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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Billig, M. , & Tajfel, H. (1973). Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 11, 27-52.
2.
Butler, R. , & Ruzany, N. (1993). Age and socialization effects on the development of social comparison motives and normative ability assessment in kibbutz and urban children. Child Development, 64, 532-543.
3.
Diehl, M. (1990). The minimal group paradigm: Theoretical explanations and empirical findings. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology. New York: John Wiley.
4.
Doise, W. , Csepeli, G., Dann, H. D., Gouge, C., Larsen, K., & Ostell, A. (1972). An experimental investigation into the formation of intergroup representations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 202-204.
5.
Gerard, H. , & Hoyt, H. (1974). Distinctiveness of social categorization and attitude toward in-group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 836-842.
6.
Hartstone, M. , & Augoustinos, M. (1995). The minimal group paradigm: Categorization into two versus three groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 179-193.
7.
Howard, J. , & Rothbart, M. (1980). Social categorization and memory for in-group and out-group behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 301-310.
8.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9.
Locksley, A. , Oritz, V., & Hepburn, C. (1980). Social categorization and discriminatory behavior: Extinguishing the minimal intergroup discrimination effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 773-783.
10.
Mackie, D. M. , Hamilton, D. L., Susskind, J., & Rosselli, F. (1996). Social psychological foundations of stereotype formation. In N. McCrae, M. Hewstone, & C. Stangor (Eds.), Foundations of stereotypes and stereotyping (pp. 41-78). New York: Guilford.
11.
Miller, J. G. (1984). Culture and the development of everyday social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 961-978.
12.
Mullen, B. , Brown, R., & Smith, B. (1991). In-group bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status: An integration. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 103-120.
13.
Oakes, P. J. (1987). The salience of social groups. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher, & M. S. Wetherell (Eds.), Redis-covering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
14.
Rholes, W. S. , & Ruble, D. N. (1984). Children’s understanding of the dispositional characteristics of others. Child Development, 55, 550-560.
15.
Rotenberg, K. J. (1980). Children’s use of intentionality in judgments of character and disposition. Child Development, 51, 282-284.
16.
Ruble, D. N. (1983). The development of social-comparison processes and their role in achievement-related self-socialization. In E. T. Higgins, D. N. Ruble, & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), Social cognition and social development: A socio-cultural perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17.
Ruble, D. N. , & Frey, K. S. (1991). Changing patterns of comparative behavior as skills are acquired: A functional model of self-evaluation. In J. Suls & T. A. Wills (Eds.), Social comparison: Contemporary theory and research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18.
Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223, 96-102.
19.
Tajfel, H. , Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149-178.
20.
Tajfel, H. , & Turner J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
21.
Turner, J. C. , Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
22.
Vanbeselaere, N. (1987). The effects of dichotomous and crossed social categorizations upon intergroup discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 37-42.
23.
Vaughn, G. M. , Tajfel, H., & Williams, J. (1981). Bias in reward allocation in an intergroup and an interpersonal context. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44(1), 37-42.
24.
Wagner, U. , Lampden, L., & Syllwassachy, J. (1986). In-group inferiority, social identity and out-group devaluation in a modified minimal group study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 15-23.
25.
Wilder, D. A. , & Thompson, J. E. (1988). Assimilation and contrast effects in the judgements of groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 62-73.
