orgtheory.net

kids, minimal group affiliations and intergroup bias

Here’s an interesting piece extending Tajfel et al by studying 5-year-olds and intergroup bias: “Consequences of ‘‘Minimal’’ Group Affiliations in ChildrenChild Development.  So, do 5-year-olds have a bias toward members of their in-group, even if they are arbitrarily assigned to these groups?  They do.

Interesting paper.  The paper also raises questions about whether in-group bias is learned (“enculturation,” Spielman, 2000), or whether it perhaps is an evolutionary-survival-type thing, or something driven by expectations of reciprocity or competition. Or something else.

Here’s the abstract:

Three experiments (total N = 140) tested the hypothesis that 5-year-old children’s membership in randomly assigned ‘‘minimal’’ groups would be sufficient to induce intergroup bias. Children were randomly assigned to groups and engaged in tasks involving judgments of unfamiliar in-group or out-group children. Despite an absence of information regarding the relative status of groups or any competitive context, in-group preferences were observed on explicit and implicit measures of attitude and resource allocation (Experiment 1), behavioral attribution, and expectations of reciprocity, with preferences persisting when groups were not described via a noun label (Experiment 2). In addition, children systematically distorted incoming information by preferentially encoding positive information about in-group members (Experiment 3). Implications for the developmental origins of intergroup bias are discussed.

Written by teppo

May 18, 2012 at 6:33 pm

Posted in psychology, research

4 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Robbers Cave all over again….with new buzzwords….

    Like

    sherkat

    May 18, 2012 at 6:54 pm

  2. Hey Prof. Felin, very interesting find! This is especially relevant for me bc I’m working on a research project on segregation and racial meaning in school settings where Caucasians are not the majority group.

    So I’m doing interviews of students who graduated from a high school in California that was about 60% Asian-American and 30% Caucasian. One thing that an interviewee mentioned was that because in K-12 there is often assigned seating, students often end up sitting next to the same group of people (people with names starting with C’s, etc.). This interviewee mentioned that since his last name was “Jang,” that he always sat next to other “Jangs,” and because many of the same students go through K-12 grades together and thus end up sitting together a lot because of alphabetical seating, that this seems to have contributed to racial segregation in some ways.

    Like

    andy

    May 18, 2012 at 7:12 pm

  3. “Robbers Cave all over again….with new buzzwords….”

    Except that this paper involves controlled experimentation, independent data points, significance testing of findings, a very different age range of participants, and more extensive dependent variables. The cognitive biases shown in Study 3 are particularly novel and interesting. The use of 5 versus 12 year-olds is I’m sure very significant to readers of Child Development.

    Like

    Thorstein Veblen

    May 18, 2012 at 8:39 pm

  4. Quite lot to think about. I saved the PDF to a sociology folder on my Macintosh for reference later. The experiments were nuanced. The outcomes that ran counter to the hypothesis may be more compelling.

    Everyone likes girls. Girls like girls and boys like girls. Not so many like boys. Gender bias in favor of girls is strong in five-year olds. Yet women complain about inequality. Why? Do females lose their preferential status? If so, when? Why?

    While in-group bias was easy enough to predict and support, the 21% who preferred the out-group and the 21% who showed no preference both deserve more study, instead of being passed over as uninteresting. Perhaps they should be followed as a cohort.

    Combined, they challenge the 58% who fell in line. Democracy is majority rule with minority rights. Does this experiment suggest that 42% of the people can lose their rights to a concerted in-group?

    Quite interesting…

    Like

    mikemarotta

    May 20, 2012 at 6:07 am


Comments are closed.