No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Young Children, Minimal Groups, and Dichotomous Categorization
Abstract
Research suggests that ingroup bias in the minimal group paradigm may rely on dichotomous categorization, not social categorization per se. Dichotomous categorization may prime competition because of its unique cultural significance. Young children often do not demonstrate the culturally shaped cognitive tendencies of their elders, even though they can. Thus, young children may not show bias in the minimal group context. Two experiments examined these issues. In Experiment 1, children completed a minimal groups task in two-or three-group conditions. They received no prime, a neutral prime, or a competitive prime. As predicted, children did not display ingroup bias in two-or three-group conditions unless competitively primed. In Experiment 2, undergraduate students completed a minimal groups task in two-or three-group conditions. They received no prime or a competitive prime. As predicted, undergraduates displayed bias in two-group contexts. They displayed bias in three-group contexts only when competitively primed.
... They found intergroup bias only in the two-groups condition. Spielman (2000) found that participants only displayed intergroup bias in a threegroups condition when they previously received a competitive prime. Hartstone and Augoustinos (1995) suggested that a dichotomous categorization of ingroup and outgroup may be necessary for intergroup bias to occur in the minimal group paradigm. ...
... In sum, experimental studies using minimal group paradigms found that intergroup bias decreased with multiple outgroups (Hartstone & Augoustinos, 1995;Spielman, 2000), contradicting sociological, economic, and political research indicating decreased social cohesion and trust with more social groups (for a meta-analysis, see Dinesen et al., 2020). This inconsistency likely stems from differing operationalizations and assessments of variables (for a similar argument, see Van der Meer & Tolsma, 2014). ...
... This inconsistency likely stems from differing operationalizations and assessments of variables (for a similar argument, see Van der Meer & Tolsma, 2014). Experimental research operationalized diversity as the number of minimal groups (two vs. three) and measured resource allocation in a laboratory setting (Hartstone & Augoustinos, 1995;Spielman, 2000), whereas sociological and economic research often uses indices to measure a characteristic's distribution in society (e.g., Herfindahl index), with outcome variables typically assessing attitudes via more general items (e.g., trust in other races; Putnam, 2007). ...
In diversifying societies, people are inevitably exposed to an increasing number of outgroups. As impressions of outgroups are more negative than those of ingroups, this may overall lead to more negative social attitudes and behaviors. In six preregistered experiments (N total = 1832) using a minimal group paradigm, we investigated whether the mere number of groups influences the perceived trustworthiness of ingroups, outgroups, and the total population. Our results consistently show that higher diversity does not decrease overall population trustworthiness, despite a larger number of outgroups. This is because of a stronger intergroup bias such that ingroups receive an additional boost in trustworthiness judgments when there are more outgroups. Our experiments show that these effects are not due to objective or perceived group sizes or greater attitude differences toward the group-defining attributes. Instead, people seem to perceive members of their ingroup as more similar to themselves if there is a higher number of outgroups and high similarity is related to high perceived trustworthiness.
... Further, 5-to 10-year-olds reported lower prosocial intentions toward out-group members in a competitive compared with a non-competitive scenario [30]. In an interesting study, Spielman [31] primed 6-year-old children with stories either including a competitive or neutral interaction of peers and thereby elicited a competitive versus a neutral (i.e. noncompetitive) psychological orientation. ...
... On the other hand, it might promote preschoolers' general prosociality toward others. The current study aimed to examine these two effects and to replicate the findings of Spielman [31] and Toppe et al. [56]. Like Toppe et al. [56], we used a dyadic game (after this referred to as an intervention game) to elicit a cooperative, competitive and solitary orientation. ...
... Given the urgent need for replications in psychological research [57], our study aimed at a conceptual replication of the results found by Spielman [31] and Toppe et al. [56] with a larger sample size. Besides, we intended to extend these two studies in different aspects. ...
Past research suggests that children favour their in-group members over out-group members as indicated by selective prosociality such as sharing or social inclusion. This preregistered study examined how playing a cooperative, competitive or solitary game influences German 4- to 6-year-olds’ in-group bias and their general willingness to act prosocially, independent of the recipient's group membership ( N = 144). After playing the game, experimenters introduced minimal groups and assessed children's sharing with an in-group and an out-group member as well as their social inclusion of an out-group member into an in-group interaction. Furthermore, we assessed children's physical engagement and parents' social dominance orientation (SDO)—a scale indicating the preference for inequality among social groups—to learn more about inter-individual differences in children's prosocial behaviours. Results suggest that children showed a stronger physical engagement while playing competitively as compared with cooperatively or alone. The different gaming contexts did not impact children's subsequent in-group bias or general willingness to act prosocially. Parental SDO was not linked to children's prosocial behaviours. These results indicate that competition can immediately affect children's behaviour while playing but raise doubt on the importance of cooperative and competitive play for children's subsequent intergroup and prosocial behaviour.
... The claims regarding reputation management in adults raise the question of how reputation concerns emerge in childhood, and whether children's sensitivity to reputation concerns differ according to the group identity of a recipient. Like adults, children as young as five years of age exhibit a strong preference for ingroup members over outgroup individuals (Fehr et al., 2008;Nesdale, Griffith, Durkin, & Maass, 2005), whether these groups are familiar and meaningful or are so-called ''minimal groups", established using arbitrary characteristics such as color or drawing ability (Dunham, Baron, & Carey, 2011;Nesdale & Flesser, 2001;Spielman, 2000;Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971). Not only do children have a more favorable attitude toward ingroup members than outgroup members, but they also prioritize their ingroup when allocating resources (Fehr et al., 2008;Moore, 2009;Yu et al., 2016) and expect others to act in the same manner (Olson & Spelke, 2008), even if they believe that sharing equally with both groups is the nicer thing to do (DeJesus, Rhodes, & Kinzler, 2014). ...
... We predicted that, consistent with prior literature, children would give more to ingroup members than to outgroup members (Fehr et al., 2008;Spielman, 2000, Yu et al., 2016, and that they would give more in public than in private (Buhrmester et al., 1992;Engelmann et al., 2012;Leimgruber et al., 2012). Less clear, however, was whether this preference for ingroup members would interact with children's reputation concerns. ...
... In Study 1, we investigated children's relative concern for positive self-presentation when giving to ingroup and outgroup members, as well as their evaluations of other children's sharing with different group members. To establish group membership, we assigned children to arbitrarily defined groups using the minimal group paradigm (Dunham et al., 2011;Tajfel et al., 1971), and told them that the different groups were in competition with one another (based on previous findings that this strengthens ingroup preference; Spielman, 2000). We then tested children in two phases. ...
Previous studies establish that reputation concerns play an important role in outgroup giving. However, it is unclear whether the same is true for ingroup giving, which by some accounts tends to be motivated by empathic concerns. To explore this question, we tested the extent to which 5 to 9-year-old children (Study 1: N = 164) and adults (Study 2: N = 80) shared resources with ingroup and outgroup members, either when being watched by an observer (where we expected reputation concerns to be salient) or in private (where we expected no effect of reputation concerns). We also assessed whether children and adults differ in their beliefs about which form of sharing (ingroup or outgroup giving) is nicer. Although we found that both children and adults exhibited an ingroup bias when sharing, there was no evidence in either group that reputation concerns were greater for outgroup members than for ingroup members. We also found that, in contrast to adults, children shared more resources when observed than in private. Additionally, children evaluated ingroup giving as nicer across different sharing scenarios, whereas adults identified outgroup giving as nicer when the two forms of giving were contrasted. These results are the first to suggest that reputational concerns influence children's sharing both with ingroup and outgroup members, and that children differ from adults in their reasoning about which form of group sharing is nicer.
... The claims regarding reputation management in adults raise the question of how reputation concerns emerge in childhood, and whether children's sensitivity to reputation concerns differ according to the group identity of a recipient. Like adults, children as young as five years of age exhibit a strong preference for ingroup members over outgroup individuals (Fehr et al., 2008;Nesdale, Griffith, Durkin, & Maass, 2005), whether these groups are familiar and meaningful or are so-called "minimal groups", established using arbitrary characteristics such as color or drawing ability (Dunham, Baron, & Carey, 2011;Nesdale & Flesser, 2001;Spielman, 2000;Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971). Not only do children have a more favorable attitude toward ingroup members than outgroup members, but they also prioritize their ingroup when allocating resources (Fehr et al., 2008;Moore, 2009;Yu et al., 2016) and expect others to act in the same manner (Olson & Spelke, 2008), Reputation concerns and group sharing 5 even if they believe that sharing equally with both groups is the nicer thing to do (DeJesus, Rhodes, & Kinzler, 2014). ...
... We predicted that, consistent with prior literature, children would give more to ingroup members than to outgroup members (Fehr et al., 2008;Spielman, 2000, Yu et al., 2016, and that they would give more in public than in private (Buhrmester et al., 1992;Engelmann et al., 2012;Leimgruber et al., 2012). Less clear, however, was whether this preference for ingroup members would interact with children's reputation concerns. ...
... In Study 1, we investigated children's relative concern for positive self-presentation when giving to ingroup and outgroup members, as well as their evaluations of other children's sharing with different group members. To establish group membership, we assigned children to arbitrarily defined groups using the minimal group paradigm (Dunham et al., 2011;Tajfel et al., 1971), and told them that the different groups were in competition with one another (based on previous findings that this strengthens ingroup preference; Spielman, 2000). We then tested children in two phases. ...
