Exploring Conversations about Inequality through the Minimal Group Paradigm

Abstract

Abstract

Economic inequality in the United States has increased substantially in recent decades, but little is known about how individuals approach conversations about inequality across group boundaries. The present study examined how experimentally assigned advantage and disadvantage shape perceptions, expectations, and willingness to engage in intergroup conversations using a minimal group paradigm. Participants (N = 79) were randomly assigned to advantaged or disadvantaged status via a dot estimation task determining bonus allocation, and then reported perceived fairness, anticipated interaction quality, willingness to engage in conversations with ingroup versus outgroup members, and a donation decision. Results showed that the manipulation influenced fairness perceptions, with advantaged participants rating allocations as more fair than disadvantaged participants. Participants distinguished ingroup from outgroup partners, expecting greater similarity, enjoyment, and lower hostility in ingroup interactions. Conversations about inequality were perceived as more awkward and hostile than control topics, but these differences did not translate into significant variation in willingness to engage as a function of status, partner type, or topic. Instead, anticipated enjoyment and learning were the strongest predictors of engagement. Exploratory analyses, including socioeconomic status, did not reveal associations with willingness to engage in inequality-related dialogue or prosocial behavior. Overall, results suggest that willingness to engage in conversations with ingroup and outgroup partners, across inequality and control topics, is driven less by participant status (advantaged vs. disadvantaged) or partner group membership (ingroup vs. outgroup) and more by anticipated interaction quality and perceived informational and affective value.