Match the terms in List-I with the examples given for them in List-II.
| List-I | List-II |
|---|---|
| (A) Social loafing | (I) Colleagues deciding the punishment for an employee caught taking bribe |
| (B) Formal group | (II) Preference for paintings by Kandinsky and Klee |
| (C) Group polarisation | (III) The game of tug-of-war |
| (D) Minimal group paradigm | (IV) A university |
Choose the correct answer from the options given below:
Answer & explanation
Correct answer: option 1
The correct answer is Option (1) → A-III, B-IV, C-I, D-II
| List-I | List-II | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| (A) Social loafing | (III) The game of tug-of-war | Tug-of-war is a collective task: each member's force cannot be identified, so members can relax and loaf. |
| (B) Formal group | (IV) A university | A university is formed on specific rules or laws, and members have definite roles. |
| (C) Group polarisation | (I) Colleagues deciding the punishment for an employee caught taking bribe | Colleagues may let the employee go scot-free or terminate her/his services. The group's initial position grows stronger, giving an extreme decision. |
| (D) Minimal group paradigm | (II) Preference for paintings by Kandinsky and Klee | Tajfel's minimal group paradigm sorted British schoolboys only by their liking for Kandinsky or Klee paintings. Even so small a basis made them favour their own group. |
NCERT (2026-27): “Formal and Informal Groups “Tajfel and his colleagues were interested in knowing the minimal conditions for intergroup behaviour. ‘Minimal group paradigm’ was developed to answer this question. British schoolboys expressed their preference for paintings by two artists — Vassily Kandinsky and Paul Klee. …” “… Social loafing is a reduction in individual effort when working on a collective task, i.e. one in which outputs are pooled with those of other group members. An example of such a task is the game of tug-of-war. It is not possible for you to identify how much force each member of the team has been exerting. Such situations give opportunities to group members to relax and become a free rider. …” “… Groups show another tendency referred to as ‘group polarisation’. It has been found that groups are more likely to take extreme decisions than individuals alone. Suppose there is an employee who has been caught taking bribe or engaging in some other unethical act. Her/his colleagues are asked to decide on what punishment s/ he should be given. They may let her/ him go scot-free or decide to terminate her/his services instead of imposing a punishment which may be commensurate with the unethical act s/ he had engaged in. Whatever the initial position in the group, this position becomes much stronger as a result of discussions in the group. This strengthening of the group’s initial position as a result of group interaction and discussion is referred to as group polarisation. …” |