Previous studies establish that reputation concerns play an important role in outgroup giving. However, it is unclear whether the same is true for ingroup giving, which by some accounts tends to be motivated by empathic concerns. To explore this question, we tested the extent to which 5 to 9-year-old children (Study 1: N=164) and adults (Study 2: N=80) shared resources with ingroup and outgroup members, either when being watched by an observer (where we expected reputation concerns to be salient) or in private (where we expected no effect of reputation concerns). We also assessed whether children and adults differ in their beliefs about which form of sharing (ingroup or outgroup giving) is nicer. Although we found that both children and adults exhibited an ingroup bias when sharing, there was no evidence in either group that reputation concerns were greater for outgroup members than for ingroup members. We also found that, in contrast to adults, children shared more resources when observed than in private. Additionally, children evaluated ingroup giving as nicer across different sharing scenarios, whereas adults identified outgroup giving as nicer when the two forms of giving were contrasted. These results are the first to suggest that reputational concerns influence children’s sharing both with ingroup and outgroup members, and that children differ from adults in their reasoning about which form of group sharing is nicer.
... Thus, these groups are purely cognitive […]" (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Experiments on minimal groups have reliably shown that such an ad hoc intergroup categorization is sufficient to lead to ingroup favoritism and outgroup discrimination (e.g., Dunham et al., 2011;Spielman, 2000) in children from 3 to 4 years of age (Richter, Over, & Dunham, 2016). Whether minimal groups also promote the transmission of functionally irrelevant ritualistic actions in an over-imitation paradigm is therefore of great interest. ...
... Several ways to manipulate minimal group membership in children have been reported in the literature (e.g., Spielman, 2000;Dunham et al., 2011). Here, we compare the effects of different minimal group formation processes thought to evoke different degrees of commitment to the group. ...
... Children underwent the group formation process before beginning with the over-imitation task and thus before seeing any action demonstrations by the experimenters. We formed two groups (instead of three or more), since this has been found to lead to stronger ingroup biases (Hartstone & Augoustinos, 1995;Spielman, 2000). We also included a no-group condition for comparison . ...
This study investigated influences of group membership on preschoolers’ (N = 174) over-imitation, focusing on artificially formed minimal groups. Children observed an ingroup or outgroup model demonstrating an inefficient strategy. We tested whether group membership influenced the elicitation of over-imitation (Phase 1). Subsequently, they observed an outgroup/ingroup model demonstrating an efficient strategy and we tested whether group membership influenced the persistence of over-imitation when a more efficient solution is available (Phase 2). Although we found a significant increase in over-imitation with an increasing emphasis of group membership during group formation, over-imitation rates were not affected by group membership of the model. It did not make a difference whether children observed either strategy by an ingroup or outgroup model. We conclude that minimal group membership itself did not affect children's tendency to over-imitate. Nevertheless, we assume that children's over-imitation was influenced by general aspects of the group formation process, such as the playful context which was created prior to the demonstrations.
... Minimal Grup Paradigmasının kullanıldığı çalışmalarda, bebeklikten itibaren giderek daha kapsamlı biçimde sosyal bağlamdan gruplararası süreçlerin okunabildiği gözlenmiştir. Çocuklar paradigmanın önermeleriyle uyumlu biçimde rastgele/önemsiz gruplara ayrıldıklarında bile gruplararası tutumlar geliştirmekteler (Abrams ve diğerleri, 2003(Abrams ve diğerleri, , 2007(Abrams ve diğerleri, , 2008Spielman, 2000). Paradigmanın kullanıldığı çalışmalarda, birinci olarak Abrams ve diğerleri (2003), 5-12 yaş arası çocuklarda akran sorumluluğu ve iç grup yanlılığı gibi sosyal ve bilişsel faktörlerin çocukların grup dinamikleri anlayışının gelişimini nasıl etkilediğine odaklanmıştır. ...
... Bu bağlamda alana önemli ve özgün bilgiler sunan gruplararası süreçleri görgül biçimde ortaya çıkaran ilk araştırmalardan olan Sherif ve diğerlerinin (1961) ünlü alan deneyi sosyal kimlik yaklaşımının ve Minimal Grup Paradigmasının da temellerini oluşturduğunu belirtmemiz gerekir. Sherif'in Hırsızlar Mağarası (Robbers Cave) olarak bilinen ünlü çalışmasında ortaya konulan, belirli çevresel koşullar altında, farklı gruplara rastgele atanan 11 yaşlarındaki erkek çocukların, rekabetçi ortamlarda birbirlerine karşı hızla önyargılar ve olumsuz tutumlar geliştirmiş olmaları, çok sayıda araştırmada tekrar edilen bir bulgu olmuştur (Bigler & Liben, 2006Du ve diğerleri, 2021;Mulvey ve diğerleri, 2014;Rhodes & Brickman, 2011;Spielman, 2000). Çalışmalar, gelişimsel dönemlerine uygun olarak çocukların orta çocukluktan itibaren gruplararası farklılıkları ve grup içi benzerlikleri daha fazla algıladıklarını, kendi gruplarına ("içgruplar") karşı daha kayırmacı olduklarını (Du ve diğerleri, 2021) ve diğer gruplara ("dışgruplar") karşı reddedici, aşağılayıcı veya önyargılı olabildiklerini göstermektedir (Bigler & Liben, 2006;Bigler & Patterson, 2007;Killen & Rutland, 2011). ...
Bu derleme, çocukluk döneminde liderliğin ortaya çıkışını ve gelişimini, özellikle benlik ve sosyal kimlik oluşumunun psiko-sosyal gelişimle olan etkileşimine odaklanarak eleştirel bir şekilde incelemektedir. Liderlik, genellikle müstakil bir beceri olarak görülse de bu bakış açısı sosyal ve psikolojik faktörlerin önemli etkilerini dikkate almamaktadır. Bu derlemede, dört gelişimsel yaklaşımın, Gelişimsel Gruplararası Kuramının, Sosyal Kimlik Gelişim Kuramının, Sosyal Akıl Yürütme Gelişim Modelinin ve Gelişimsel Öznel Grup Dinamikleri Modelinin, çocuklarda liderlik gelişimine ilişkin kuramsal açıklamaları ve araştırma bulguları sunulmaktadır. Bu yaklaşımların sosyal kimlik gelişim süreçlerinin sonuçları olarak liderlik motivasyonlarının ve davranışlarının ortaya çıktığı örüntüleri aydınlatmadaki rolü eleştirel bir şekilde değerlendirilmektedir. Bu kuramların ortak noktaları, grup süreçleri içerisinde ortaya çıkan liderliğin, olumlu benlik motivasyonuna dayandığı, gerçekliği anlama arayışı ile kavrayabilme becerisine ve sosyal çevreden bilgi toplama kapasitesine sahip olmayı gerektirdiğini öne sürmeleridir.
... One way to increase the salience of an ingroup identity is to divide people into two groups-"us" and "them"-which facilitates social comparison, competition, and conflict (e.g., Brewer, 2001;Esses et al., 1998;Hartstone & Augoustinos, 1995;Sherif, 1966;Spielman, 2000). In fact, the minimal group paradigm (Tajfel et al., 1971), used to study intergroup processes for decades, typically divides participants into "us" and "them." ...
... We know of only two studies to date that have expanded the minimal group paradigm beyond the two-group context (Hartstone & Augoustinos, 1995;Spielman, 2000). In both papers, the researchers modified the minimal group paradigm to include two groups or three groups, and then they compared levels of intergroup bias (measured as preferential resource allocation to the ingroup over the outgroup[s]) between the conditions. ...
We examined how the number of groups in a categorization task influences how White Americans categorize ambiguous faces. We investigated the strength of identity-driven ingroup overexclusion-wherein highly identified perceivers overexclude ambiguous members from the ingroup-proposing that, compared with dichotomous tasks (with only the ingroup and one outgroup), tasks with more outgroups attenuate identity-driven ingroup overexclusion (a dilution effect). Fourteen studies (n = 4,001) measured White Americans' racial identification and their categorizations of ambiguous faces and manipulated the categorization task to have two groups, three groups, or an unspecified number of groups (open-ended). In all three conditions, participants overexcluded faces from the White category on average. There was limited support for the dilution effect: identity-driven ingroup overexclusion was absent in the three-group task and only weakly supported in the open-ended task. The presence of multiple outgroups may dampen the impact of racial identity on race perceptions among White Americans.
... Our findings, however, are concordant with other developmental work on the formation of intergroup attitudes, which tend to show relatively weak baseline ingroup preferences. For example, studies by Bigler and colleagues (1997) and Spielman (2000) have suggested that minimal group affiliation in the absence of other functional differences between groups does not lead to strong ingroup preferences. Similarly, Dunham et al. (2011) found only weak baseline preferences for the ingroup on explicit measures (ranging from no effect to moderate effects depending on the measure). ...
... Despite this, group affiliation reliably evokes differential responses in more subtle measures, such as sensitivity to novel information (in this study) and implicit attitudes (Dunham et al., 2011). Additional factors over and above group assignment, such as intergroup competition, differential status, or even group size (Bigler et al., 2001;Brown & Bigler, 2002;Spielman, 2000), may evoke stronger ingroup biases. ...
Children, like adults, tend to prefer ingroup over outgroup individuals, but how this group bias affects children's processing of information about social groups is not well understood. In this study, 5- and 6-year-old children were assigned to artificial groups. They observed instances of ingroup and outgroup members behaving in either a positive (egalitarian) or a negative (stingy) manner. Observations of positive ingroup and negative outgroup behaviors reliably reduced children's liking of novel outgroup members, while observations of negative ingroup and positive outgroup behaviors had little effect on liking ratings. In addition, children successfully identified the more generous group only when the ingroup was egalitarian and the outgroup stingy. These data provide compelling evidence that children treat knowledge of and experiences with ingroups and outgroups differently, and thereby differently interpret identical observations of ingroup versus outgroup members.
... Как справедливо указывала М. Бруэр, положительная пристрастность к своей группе (ingroup love/bias) не ведет автоматически к враждебности к другим группам (outgroup hate) (Brewer, 1999). Понимание этого процесса как автоматического часто рассматривается исследователями в качестве ограничения теории социальной идентичности, в особенности при тестировании теории с использованием парадигмы минимальных групп (Brown, 2000;Spielman, 2000). Поэтому в качестве другого крайне существенного устремления авторы IPM предлагают проанализировать легитимацию 5 (нормативное узаконение) негативного поведения в отношении аутгруппы (Mummendey, Wenzel, 1999). ...
