity theory. Participants, who were 14 and 15 year-old boys, were brought into the lab and shown slides of paintings by Klee and Kandinsky.
The minimal group paradigm, published by Henri Tajfel and his colleagues in the early 1970s, is a widely used experimental technique for studying intergroup perceptions and behavior. In its original form, it involved the assignment of participants to one of two meaningless categories and asking them to make allocations of rewards to other (anonymous) members of those groups.
Tajfel and Turner's (1979, 1986) social identity theory, the minimal group paradigm with which the theory is associated and two core findings stemming from that paradigm are the focus of this paper. The development of the social identity concept is reviewed, and particular detail is devoted to the empirical basis of the theory, given that the ...
One of the most influential paradigms in research on intergroup relations is the Minimal Group Paradigm. Initially motivated by an interest in understanding the basic determinants of social discrimination, this paradigm investigates the impact of social categorization on intergroup relations in the absence of realistic conflicts of interests, and for social categories that are arbitrary and novel.
The minimal group paradigm is widely used in social psychology to study the most basic elements of intergroup relations. ... Figure 2: Typical payout matrices used in this experiment. Each matrix consists of two rows, reflecting monetary tradeoffs that affect other in-group or out-group members. Matrix types (A, B, and C) are indicated on the ...
The minimal group paradigm (Tajfel, Billig, Bundy and Flament, 1971) has been influential in the study of intergroup relations. Thus far, most minimal group experiments have divided the subjects either into two groups, or have categorized them on two separate dichotomous dimensions in cross-categorization experiments.
Abstract. The 'minimal group paradigm' is an experimental method in which people are assigned to arbitrary groups, and then required to allocate rewards to members of their group or another group. The surprising result of these studies is that ingroup favoritism is elicited under these conditions, suggesting that merely placing people into ...
Two experiments by Henri Tajfel & colleagues. The Minimal Group Paradigm is a methodology employed in social psychology to investigate the minimal conditions required for discrimination to occur between groups. This paradigm, where a number of assumptions, concepts, values or practices were accepted in order to better allow a view of reality in ...
Research using the Minimal Group Paradigm has demonstrated the power of arbitrary group membership to produce prejudice and discrimination on a variety of measures. Despite the continued prominence of this paradigm in the social and behavioral sciences, the relative efficacy of minimal group induction procedures and methodological variations in producing intergroup biases remains largely ...
Minimal Group Paradigm Studies. Two experiments by Henri Tajfel & colleagues. The Minimal Group Paradigm is a methodology employed in social psychology to investigate the minimal conditions required for discrimination to occur between groups. This paradigm, where a number of assumptions, concepts, values or practices were accepted in order to ...
The minimal group paradigm, published by Henri Tajfel and his colleagues in the early 1970s, is a widely used experimental technique for studying intergroup perceptions and behavior. In its original form, it involved the assignment of participants to one of two meaningless categories and asking them to make allocations of rewards to other ...
Henri Tajfel and colleagues originally developed the minimal group paradigm in the early 1970s as part of their attempt to understand the psychological basis...
The aim of Tajfel's research was to investigate if intergroup discrimination would take place based on being put into different groups with consequent categorisation into in-‐groups and out-‐groups in a situation where people had just met. Tajfel hypothesised that it would and that categorisation and discrimination operate automatically ...
There have been replications of the minimal group paradigm experiments that all conclude social categorisation leads to out-group discrimination ; Louse Lemyre and Philip Smith (1985) replicated Tajfel's findings, as well as stating that discriminating participants improved self-esteem, showing that personal identity ties in with social identity, and that discrimination enhances both aspects
the section of mathematical theory of experiment in the interfaculty laboratory of statistical methods (headed by academician A. N. Kolmogorov). Later Nalimov said that the atmosphere within the laboratory with its freedom of scientific research greatly promoted the research in scientometrics and other branches ofscience.
Film historian Ronald Levaco called Kuleshov the "first aesthetic theorist of cinema," a deserved appellation. Yet it's an oddity of Soviet film that such a theorist, doing strange experiments in an editing room, could have so great of an effect. Indeed, without the total destruction of Russian cinema by a chain of sweeping social ...
In a group of 8 real Moscow experiments the result (53.9%) of the theoretically minimal in passengers' response to the experimental situation (a young male experimenter and a
The minimal group paradigm (Tajfel, Billig, Bundy and Flament, 1971) has been influential in the study of intergroup relations. Thus far, most minimal group experiments have divided the subjects either into two groups, or have categorized them on two separate dichotomous dimensions in cross-categorization experiments.
The Most Popular Prioritization Techniques and Methods: MoSCoW, RICE, KANO model, Walking Skeleton, and others. A product backlog is one of the key artefacts used in software development and specifically in Agile-based frameworks. It's used as a source of story points or tasks to complete in the next sprint.