Paradigm Definition Psychology

[Elisa Rathrock]

Minimalgroup paradigm is a social psychology research methodology that proposes that the minimal condition for group biases (like favoritism towards your own group and prejudice towards other groups) is simply being a member of a group.

This research area was first introduced by Henri Tajfel and previously it was believed that group biases occurred because of personal factors. Tajfel proposed that the minimal requirement for group biases and discrimination to occur was simply to be part of a group even if it was for a trivial and random reason. Minimal groups research has shown that irrelevant and arbitrary distribution into groups can cause individuals to favor their group over others and show prejudice towards members of other groups.

For example, in an experiment participants are divided into groups A and B for an arbitrary reason such as shirt type or color preference. After being distributed into arbitrary groups individuals will begin to show favoritism to members of their group and prejudice towards members of other groups. This shows that there doesn't need to be idealogical justification, benefits, or personal factors in group biases- simply being a member of a group was enough for biases to occur.

1998-, AlleyDog.com. All material within this site is the property of AlleyDog.com. This material may not be reprinted or copied for any reason without the express written consent of AlleyDog.com. Privacy Policy - Terms of Service

Within a paradigm, a related set of theories all share fundamental assumptions about learning. Across the different paradigms, assumptions about learning differ in significant ways. The discussion in this module categorizes the theories into just four paradigms and highlights the differences among them. But the similarities across the paradigms are also noteworthy: the paradigms all address the big questions; they are all complex webs of ideas; they all provide descriptions of learning and explanations of why and how learning takes place; and they all support sets of recommendations for helping students learn.

The table below shows how each of these four paradigms answers the big questions. The decision to divide the theories into four paradigms is somewhat arbitrary, however. An even simpler scheme supports just two, which might be called "body" (the behavior of the body: the behaviorist paradigm) and "mind" (thinking and the workings of the brain: the other three paradigms).

The behaviorist paradigm takes the view that we can't really know what is in the human mind, so instruction needs to focus on behaviors. Furthermore, behaviorist thinkers and researchers have developed proven methods for shaping behaviors efficiently. Applied behavior analysis and reinforcement regimes really can change behaviors (including students' classroom behavior). Remember, though, that everything is a "behavior" for a behaviorist: from sitting still for 10 minutes to mastering a foreign language and writing good essays. Some behaviorists believe that students can learn from observing behavior-shaping routines that are used on others and not just themselves.

The information processing and cognitive psychology paradigm takes the view that complex learning manifests itself in the mind as meaning. The mind's creation of meaning, however, is said to follow regular patterns and plans. In recent years, neuroscience has supported earlier claims made by cognitive psychologists, showing that, indeed, the brain is very active during specific sorts of mental activity. Clearly there is a link between thinking (the mind) and behavior (the activity of the brain, which is part of the body). Since the arrival of the digital age, some cognitivists have equated cognition to digital computing. Brains store and retrieve information, and more significantly, chain the information and create webs of information and webs of meaning from such chains.

The social constructivist and situated learning paradigm also understands "development" as important; but instead of treating it as an individual process of meaning-making, it treats it as a form of collective meaning-making. From the perspective of social constructivists, knowledge is a product of group interaction, and learning involves active engagement with a social group, sometimes referred to as a "community of practice." Cultivating students as members of instructionally relevant communities of practice makes the most sense from the perspective of social constructivism. Note that this outlook accommodates informal, out-of-school learning environments (sometimes called "experiential learning") as well as classroom contexts.

One way to get a handle on learning theory is to link individual theorists with the paradigms to which they have made the greatest contributions. The table below categorizes some of the most important learning theorists by paradigm.

The site is secure.

The ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

The author discusses the relevance of the semiotic perspective for the psychological studies in order to deal with some critical issues. In the view of the author, the presumed weakness of psychology, its difficult to be acknowledged among hard sciences, and the lack of worldwide acceptance of its constructs cannot be solved by an evolutionary perspective that risk to cut off many relevant features of living beings and human beings as well. The core of the issue remains untouched. Assuming a wide semiotic paradigm, the mind can be considered a situated, recursive and contextual process of sensemaking engaged in articulating a flow of signs. The process of semiotic mediation is a crucial point at stake: the use of signs is not only to refer/point something or to communicate a message in coded forms, but it is to create models of world in order to think, to act and to share experiences. By a wide range of semiotic processes (iconic, indexical, symbolic), each living specie create its own world. Continuities and discontinuities with humang beings are presented and discussed.

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] or the color of their shirts,[5] can trigger a tendency to favor one's own group at the expense of others, even when it means sacrificing in-group gain.[6][7][8][9]

Although there are some variations, the traditional minimal group study consists of two phases. In the first phase, participants are randomly and anonymously divided into two groups (e.g., "Group A" and "Group B"), ostensibly on the basis of trivial criteria (e.g., preference for paintings or the toss of a coin). Sometimes, these participants are strangers to one another. In the second phase, participants take part in an ostensibly unrelated resource distribution task. During this task, participants distribute a valuable resource (e.g., money or points) between other participants who are only identified by code number and group membership (e.g., "participant number 34 of Group A"). Participants are told that, after the task is finished, they will receive the total amount of the resource that has been allocated to them by the other participants.

The main purpose of the procedures in the minimal group paradigm is to exclude "objective" influences from the situation. In the context of in-group favoritism, the anonymity of participants' personal identities excludes the influence of interpersonal favoritism. The omission of the self as a recipient in the resource distribution task excludes the influence of direct personal self-interest. The absence of any link between total in-group gain and individual gain excludes the influence of realistic competition.[10] Finally, the absence of intergroup status hierarchies, together with the triviality and minimal social content of the groups, excludes the influence of normative or consensual discrimination.[11]

Minimal group experiments tend to find that, although participants show a significant degree of fairness in their allocations,[12] they also show a significant tendency to allocate more money or points to in-group members than to out-group members.[13][14] Importantly, this strategy of maximizing relative in-group gain (maximum differentiation) occurs even when it means sacrificing absolute in-group gain ("Vladimir's choice").[8]

Henri Tajfel and colleagues originally developed the minimal group paradigm in the early 1970s as part of their attempt to understand the psychological basis of intergroup discrimination.[15] Tajfel's intention was to create groups with as little meaning as possible and then add meaning to discover at what point discrimination would occur.[16] The surprising finding was that, even in the most minimal group conditions, responses favoring the in-group occurred.[6] Although Tajfel and colleagues originally explained minimal group discrimination in terms of a generic norm for social competition that exists across societies,[6] this explanation was later thought to be "uninteresting" and not offering any real explanatory or predictive power.[7][17] Tajfel instead developed social identity theory's motivational explanation. In social identity theory, people are thought to award more points to their own group than to the out-group in the minimal group paradigm because, in those circumstances, in-group favoritism is the only way in which to achieve positive distinctiveness.

String pulling is one of the most widely used paradigms in comparative psychology. First documented 2 millennia ago, it has been a well-established scientific paradigm for a century. More than 160 bird and mammal species have been tested in over 200 studies with countless methodological variations. The paradigm can be used to address a wide variety of issues on animal cognition; for example, what animals understand about contact and connection as well as whether they rely on perceptual feedback, grasp the functionality of strings, generalize across conditions, apply their knowledge flexibly, and possess insight. Mammals are typically tested on a horizontal configuration, birds on a vertical one, making the studies difficult to compare; in particular, pulling a string vertically requires better coordination and attention. A species' performance on the paradigm is often influenced by its ecology, especially concerning whether limbs are used for foraging. Many other factors can be of importance and should be considered. The string-pulling paradigm is easy to administer, vary, and apply to investigate a wide array of cognitive abilities. Although it can be and has been used to compare species, divergent methods and unclear reporting have limited its comparative utility. With increasing research standards, the paradigm is expected to become an even more fundamental tool in comparative psychology.

3a8082e126