Current analysis represents a rationale for the relationship between the two concepts: “ingroup projection” and “covert prejudice”, and the phenomena behind them. Prototypicality allows group members to consider their ingroup as the most normatively “correct” one. When studying ingroup projection, the primary focus of attention was a negative attitude towards another group, expressed openly, but in recent decades, researchers have increasingly documented the transformation of prejudice into covert, subtle forms: symbolic, ambivalent or aversive (Brown, 2010). Covert forms of prejudice or, in other words, a hidden negative attitudes towards another group attract the attention of researchers primarily due to the sudden transition from an outwardly neutral or positive attitude to a negative evaluation of an outgroup with a subsequent behavior. However, a precise comparison of ingroup projection and forms of covert prejudice has not previously been carried out in the scientific literature. Our analysis reveals that ingroup projection can be considered as a tool for a cover prejudice maintaining and enhancement. Moreover, this support might be different for different forms of covert prejudice. The most significant relationship is to be expected for symbolic forms, forms that mainly reflect a search for ways of an outwardly legitimate cover for a negative attitude towards other groups. Ambivalent forms of prejudice can both intensify and transform into other forms (for example, dehumanization) with the strengthening of the ingroup projection. Aversive bias, we suggested, should be less related to the ingroup projection; nevertheless, the social norms of interaction that ingroup projection can make both clear and vague take on special significance in this case. The paper ends with a discussion of the directions for studying the relationship between ingroup projection and forms of cover prejudice in the Russian context. In particular, the civic identity content of the inhabitants of Russia is discussed, and the conflict between value orientations that can lead to the transition of prejudices into covert forms is considered.
... Our approach is consistent with recent attempts to develop a more comprehensive understanding of intergroup relations that moves beyond a binary (two-group) perspective, which has the potential to enrich both conflict analysis and resolution (Dixon et al., 2020;Ferguson et al., 2014). Illustrative of this, while classical research shows that categorization into minimal groups can lead to intergroup competition and discrimination (Tajfel et al., 1971), studies dividing participants into three groups found less intergroup competition and discrimination (Hartstone & Augoustinos, 1995;Spielman, 2000). This suggests that a dichotomous categorization into 'us' and 'them' triggers competitive orientations more than a manifold division of groups (i.e. three or more groups). ...
In‐between groups encompass individuals who simultaneously belong to social categories that are often seen as mutually exclusive in addition to maintaining their distinct group identity. The current paper sheds light on how members of in‐between groups manage their relations within intergroup conflicts. Three studies were conducted among the Druze minority in Israel, a group that is ethnically Arab and shares the Arab identity with the Arab–Palestinian minority in Israel and simultaneously identifies as Israeli. In Study 1 (N = 300), we found that identification as Druze was positively associated with the identification as Arab and Israeli. In Study 2, we examined Druze's endorsement of conflict narratives compared to Jewish‐Israeli and Palestinian citizens (N = 271). While the latter participants endorsed their ingroup narrative more than the outgroup narrative, Druze participants endorsed both narratives equally. In Study 3, we tested Druze's solidarity with the Palestinian minority against the 2018 Nation‐State Law. We found that overall, Druze participants (N = 568) endorsed more inclusive amendments that benefited the Druze and Palestinians than exclusive amendments that benefited the Druze only. In all studies, we tested the role of identification with the rival groups. We discuss these findings and suggest possible underlying mechanisms.
... Previous research has found that competitive relationships between groups can further increase intergroup conflict [25]. Placing two groups in an openly competitive relationship can usually enhance intergroup prejudice and hostility [26]. Even if the two groups do not engage in overt competition, there is an asymmetry in power and access to valuable resources for the different groups, which predicts perceptions of competitiveness [27]. ...
Schadenfreude is a joyful emotional response to the misfortune of others. Individuals’ schadenfreude over the misfortunes of ingroup and outgroup members may vary depending on how groups interact. Accordingly, this study examines the effects of different social interaction patterns and group identity on schadenfreude and their mechanisms. The study participants were Chinese college students. Study 1 (n = 83) investigated whether there are differences in individuals’ schadenfreude towards ingroup and outgroup members under two different patterns of social interaction: cooperation and competition. On the basis of this study, Study 2 (n = 73) focused on the mechanisms underlying the influence of individuals’ Schadenfreude on ingroup and outgroup members in competitive situations, and the mediating role of disgust. It was found that there was an interaction between group identity and social interaction patterns, with people showing more schadenfreude over the misfortunes of outgroup members than ingroup members, and competitive situations increasing disgust and schadenfreude over outgroup members. However, no differences were found in individuals’ schadenfreude towards ingroup and outgroup members in cooperative situations. This is instructive in terms of real-life intergroup relations as well as patterns of social interaction. This proves that cooperation and group contact is a way to reduce schadenfreude.
... The majority of research using the MGP has explored how outcomes vary according to features of the groups themselves rather than the induction procedures used for their assignment. This research has included manipulations of group characteristics such as group similarity (Diehl, 1988), number (Hartstone & Augoustinos, 1995;Spielman, 2000), status (Harvey & Bourhis, 2012;Otten et al., 1996;Rothgerber & Worchel, 1997;Sachdev & Bourhis, 1991) and size (Leonardelli & Brewer, 2001;Sachdev & Bourhis, 1991). Manipulations that target group norms (e.g., Lee et al., 2012;Maio et al., 2009) or identification (e.g., Gagnon & Bourhis, 1996;Stroebe et al., 2005) may have the largest moderating effects on minimal ingroup biases (Pechar & Kranton, 2017). ...
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 unknown. The present research compared the effects of minimal group induction procedures across multiple measures of discrimination and both implicit and explicit measures of evaluation and identification. We tested six induction procedures and other methodological variations, such as manipulations designed to increase the meaning of the groups or to undermine assumed reciprocity in the allocation tasks. Regardless of procedural manipulation, participants demonstrated bias in favor of their minimal ingroup on most outcome measures. However, the magnitude of the minimal group effect varied somewhat according to outcome, induction, and other methodological features.
... Eines der populärsten Paradigmen im Bereich Diskriminierung stellt die Theorie der minimalen Gruppen von Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament (1971) (Pechar & Kranton, 2017;Abrams, Rutland, Ferrell, & Pelletier, 2008;Hertel & Kerr, 2001;Montoya & Pittinsky, 2013). Ebenso steigert die Salienz eines Intergruppenwettbewerbs oder die Vorstellung, die andere Gruppe sei unmoralisch oder unfair, die Fremdgruppendiskriminierung (Lee, Adair, Mannix, & Kim, 2012;Spielman, 2000;Abrams et al., 2008;Chen & Li, 2009;Hetherington, Hendrickson, & Koenig, 2014;Diehl, 1990;Jetten, Spears, & Manstead, 1996;Pechar & Kranton, 2017). Bei Aktivierung der gegensätzlichen Norm, nämlich Gleichberechtigung und Kooperation, zeigte sich dagegen eine Reduktion von Intergruppendiskriminierung (Pechar & Kranton, 2017;Maio, Hahn, Frost, & Cheung, 2009 (Forgas & Fiedler, 1996). ...
Neff (2003a) beschreibt Self-Compassion als Fähigkeit, sich selbst auch in schwierigen Lebenssituationen mitfühlend und in positiver Grundeinstellung zu begegnen. Ethnozentrismus ist die Wahrnehmung der Eigengruppe als Zentrum. Alles andere wird an ihr gemessen und bewertet, wobei Fremdgruppen meist abgewertet werden (Sumner, 1906; Neuliep & McCroskey, 1997). Das Konstrukt Autoritarismus, das Konservatismus und Unterordnung beschreibt, wurde in den 1950er
Jahren durch Adorno, Frenkel-Brenswik, Levinson, & Sanford eingeführt und wird bis heute verwendet, um Vorurteile und Diskriminierung zu erklären (Bierlein, Asbrock, Kauff, & Schmidt, 2014). In der Autoritarismusforschung von Decker, Yendell & Brähler (2018) gilt die fehlende Wahrnehmung von Anerkennung als eine Ursache für autoritäre und ethnozentrische Verhaltensweisen. Daneben soll auch ein niedriger Selbstwert Ethnozentrismus und Autoritarismus vorhersagen können (Kehoe, 1982; Oesterreich, 2005). Es wird angenommen, dass Personen mit weniger Self-Compassion stärkere anti-demokratische Einstellungen zeigen. In einer Onlinebefragung, an der 153 Versuchspersonen teilnahmen, wurden Self-Compassion, Ethnozentrismus,
Autoritarismus, Anerkennung und der Selbstwert erhoben. In den Korrelations-, Regressions-, und Mediationsanalysen konnte kein Zusammenhang zwischen Self-Compassion und anti-demokratischen
Einstellungen festgestellt werden. In den Post-hoc-Analysen wurden allerdings Hinweise auf einen verstärkenden Einfluss von Self-Compassion gefunden, insbesondere in Form eines Moderationseffektes. Je weniger Self-Compassion eine Person zeigte, desto stärker war der Zusammenhang zwischen Ethnozentrismus und Autoritarismus. Die Ergebnisse wurden diskutiert und in den gesellschaftlichen sowie wissenschaftlichen Diskurs eingebettet.
... The great majority of research on children's intergroup attitudes uses a binary framework and in doing so tends to ignore settings in which there are multiple groups on a single categorization dimension or settings in which multiple categorization dimensions are used. Related to the former, experimental research among children that uses a third group has found only signs of ingroup preference within a competitive setting (e.g., Hartstone & Augoustinos, 1995Augoustinos & Rosewarne, 2001Spielman, 2000). Children's understanding and evaluation of intergroup differences can be different in a tripartite group setting compared to a binary one. ...
There are various theoretical approaches for understanding intergroup biases among children and adolescents. This article focuses on the social identity approach and argues that existing research will benefit by more fully considering the implications of this approach for examining intergroup relations among youngsters. These implications include (a) the importance of self-categorization, (b) the role of self-stereotyping and group identification, (c) the relevance of shared understandings and developing ingroup consensus, and (d) the importance of coordinated action for positive and negative intergroup relations. These implications of the social identity approach suggest several avenues for investigating children’s and adolescents’ intergroup relations that have not been fully appreciated in the existing literature. However, there are also limitations to the social identity approach for the developmental understanding and some of these are discussed.
... Similar to Elliott, the great majority of research on children's ingroup biases uses a binary framework and, in doing so, tends to ignore more complex situations. Some experimental research among children that does use a third group has found only signs of ingroup bias within a competitive setting (e.g., Hartstone & Augoustinos, 1995;Spielman, 2000). Additionally, experimental work combining two categorization dimensions (e.g., gender and ethnicity) has found lower ingroup bias and more complex patterns of intergroup differentiation with, for example, intersecting categories (ingroup member on one dimension-e.g., gender-and an outgroup on the other dimension-e.g., ethnicity) being evaluated more positively than those who differ on both categorization dimensions (e.g., Brewer et al., 1987;Vanbeselaere, 1987). ...
This article discusses the social identity approach (social identity theory and self-categorization theory) for understanding children’s ingroup biases in attitudes and behaviors. It is argued that developmental research on ingroup bias will be enhanced by more fully considering the implications of this approach. These implications include (a) the conceptualization of group identity, (b) the importance of social reality and children’s epistemic motivation, (c) the role of processes of normative influence and social projection, and (d) the relevance of moral considerations. These four implications have not been fully considered in the developmental literature but indicate that the social identity approach offers the possibility for theoretically integrating and empirically examining various processes involved in children’s ingroup biases.
... given their distinct clothing patterns and behaviors, which may have licensed inferences regarding norm-appropriate behaviors within and across groups (Abrams, Rutland, Pelletier, & Ferrell, 2009;Brenick et al., 2010;Rhodes, 2012;Spielman, 2000). That is, between-group competition requires within-group coordination, which could increase prescriptiveness (e.g., if ...
Children negatively evaluate those who fail to conform to group norms (e.g., doctors who harm people, boys who wear lipstick; Kalish, 2012), yet to what extent do groups per se evoke a prescriptive stance? This was unaddressed in previous research, which provided additional cues that may have encouraged a prescriptive stance (e.g., moral principles, membership in one of the groups, or cultural input regarding non-conformity). In this dissertation, I tested whether children interpreted innocuous behaviors of novel groups (harmless characteristics shared by individuals within an unfamiliar group) as prescriptive (characteristics that individuals should do). Children ages 4-13 and adults were introduced to two novel groups: Hibbles and Glerks, who engaged in innocuous behaviors (i.e., the kind of music they listened to, berries they ate, games they played, and language they spoke). They were then shown conforming and non-conforming individuals and were assessed on the extent to which they approved or disapproved of their actions (measured though evaluations, negativity ratings, and open-ended explanations). In Chapter II, I report three studies finding that children disapproved of non-conformity and justified their disapproval through norm-based reasoning (e.g., “Hibbles are not supposed to do that”; Study 1). These effects replicated across competitive and cooperative intergroup contexts (Study 2) and stemmed from reasoning about group norms rather than norms applied to individuals (Study 3). In Chapter III, to more precisely understand what information children used to detect group norms, a new group of children was randomly distributed across four conditions that manipulated how group norms were presented: group labels, generic statements, visual groups, or control. Children disapproved of non-conformity in all but the control condition. Because U.S. society tends to value independence over interdependence (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), U.S. children may come to perceive non-conformity as an expression of individuality, and thus evaluate it less negatively than children from societies that tend to value interdependence. I tested this in Chapter IV by assessing children and adults recruited in Jianshi, China (population ~ 500,000). Paralleling U.S. children, Jianshi children disapproved of non-conformity and their rates of disapproval declined with age. In contrast to U.S. children, however, they remained relatively more disapproving at an older age. Collectively, these findings demonstrate that children used group norms to generate prescriptive judgments, and that this tendency emerged 1) when reasoning about innocuous behaviors in novel groups, 2) with only minimal perceptual and linguistic input, and 3) across cultures, though variable in the rate at which it declined across development. I will discuss the implications for how readily children engage in group-based norm enforcement and stereotyping, as well as the theoretical and practical significance of the present findings, and will detail concrete directions for future research.
... Participant's identification with the group was induced by informing him/her of his/her belonging to that group. This strategy is usual in studies that employ the minimal group paradigm, where the mere assignment to a group and the information of the existence of an out-group are sufficient for individuals to behave as group members (e.g., Yee and Brown, 1992;Spielman, 2000;Nesdale and Flesser, 2001;Nesdale et al., 2007;Dunham et al., 2011). In the group condition, in the absence of an out-group, identification was induced by highlighting the interdependence between group members and the fact that group success had been achieved thanks to the cooperation among all members (Sherif et al., 1961;Johnson and Johnson, 2005). ...
Envy is the result of a social comparison that shows us a negative image of ourselves. The present study addresses the effect of the context of group comparison and group identification on children's expression of this emotion. Through different stories, participants aged between 6 and 11 years were exposed to four contexts of upward social comparison in which they had to adopt the role of the disadvantaged character. From their emotional responses and their decisions in a resource allocation task, three response profiles were created: malicious envy, benign envy, and non-envy. Although we found important differences between verbal and behavioral responses, the results showed greater envy, both malicious and benign, when the envied was an out-group. On the other hand, when the envied belonged to the in-group and competed with a member of the out-group, malicious but not benign envy practically disappeared. With age, envious responses decreased, and non-envious responses increased. The role of social identity in the promotion and inhibition of envy is discussed, as well as the acquisition of emotional display rules in the benign envy and non-envy profiles.
... However, real-world social groups also vary along many other dimensions that we cannot control for, which makes it difficult to know which aspects of the group children are focusing on most when they make their evaluations. For this reason, it would be beneficial to complement work on real-world groups with methodologies, such as the minimal group paradigm, that allow for closer experimental control (Dunham et al., 2011;Spielman, 2000). ...
Children generally favor individuals in their own group over others, but it is unclear which dimensions of the out‐group affect this bias. This issue was investigated among 7‐ to 8‐year‐old and 11‐ to 12‐year‐old Iranian children (N = 71). Participants evaluated in‐group members and three different out‐groups: Iranian children from another school, Arab children, and children from the United States. Children’s evaluations closely aligned with the perceived social status of the groups, with Americans viewed as positively as in‐group members and Arabs viewed negatively. These patterns were evident on measures of affiliation, trust, and loyalty. These findings, which provide some of the first insights into the social cognition of Iranian children, point to the role of social status in the formation of intergroup attitudes.
... Indeed, as we have noted, in many areas of research little or no evidence exists about what we've called the "complex relationality" of intergroup processes. Moreover, the work that does exist has sometimes qualified what we think we know (e.g., see Hartstone & Augoustinos, 1995;Spielman, 2000). As Zagefka (2019, p. 3) has recently emphasised: "The huge body of work on dyadic intergroup processes has undoubtedly generated a plethora of important findings and insights. ...
The social psychology of intergroup relations has emerged largely from studies of how one group of people (e.g., whites) think and feel about another (e.g., blacks). By reducing the social world to binary categories, this approach has provided an effective and efficient methodological framework. However, it has also obscured important features of social relations in historically divided societies. This paper highlights the importance of investigating intergroup relationships involving more than two groups and of exploring not only their psychological but also their political significance. Exemplifying this argument, we discuss the conditions under which members of disadvantaged groups either dissolve into internecine competition or unite to challenge the status quo, highlighting the role of complex forms of social comparison, identification, contact, and third-party support for collective action. Binary conceptualizations of intergroup relations, we conclude, are the product of specific sociohistorical practices rather than a natural starting point for psychological research.
... Second, social categorization phenomena can often be understood in terms of a tension between object and relational matching. Five-to six-year-olds children take the most minimal cues (such as tshirt color) as signaling ingroup membership (Dunham, Baron, & Carey, 2011;Dunham & Emory, 2014;Spielman, 2000) . But if we temporarily set aside our knowledge of social status, we will discover that seemingly fundamental cues in adult social grouping-gender, race, nose shape in Rwanda-are, in essence, object matching cues. ...
My mom, mother rabbit, mother country—these are all multiple exemplars of the relational concept “mother.” How do we come to understand that these are exemplars of the same concept? This chapter explains the mechanisms for learning about multiple exemplars, particularly multiple exemplars of relations. I discuss why perceiving relational exemplars is difficult, and how structure mapping theory (Gentner, Cogn Sci Multidiscip J 7(2):155–170, 1983) provides precise learning mechanisms that learners use to understand relational exemplars. Given the scope of the problems and solutions, a new area of research emerges: social relational learning. The social world is fundamentally characterized by relations such as kinships, friendships, alliances, and social hierarchies; these relations govern behavior and have far-reaching consequences (friends help; foes do not). Understanding social learning as a relational learning problem gives insight to how learners acquire complex knowledge about their social world—such as differentiating various exemplars of friends versus foes.
... In addition to an evaluative preference for individuals from familiar social groups, research within the minimal group paradigm suggests that children form both implicit and explicit social group evaluations almost immediately following identification with a group (Baron & Dunham 2015, Bigler et al. 1997, Dunham 2018, Dunham et al. 2011, Spielman 2000. Such findings, when coupled with recent evidence that even young infants exhibit a preference for individuals who exhibit similar preferences as themselves (Hamlin et al. 2013, Mahajan & Wynn 2012, suggest that at least for the social categories with which people identify, positive evaluations of those groups may form automatically (Dunham 2018). ...
Social categorization is a universal mechanism for making sense of a vast social world with roots in perceptual, conceptual, and social systems. These systems emerge strikingly early in life and undergo important developmental changes across childhood. The development of social categorization entails identifying which ways of classifying people are culturally meaningful, how these categories might be used to predict, explain, and evaluate the behavior of other people, and how one's own identity relates to these systems of categorization and representation. Social categorization can help children simplify and understand their social environment but has detrimental consequences in the forms of stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. Thus, understanding how social categorization develops is a central problem for the cognitive, social, and developmental sciences. This review details the multiple developmental processes that underlie this core psychological capacity.
... In the present research we examined the influence of peer group norms in an intergroup context on the development of children and adolescents' allocation of resources between their own group and other groups. Developmental research has made salient competitive contexts, in which it is assumed both the ingroup and outgroup hold a competitive norm and showed that in these contexts, among children from approximately seven years of age, outgroup prosociality decreases and intergroup bias increases (Abrams, Rutland, & Cameron, 2003;Abrams, Van de Vyver, Pelletier, & Cameron, 2015;Spielman, 2000;Zhu, Guan, & Li, 2015). Yet the ingroup and outgroup norm are not always the same in intergroup contexts. ...
Cooperation is a fundamental drive of moral behavior from infancy, yet competitive intergroup contexts can exert a significant influence on resource allocation behavior in childhood. The present study explored how ingroup and outgroup norms of competition and cooperation influenced the allocation of resources between groups among children and adolescents, along with how they reasoned about these allocations. Ingroup norms combined, for the first time, with outgroup norms were manipulated to examine their effect on the development of intergroup resource allocation. Participants aged 8 to 16 years (n = 229) were told that their ingroup and the outgroup held either a competitive or cooperative norm about how they should behave in an arts competition. They then allocated tokens for expenditure in the competition between the 2 teams, and provided social reasoning to justify their chosen allocations. Results showed a negative outgroup norm of competition led to significantly more ingroup bias when the ingroup also held a competitive rather than a cooperative norm. In contrast, a positive outgroup norm of cooperation did not result in significantly less ingroup bias when the ingroup also held a cooperative norm. Additionally, adolescents, unlike children who allocated equally were more likely to make reference to fair competition, a form of moral reasoning, in the competitive compared with the cooperative ingroup norm condition. This study showed that children and adolescents considered both ingroup and outgroup norms simultaneously when making intergroup resource allocations, but that only adolescents varied their reasoning to justify these allocation in line with group norms. (PsycINFO Database Record
... Importantly, this occurred with very few children (7/152). This, along with previous research that has successfully used minimal group paradigms in amoral contexts (Dunham et al., 2011;Nesdale & Flesser, 2001;Spielman, 2000), suggests that it was not a lack of comprehension that was driving the results. ...
Extensive research has demonstrated that children show a robust in-group bias and, concurrently, are highly attuned to the prosocial and antisocial behavior of others. The limited research investigating the capacity for antisocial behavior to attenuate children’s in-group bias has, however, returned mixed findings. Moreover, no research has examined how this might interact with perceived group permeability. Thus, the current study aimed to provide a more complete understanding of the relationship between in-group bias and antisocial behavior, how this interacts with perceptions of out-group behavior, and how group context (permeability) influences these responses. Children at age 4 and 5 years and age 7 and 8 years were assigned to a group randomly or based on their performance of a task. They then watched videos of in-groups and out-groups behaving prosocially and antisocially, in differing combinations, with the key experimental conditions focusing on an antisocial in-group paired with either a prosocial or antisocial out-group. In-group preference was then determined using liking ratings, resource allocation, and perceived similarity to the in-group. For older children, but not younger children, antisocial behavior, but not group permeability, was found to attenuate in-group bias for measures of liking and association. Interestingly, no effect was identified for children’s own resource allocation behavior. This indicates that although there is a robust effect of antisocial behavior on in-group judgments, it does not extend so far as to influence children to behave antisocially themselves.
... Children in Study 1 may have assumed that the novel groups were competing coalitions, given their distinct clothing patterns and behaviors, which may have licensed inferences regarding norm-appropriate behaviors within and across groups (Abrams, Rutland, Pelletier, & Ferrell, 2009;Rhodes, 2012;Spielman, 2000). That is, between-group competition requires within-group coordination, which could increase prescriptiveness (e.g., if Hibbles and Glerks are working against each other, Hibbles should conform to other Hibbles), whereas between-group cooperation requires between-group coordination, which could decrease prescriptiveness (e.g., if Hibbles and Glerks are working together, there may indeed be benefits for Hibbles conforming to Glerks). ...
When do descriptive regularities (what characteristics individuals have) become prescriptive norms (what characteristics individuals should have)? We examined children's (4–13 years) and adults' use of group regularities to make prescriptive judgments, employing novel groups (Hibbles and Glerks) that engaged in morally neutral behaviors (e.g., eating different kinds of berries). Participants were introduced to conforming or non-conforming individuals (e.g., a Hibble who ate berries more typical of a Glerk). Children negatively evaluated non-conformity, with negative evaluations declining with age (Study 1). These effects were replicable across competitive and cooperative intergroup contexts (Study 2) and stemmed from reasoning about group regularities rather than reasoning about individual regularities (Study 3). These data provide new insights into children's group concepts and have important implications for understanding the development of stereotyping and norm enforcement.
... Furthermore, around the same age children are sensitive to minimal group membership and show a tendency to prefer previously unfamiliar and meaningless (i.e. "minimal") groups [14][15][16]. However, published findings in younger children have so far been largely negative. ...
We investigate young children’s sensitivity to minimal group membership. Previous research has suggested that children do not show sensitivity to minimal cues to group membership until the age of five to six, contributing to claims that this is an important transition in the development of intergroup cognition and behavior. In this study, we investigated whether even younger children are sensitive to minimal cues to group membership. Random assignment to one of either of two color groups created a temporary, visually salient minimal group membership in 3 and 4-year-old study participants. Using explicit measures, we tested whether children preferred minimal group members when making social judgments. We find that, in the absence of any knowledge regarding the two groups, children expressed greater liking for ingroup than outgroup targets. Moreover, children estimated that ingroup members would share their preferences. Our findings demonstrate that from early in development, humans assess unknown others on the basis of minimal cues to social similarity and that the perception of group boundaries potentially underlies social assortment in strangers.
... Children in Study 1 may have assumed that the novel groups were competing coalitions, given their distinct clothing patterns and behaviors, which may have licensed inferences regarding norm-appropriate behaviors within and across groups (Abrams, Rutland, Pelletier, & Ferrell, 2009;Rhodes, 2012;Spielman, 2000). That is, between-group competition requires within-group coordination, which could increase prescriptiveness (e.g., if Hibbles and Glerks are working against each other, Hibbles should conform to other Hibbles), whereas between-group cooperation requires between-group coordination, which could decrease prescriptiveness (e.g., if Hibbles and Glerks are working together, there may indeed be benefits for Hibbles conforming to Glerks). ...
When do descriptive regularities (what characteristics individuals have) become prescriptive norms (what characteristics individuals should have)? We examined children’s (4-13 years) and adults’ use of group regularities to make prescriptive judgments, employing novel groups (Hibbles and Glerks) that engaged in morally neutral behaviors (e.g., eating different kinds of berries). Participants were introduced to conforming or non-conforming individuals (e.g., a Hibble who ate berries more typical of a Glerk). Children negatively evaluated non-conformity, with negative evaluations declining with age (Study 1). These effects were replicable across competitive and cooperative intergroup contexts (Study 2), and stemmed from reasoning about group regularities rather than reasoning about individual regularities (Study 3). These data provide new insights into children’s group concepts and have important implications for understanding the development of stereotyping and norm enforcement.
... Indeed, both children and adults even show preferences for previously unfamiliar social groups to which they have been randomly assigned (e.g. Baron & Dunham, 2013;Bigler et al., 1997;Brewer, 1979;Dunham et al., 2011;Greenwald et al., 2002;Nesdale & Flesser, 2001;Nesdale et al., 2003Nesdale et al., , 2007Spielman, 2000). Consistent with these fmdings, Yee and Brown (1994) report that 2 year olds verbally express an own gender preference on explicit attitude measures; little boys like boys and little girls like girls. ...
... However, the relationship between this effect and choice homophily as a consequence of shared traits remains unclear, especially as they focus on different trait types. In the case of arbitrary group assignment, transforming the dichotomous group distinction (i.e. group A vs. group B) into a three-group distinction (i.e. group A vs. group B vs. group C) reduces the tendency towards in-group favoritism [31,32]. Real-world categories that act as markers for groups of individuals, such as age, are rarely dichotomous, so in these cases we might expect minimal group effects to become so diluted that they become irrelevant [24]. ...
Homophily, the tendency for individuals to associate with those who are most similar to them, has been well documented. However, the influence of different kinds of similarity (e.g. relating to age, music taste, ethical views) in initial preferences for a stranger have not been compared. In the current study, we test for a relationship between sharing a variety of traits (i.e. having different kinds of similarity) with a stranger and the perceived likeability of that stranger. In two online experiments, participants were introduced to a series of virtual partners with whom they shared traits, and subsequently carried out activities designed to measure positivity directed towards those partners. Greater numbers of shared traits led to linearly increasing ratings of partner likeability and ratings on the Inclusion of Other in Self scale. We identified several consistent predictors of these two measures: shared taste in music, religion and ethical views. These kinds of trait are likely to be judged as correlates of personality or social group, and may therefore be used as proxies of more in-depth information about a person who might be socially more relevant.
... From the age of five, in competitive contexts children view outgroup-directed prosocial behaviour as less acceptable and outgroup-directed antisocial behaviour as more acceptable (Rhodes & Brickman, 2011). When competition is primed, children also show ingroup bias in their resource allocations (Spielman, 2000). Implied by these findings is that we should expect prosocial intentions towards outgroup members to reduce when group membership and intergroup competition are more relevant or salient (Study 1). ...
When will children decide to help outgroup peers? We examined how intergroup competition, social perspective taking (SPT), and empathy influence children's (5-10 years, N = 287) prosocial intentions towards outgroup members. Study 1 showed that, in a minimal group situation, prosociality was lower in an intergroup competitive than in a non-competitive or interpersonal context. Study 2 revealed that, in a real groups situation involving intergroup competition, prosociality was associated with higher empathy and lower competitive motivation. In a subsequent non-competitive context, there were age differences in the impact of SPT and competitive motivation. With age, relationships strengthened between SPT and prosociality (positively) and between competitiveness and prosociality (negatively). Among older children, there was a carry-over effect whereby feelings of intergroup competitiveness aroused by the intergroup competitive context suppressed outgroup prosociality in the following non-competitive context. Theoretical and practical implications for improving children's intergroup relationships are discussed.
© 2015 The British Psychological Society.
... In-group/out-group classification is generally thought to be a very strong effect (e.g. Castelli, Vanzetto, Sherman, & Arcuri, 2001;Turner, Brown, & Tajfel, 1979); people show bias towards in-group members even when the distinctions between groups are entirely arbitrary (Hartstone & Augoustinos, 1995;Spielman, 2000;Stürmer, Snyder, Kropp, & Siem, 2006;Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971). Part of this tendency to show positive bias towards our in-group may come from a belief that someone who is part of the group has already been evaluated and accepted by others whose opinions we trust. ...
Homophily, the tendency for people to cluster with similar others, has primarily been studied in terms of proximal, psychological causes, such as a tendency to have positive associations with people who share traits with us. Here we investigate whether homophily could be correlated with perceived group membership, given that sharing traits with other people might signify membership of a specific community. In order to investigate this, we tested whether the amount of homophily that occurs between strangers is dependent on the number of people they believe share the common trait (i.e. the size of group that the trait identifies). In two experiments, we show that more exclusive (smaller) groups evoke more positive ratings of the likeability of a stranger. When groups appear to be too inclusive (i.e. large) homophily no longer occurs, suggesting that it is not only positive associations with a trait that cause homophily, but a sense of the exclusiveness of a group is also important. These results suggest that group membership based on a variety of traits can encourage cohesion between people from diverse backgrounds, and may be a useful tool in overcoming differences between groups.
... Priming competition in kindergarteners has been useful in untangling the links between ingroup bias and mental representations of competition (Spielman, 2000; Study 1). Ingroup bias, or showing preferential treatment to one's ingroup members compared to outgroup members, has been widely replicated in adults in the minimal group paradigm, in which people are assigned arbitrarily to a group (e.g., coin toss). ...
Experimentally created “minimal” social groups are frequently used as a means to investigate core components of intergroup cognition in children and adults. Yet, it is unclear how the effects of such arbitrary group memberships compare to those of salient real-world group memberships (gender and race) when they are directly pitted against each other in the same studies. Across three studies, we investigate these comparisons in 4–7-year-olds. Study 1 (N = 48) establishes the minimal group paradigm, finding that children develop ingroup preferences as well as other forms of group-based reasoning (e.g., moral obligations) following random assignment to a minimal group. Study 2 (N = 96) and Study 3 (N = 48) directly compare this minimal group to a real-world social group (gender or race) in a cross-categorization paradigm, in which targets are participants' ingroups in terms of the minimal group and outgroups in terms of a real-world social group, or vice versa. The relative strength of the minimal group varies, but in general it either has a similar effect or a stronger effect as compared to race and in some cases even gender. Our results support the contention that an abstract tendency to divide the world into “us” and “them” is a central force in early intergroup cognition.
As American democracy remains in crisis, reform proposals proliferate. I make two contributions to the debate over how to respond to the current crisis. First, I organize reform proposals into three main categories: moderation, realignment, and transformation. I then argue why transformation is necessary, given the deep structural problems of American democracy. Only reforms that fundamentally shake up the political coalitions and electoral incentives can break the escalating two-party doom loop of hyperpartisanship that is destroying the foundations of American democracy.
Research has shown that both ingroup bias and concern for procedural justice emerge early in development; however, these concerns can conflict. We investigated whether 6- to 8-year-old children are more influenced by procedural justice versus ingroup favoritism in a resource allocation task. In our first study, children played a novel spinner game in which they chose among fair, ingroup favoring, and outgroup favoring procedures to decide whether a resource would go to an unfamiliar ingroup or outgroup recipient. We found that 6- to 8-year-olds overall chose ingroup favoring procedures. However, this tendency decreased with age; whereas younger children were more likely to select procedures that were advantageous to their ingroup, older children (7- and 8-year-olds) mostly chose fair procedures. Our second study investigated the motivations underpinning children’s choices by testing whether children’s fair procedure choices were in part driven by a desire to appear fair. Here we varied whether children made procedure choices in public, allowing them to manage their reputation, versus in private, where reputational concerns should not guide their choices. We found that from 6 to 8 years of age children chose ingroup favoring procedures and that this tendency was slightly stronger when choosing in private. Taken together, our research suggests that ingroup favoritism often trumps procedural justice in resource allocation tasks, especially for younger children and especially when reputation is not in play.
Group norms are necessary for navigating the social world, but they also constrain how we think about individuals. This manuscript progresses in three parts, along the way integrating research from cognitive, developmental, and social psychology, as well as the broader social sciences, to present a theoretical perspective on how the tendency to interpret descriptive norms (i.e., what is) as prescriptive (i.e., what should be) is an early emerging bias to maintain the status quo. First, I define descriptive-to-prescriptive reasoning and review previous research on how it maintains the status quo. Second, I review a recent programme of research on the early development of descriptive-to-prescriptive reasoning. Third, I provide suggestions for future research, particularly in the domain of redirecting descriptive-to-prescriptive reasoning for good. Overall, I propose that descriptive-to-prescriptive reasoning biases children to keep groups in their place and prevent them from changing. Implications for stereotyping and group-based inequality are discussed.
Many social exchanges produce benefits that would not exist otherwise, but anticipating conflicts about how to distribute these benefits can derail exchange and destroy the gains. Coordination norms can solve this problem by providing a shared understanding of how to distribute benefits, but such norms can also perpetuate group-level inequality. To examine how inequitable norms evolve culturally and whether they generalize from one setting to another, we conducted an incentivized lab-in-the-field experiment among kindergarten (5–6) and second-grade (8–9) children living in Switzerland (4′228 decisions collected from 326 children). In Part 1, we created two arbitrarily marked groups, triangles and circles. We randomly and repeatedly formed pairs with one triangle and one circle, and players in a pair played a simple bargaining game in which failure to agree destroyed the gains from social exchange. At the beginning of Part 1 we suggested a specific way to play the game. In symmetric treatments, this suggestion did not imply inequality between the groups, while in asymmetric treatments it did. Part 2 of the experiment addressed the generalization of norms. Retaining their group affiliations from Part 1, each child had to distribute resources between an in-group member and an out-group member. Children of both age groups in symmetric treatments used our suggestions about how to play the game to coordinate in Part 1. In asymmetric treatments, children followed our suggestions less consistently, which reduced coordination but moderated inequality. In Part 2, older children did not generalize privilege from Part 1. Rather, they compensated the underprivileged. Younger children neither generalized privilege nor compensated the underprivileged.
Although previous meta-analytic evidence supports the existence of parochialism in cooperation among adults, the extent to which children and adolescents are more willing to incur a personal cost to benefit ingroups, compared to outgroups, is not yet clear. We provide the first meta-analysis on the existence and magnitude of parochialism in cooperation among pre-adults. Based on 20 experimental economics studies (k = 69, N = 5268, age = 3–19, 12 countries, published 2008–2019), a multilevel meta-analytic model revealed a small overall effect size indicating that children and adolescents were more cooperative towards ingroups (d = 0.22, 95% CI [0.07, 0.38]). A series of single-moderator analyses tested for the following conditions: participant age and sex; game type ([mini-]dictator game, prisoner's dilemma, public goods dilemma, trust game, ultimatum game); outcome interdependence; membership manipulation (between- vs. within-subjects); group type (natural vs. experimental); reward type (monetary vs. non-monetary); and country of the participant. Parochial cooperation did not vary with participants' age. Parochialism was larger in non-interdependent (dictator-type) compared to interdependent (bargaining and social dilemma) games. There were no moderating effects of group type, membership manipulation or reward type. To provide more data on how parochialism develops, primary studies should report age ranges more precisely and use more restricted age groups.
Recent studies suggest that an estimated 61 million rural migrants in China were living outside their hometowns with their children left behind. We examine the impact of parental migration on the social identity among children by conducting a field experiment with 311 children from a major labor-exporting area in China. By exploiting a natural setting on varying parental migration status, we want to study whether children interact with left-behind children and children under parental care differently. Children in our experiment make decisions to divide tokens between left-behind children and children under parental care. They also play a dictator game and an ultimatum game between themselves and another child, whose identity characteristics vary. We find that children, regardless of their own identity, show stronger generosity towards the left-behind children, propose sharing higher amounts with left-behind children, and are willing to accept lower proposed amounts from left-behind children.
There is substantial research on children’s evaluations of transgressors, but less is known about the extent to which children view actions toward recipients as indicative of a recipient’s personality or deserved outcomes. We examined the extent to which 3‐ to 5‐year‐olds, relative to an adult comparison group, judged the recipients of negative behavior as bad people who deserve punishment and recipients of positive behavior as good people who deserve praise. Participants evaluated the recipients of positive and negative acts in both a social conventional domain and a moral domain. Overall, children demonstrated an asymmetrical judgment pattern: they perceived recipients of positive behavior as good people who deserve praise and recipients of negative behavior as not bad nor deserving punishment. Adults made more conservative dispositional judgments than children. These findings suggest an asymmetry in assigning credit or blame to the recipients of others’ actions in a manner consistent with an overall positivity bias in person perception. Implications for children’s reasoning about disposition and the potential intersection with moral development are discussed.
Two experiments examined how informants' group membership (social cue) and visual access (epistemic cue) influence children's selective trust in information provided by different informants in both competitive and non-competitive contexts. Children (3- and 4-year-olds, N = 35; 6- and 7-year-olds, N = 33) were assigned to “membership” groups (blue or red), while an ingroup informant and an outgroup informant provided conflicting testimony about a hidden picture in a box. In the non-competitive context (Experiment 1), children in both age groups trusted the ingroup informant more when both informants had visual access (baseline) and when only the ingroup informant had visual access (consistent). In an inconsistent scenario where only the outgroup informant had visual access, both the younger and the older children’s trust in the ingroup informant decreased, with only the 6- to 7-year-olds being less likely than chance to choose the ingroup informant. In Experiment 2 where children were told that the two groups were competitive, the older children endorsed the ingroup informant more compared to their performance in Experiment 1. The proportion of older children who claimed the ingroup informant was more trustworthy increased in the inconsistent scenario. Results suggest that older children attached more weight to visual access in the non-competitive context but they showed some sensitivity to informants’ self-interests in the competitive context, whereas younger children did not show a clear preference for either of the two cues when making selective trust decisions.
This a preprint of the following article: Lazić, A., Purić, D., & Krstić, K. (2021). Does parochial cooperation exist in childhood and adolescence? A meta-analysis. International Journal of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12791 Although previous meta-analytic evidence supports the existence of parochialism in cooperation among adults, the extent to which children and adolescents are more willing to incur a personal cost to benefit ingroups, compared to outgroups, is not yet clear. We provide the first meta-analysis on the existence and magnitude of parochialism in cooperation among pre-adults. Based on 20 experimental economics studies (k = 69, N = 5268, age = 3–19, 12 countries, published 2008–2019), a multilevel meta-analytic model revealed a small overall effect size indicating that children and adolescents were more cooperative towards ingroups (d = 0.22, 95% CI [0.07, 0.38]). A series of single-moderator analyses tested for the following conditions: participant age and sex; game type ([mini-]dictator game, prisoner's dilemma, public goods dilemma, trust game, ultimatum game); outcome interdependence; membership manipulation (between- vs. within-subjects); group type (natural vs. experimental); reward type (monetary vs. non-monetary); and country of the participant. Parochial cooperation did not vary with participants' age. Parochialism was larger in non-interdependent (dictator-type) compared to interdependent (bargaining and social dilemma) games. There were no moderating effects of group type, membership manipulation or reward type. To provide more data on how parochialism develops, primary studies should report age ranges more precisely and use more restricted age groups.
Across four experiments we tested children's (N = 229, aged 4-9) beliefs about what makes an individual a member of a group. One model (groups as institutions) predicts children believe groups are based on constitutive rules, i.e. collectively agreed-upon rules that ground membership. Another model (groups as social network) predicts children believe groups are based on patterns of social relationships. We tested whether and to what extent children rely on constitutive rules to attribute group membership. We found that young children can reason about constitutive rules as a means of becoming a group member, and their reasoning about constitutive rules is relatively sophisticated (Studies 1-3). But, when constitutive rules are pitted against friendship, young children (4-5) prioritize friendship and older children (6-9) prioritize constitutive rules. Therefore, both models contribute to the understanding of children's concepts of social groups across development.
Even after a peace agreement, children often grow up within societies characterized by division and simmering intergroup tensions. In Northern Ireland, segregated Protestant and Catholic neighborhoods occur side by side, separated by ‘peace walls’ or physical barriers that demarcate ‘interface’ areas, which have higher levels of violence compared to non-interface areas. The study explored the impact of living in interface and non-interface neighborhoods, the strength of ingroup identity, and outgroup attitudes on intergroup resource distributions of 88 children aged between 5 and 9 years old, growing up in Belfast. The findings revealed that compared to those in non-interface areas, children living in interface neighborhoods distributed more resources to an ingroup member than an outgroup member. This effect was accentuated for those children that more strongly identified with their community group, either Protestant or Catholic. At the same time, children with more positive outgroup attitudes distributed more resources to an outgroup member, but only in non-interface neighborhoods. By applying a framework that incorporates converging social and developmental processes, the study adds to a mounting body of research that aims to understand the impact of living in divided societies on children’s intergroup attitudes and behaviors. The implications for promoting resource sharing across group lines within post-accord Northern Ireland are discussed.
Understanding the origins of prejudice necessitates exploring the ways in which children participate in the construction of biased representations of social groups. We investigate whether young children actively seek out information that supports and extends their initial intergroup biases. In Studies 1 and 2, we show that children choose to hear a story that contains positive information about their own group and negative information about another group rather than a story that contains negative information about their own group and positive information about the other group. In a third study, we show that children choose to present biased information to others, thus demonstrating that the effects of information selection can start to propagate through social networks. In Studies 4 and 5, we further investigate the nature of children's selective information seeking and show that children prefer ingroup-favouring information to other types of biased information and even to balanced, unbiased information. Together, this work shows that children are not merely passively recipients of social information; they play an active role in the creation and transmission of intergroup attitudes.
Three experiments explored whether group membership affects the acquisition of richer information about social groups. Employing a minimal-groups paradigm, 6- to 8-year-olds were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 novel social groups. Experiment 1 demonstrated that immediately following random assignment to a novel group, children were more likely to generalize negative behaviors to outgroup members and positive behaviors to ingroup members and to report a preference for ingroup members. Experiments 2 and 3 showed that this initial ingroup-favoring bias interacts with subsequent learning, thereby attenuating the effect of negative information about the ingroup and enhancing the effect of negative information about the outgroup. These effects were more powerful with respect to preferences than induction: After hearing that some ingroup members behaved badly, children predicted that ingroup members would behave more negatively than outgroup members, but they did not express preferences for the outgroup over the ingroup. Together these data shed light on the construction of social category knowledge as well as the processes underlying the absence of own-group positivity among children from lower-status social groups.
Three studies examined the communication of naïve theories of social groups in conversations between parents and their 4-year-old children (N = 48). Parent-child dyads read and discussed a storybook in which they either explained why past social interactions had occurred (Study 1) or evaluated whether future social interactions should occur (Studies 2 and 3). In all three studies, the content of parents’ and children's explanations reflected an intuitive theory of social groups as markers of intrinsic obligations, whereby individuals are obligated to avoid harm to and direct positive actions towards their in-group members. Furthermore, Studies 2 and 3 suggested that when discussing the normative obligations that guide behavior, parents covertly reinforce their children's developing beliefs about social categories. Implications for the development of social cognition are discussed.
Events affecting an ingroup with which one identifies trigger group-based emotions. Thus, identification with a group seems to be a crucial determinant of group-based emotions. However, some theories (e.g., Russell, 2003) suggest bi-directional causal links between components of emotions. The current research examines whether group-based emotions may also influence ingroup identification. In a study, type of emotion (happiness vs. anger) and object of emotion (ingroup vs. outgroup) were manipulated. The results show an interaction effect of type of emotion and object of emotion on change in ingroup identification. Identification increases with happiness towards the ingroup or anger towards the outgroup, whereas identification decreases with anger toward the ingroup and happiness toward the outgroup. Moreover, the intensity of emotions determines the degree of change in identification. The implications for approaches of group-based emotions are discussed.
Two studies were conducted to test the hypothesis that information about intergroup competition is central to children's representations of social categories. Children (N = 99, 5- and 6-year-olds) were introduced to two novel social categories, which were described as having competing or noncompeting goals, by varying the quantity of a resource in which both groups were interested. When groups had competing (as compared with noncompeting) goals, children expected category membership to more strongly constrain prosocial and antisocial behaviors, viewed category membership as more fundamental to identity, were more likely to reference categories to explain behavior, and viewed categories as characterized by unique social obligations. Results further indicated that children reliably inferred when goals were competing versus noncompeting based on information about resource quantity. Implications for the conceptual systems that support the development of social categorization are discussed.
In a series of four experiments, we examined the impact of varying the salience of an extremely different out-group on subjects' evaluations of a moderately different out-group. Evaluations of the moderately different out-group were accentuated when the extreme out-group was present: In a preliminary study and in Experiment 1, the moderate out-group was rated more poorly; in Experiments 1, 2, and 3, it was rated more favorably. Results were interpreted in a social judgment framework. Evidence from Experiment 3 indicated that salience of the extreme out-group was associated with a shift in the positions subjects thought the moderate out-group espoused. This shift in judgment may have brought about or at least justified the change in subjects' evaluations of the moderate out-group. Implications for intergroup relations are considered in the discussion. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Three experiments with 91 college students examined the effects of social categorization on memory for behaviors associated with in-group and out-group members. In Exp I, it was predicted and found that social categorization generates the implicit expectancy that the in-group engages in more favorable and/or less unfavorable behaviors than does the out-group. To test the hypothesis that such expectancies bias memory for behaviors associated with in-groups and out-groups, Ss in Exp II were given favorable and unfavorable information about in-group and out-group members and were later tested for recognition memory. Ss showed significantly better memory for negative out-group than for negative in-group behaviors. Exp III assessed the locus of the memory effect and found that the effect could not be attributed to a simple response bias. Implications for intergroup perception are discussed. (17 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Previous research on the minimal intergroup discrimination effect suggests that (a) apparently random social categorization may be sufficient to induce differential responses toward similarly and dissimilarly categorized others and (b) perceived categorical similarity (or intragroup vs intergroup comparisons) may be the basis for the effect. Four experiments were conducted with 227 undergraduates to provide 2 independent tests of the hypotheses. Exps I and II demonstrated that social categorization resulting from a lottery procedure was sufficient to elicit differential allocation of chips to and differential social evaluation of in- and out-group members. Exp III and IV demonstrated that both information about the reward value of the in-group and information about the reward value of the out-group had an impact on Ss' discriminatory behavior. The directions of the effects were opposite: rewards from the in-group increased and those from the out-group decreased discriminatory behavior. (27 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Tested the hypothesis that the favorableness of ingroup evaluations increases directly with the distinctiveness of ingroup membership (i.e., as the ingroup's relative size decreases). Ingroups of various sizes were experimentally created. 56 university students then wrote a short essay and evaluated essays ostensibly written by 2 other Ss, one of whom "happened" to be an ingroup member, the other, an outgroup member. The hypothesis was supported: the smaller the ingroup, the more favorable were evaluations of the ingroup writer relative to the outgroup writer. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
The present study is one of a series exploring the role of social categorization in intergroup behaviour. It has been found in our previous studies that in ‚minimal' situations, in which the subjects were categorized into groups on the basis of visual judgments they had made or of their esthetic preferences, they clearly discriminated against members of an outgroup although this gave them no personal advantage. However, in these previous studies division into groups was still made on the basis of certain criteria of ‚real' similarity between subjects who were assigned to the same category. Therefore, the present study established social categories on an explicitly random basis without any reference to any such real similarity.
It was found that, as soon as the notion of ‚group' was introduced into the situation, the subjects still discriminated against those assigned to another random category. This discrimination was considerably more marked than the one based on a division of subjects in terms of interindividual similarities in which the notion of ‚group' was never explicitly introduced. In addition, it was found that fairness was also a determinant of the subjects' decisions.
The results are discussed from the point of view of their relevance to a social‐cognitive theory of intergroup behaviour.
The aim of the studies was to assess the effefcs of social categorization on intergroup behaviour when, in the intergroup situation, neither calculations of individual interest nor previously existing attitudes of hostility could have been said to have determined discriminative behaviour against an outgroup. These conditions were satisfied in the experimental design. In the first series of experiments, it was found that the subjects favoured their own group in the distribution of real rewards and penalities in a situation in which nothing but the variable of fairly irrelevant classification distinguished between the ingroup and the outgroup. In the second series of experiments it was found that: 1) maximum joint profit independent of group membership did not affect significantly the manner in which the subjects divided real pecuniary rewards; 2) maximum profit for own group did affect the distribution of rewards; 3) the clearest effect on the distribution of rewards was due to the subjects' attempt to achieve a maximum difference between the ingroup and the outgroup even at the price of sacrificing other ‘objective’ advantages.
The design and the results of the study are theoretically discussed within the framework of social norms and expectations and particularly in relation to a ‘generic’ norm of outgroup behaviour prevalent in some societies.
The impact of cultural meaning systems on the development of everyday social explanation is explored in a cross-cultural investigation undertaken among Indian and American adults and children (ages 8, 11, and 15 year). It is demonstrated that at older ages Americans make greater reference to general dispositions and less reference to contextual factors in explanation than do Hindus . References to general dispositions also undergo a much greater developmental increase among Americans than among Hindus , whereas references to contextual factors show the opposite pattern of developmental change. Evidence suggests that these cross-cultural and developmental differences result from contrasting cultural conceptions of the person acquired over development in the two cultures rather than from cognitive., experiential, or informational differences between attributors . Discussion focuses on theoretical implications of such a demonstration for understanding: (a) the importance of integrating semantic with structural considerations in theories of social attribution, (b) the need to develop nonteleological frameworks for interpreting age and cultural diversity in conceptualization, and (c) the role of cultural communication in the acquisition of everyday social knowledge.
Children's strategies in giving money to others were examined in an intergroup condition, based on a "weak" act of social categorization, and in an interpersonal condition, based on "strong" friendship choice. Over a series of trials, coins were arranged on cards so that each decision was made in a 3 X 2 matrix. Children used a Maximum Difference (relative gain) strategy to a marked degree, a Maximum Ingroup Payoff (absolute gain) to some extent, but a Maximum Joint Payoff strategy hardly at all. The Maximum Difference strategy was used as much in the "weak" intergroup condition as in the "strong" interpersonal condition, and as frequently among younger as among older children.
2 studies are reported that concern children's use of personality traits and abilities to predict the behavior of other persons. In Study 1, subjects first observed vignettes that were designed to reveal an actor's abilities or personality traits. Then, they made predictions for the actor's behavior in other, related behavioral situations. In Study 2, subjects were told about 1 instance of an actor's behavior, and they were provided with covariation information that implied that the actor's behavior either was or was not caused by personal dispositions. Subjects then predicted the actor's behavior in related situations. In both studies the older subjects (9-10 years old and older) predicted that the actor's behaviors in new situations would be relatively consistent with the behavior that was observed or described, when the behavior was perceived to be a function of dispositional causal factors. Younger children (5-7 years old), on the other hand, did not predict that the actors' behaviors would be consistent across situations (regardless of their perceptions of the causes of the actors' behavior), even though they labeled the actors' behaviors with appropriate personality trait or ability terms (Study 1) and were able to use covariation information cues to infer dispositional causes (Study 2). These results suggest that younger children do not regard dispositional factors as stable, abiding characteristics of other persons.
Jones and Davis hypothesized that the attribution of intentionality is a critical determinant of dispositional inferences. In order to investigate the applicability of this hypothesis to children, children from 3 grade levels were presented with stories that depicted actors who intentionally or accidentally caused harm. It was expected that children (a) would judge actors who intentionally caused harm as comparatively more mean and less likable, and (b) would predict that such actors would behave in an aggressive and unhelpful fashion in the future. This pattern of judgment was manifested by children from both second and fourth grades. While kindergarten children's judgments of meanness and liking conformed to the expected pattern, they failed to predict the behavior of the actors in the expected fashion. The findings were interpreted as supporting the applicability of Jones and Davis's hypothesis to children, with the qualification that young children may not attribute dispositional characteristics, but instead may limit attributions to specific characteristics that do not have long-term behavioral implications.
re-examine these issues concerning the drive to self-define and evaluate, emphasizing the strategic and functional aspects of self-evaluation as it serves to maintain goal-directed behavior
in the present model, self-evaluation is conceptualized in dynamic rather than static terms / suggest that self-evaluation involves different goals at different times, and that these goals change systematically across "development," defined both as skill acquisition and as stage of life (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
This book presents a new theory of the social group which seeks to explain how individuals become unified into a group and capable of collective behaviour.
The book summarizes classic psychological theories of the group, describes and explains the important effects of group membership on social behaviour, outlines self-categorization theory in full and shows how the general perspective has been applied in research on group formation and cohesion, social influence, the polarization of social attitudes, crowd psychology and social stereotyping. The theory emerges as a fundamental new contribution to social psychology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
This paper reports the results of a meta-analytic integration of the results of 137 tests of the ingroup bias hypothesis. Overall, the ingroup bias effect was highly significant and of moderate magnitude. Several theoretically informative determinants of the ingroup bias effect were established. This ingroup bias effect was significantly stronger when the ingroup was made salient (by virtue of proportionate size and by virtue of reality of the group categorization). A significant interaction between the reality of the group categorization and the relative status of the ingroup revealed a slight decrease in the ingroup bias effect as a function of status in real groups, and a significant increase in the ingroup bias effect as a function of status in artificial groups. Finally, an interaction between item relevance and ingroup status was observed, such that higher status groups exhibited more ingroup bias on more relevant attributes, whereas lower status groups exhibited more ingroup bias on less relevant attributes. Discussion considers the implications of these results for current theory and future research involving the ingroup bias effect.
The present study explores the effect of crossing social categorizations upon subsequent intergroup discrimination. In the simple categorization conditions, subjects were divided into groups either on an explicitly random basis or on the basis of a very trivial similarity. In the crossed categorization condition, these two categorizations were criss-crossed. After performing a perceptual estimation task, subjects had to evaluate the performance of the different groups in this task. Subsequently they had to evaluate the groups on general characteristics less directly related to task performance. There was significant intergroup discrimination favouring the own group in the two simple categorization conditions, but this discrimination was strongly reduced in the crossed categorization condition. This was true for both kinds of evaluations. Subjects of a no categorization condition exhibited no self-favouritism. The theoretical implications of the data are discussed.
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. This study examines the minimal group paradigm using three distinct and independent groups. Comparison of the results with three minimal groups with those of a baseline two-group experiment shows that with a three-group structure there is no significant ingroup bias. It is suggested that the two-group minimal group experiment shows ingroup bias because subjects access a dichotomous categorization, and that this dichotomous categorization primes a competitive orientation. A two-group context may be particularly efective in evoking an ‘us versus them’ contrast. Self-categorization as a group member is more likely to occur in the presence of two groups whereas three minimal groups renders an ‘us–them’ contrastive orientation less salient. The absence of intergroup discrimination found in the present minimal group study may be limited to the behaviour of minimal or artificially created groups. In the real world of intergroup relations discrimination towards multiple outgroups is a well-known phenomenon. While this study should be regarded as only preliminary research, further elaboration and specification of the conditions under which multiple group contexts may hinder intergroup discrimination is required.
We hypothesized that tendencies to explain interest in peers' work in terms of mastery-promotion or of relative ability assessment is related both to the development of the normative conception of ability and to educational emphases on cooperative or competitive learning goals. Study 1 tapped acquisition of the normative conception, normative self-assessment, and reasons for looking at others' work among 208 kibbutz and urban Israeli subjects at ages 4–8. Results confirmed that acquisition of normative understandings was associated with a shift from mastery to ability explanations in urban, but not kibbutz, children. Study 2 revealed similar differences in the frequency of mastery versus ability assessment reasons among 48 kibbutz and urban third-grade children asked to explain the videotaped glances of an unfamiliar child. Thus, cooperative learning settings seem to maintain interest in using peers to promote mastery, even after acquisition of the normative conception.