Mere division into groups triggers intergroup discrimination even without conflict or self-interest

Evidence

The starting point for this theory was the discovery that the mere fact of being categorized as a group member, however “minimal” that group might be, is sufficient to trigger some elementary intergroup differentiation and discrimination (Tajfel, Flament, Billig, & Bundy, 1971). These findings occasioned many researchers to conclude that simply belonging to a group – providing someone with a primitive form of social identity – can lay the foundations of prejudice towards outgroups. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 430 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

We have argued that social and realistic competition are conceptually distinct, although most often they are empirically associated in “real life.” In an experiment by Turner, Brown, and Tajfel (1979) an attempt was made to isolate the effects on intergroup behavior of the postulated autonomous processes attributed to a search for positive social identity. Children were used as subjects, and the manipulations involved decisions by the subjects about the distribution of payments for participation in the experiment, to be shared equally by the in-group, between the in-group and the outgroups that were made relevant or irrelevant to comparisons with the in-group’s performance. Monetary self-interest (of a magnitude previously ascertained to be of genuine significance to the subjects) would have produced no difference in the distribution decisions involving the two kinds of out-group; it would also have led to decisions tending toward maximum in-group profit (MIP) rather than toward maximum difference (MD). — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2730 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

In this situation, there is neither a conflict of interests nor previously existing hostility between the “groups.” No social interaction takes place between the subjects, nor is there any rational link between economic self-interest and the strategy of in-group favoritism. Thus, these groups are purely cognitive and can be referred to as “minimal.” — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2705 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Mild individual in-group preference generates macro segregation spontaneously — David Theo Goldberg, The Threat of Race: Reflections on…, 383; Anticipatory loss of group standing drives outgroup discrimination — Brenda Major and Alison Blodorn and Gregory Major Blascovich, The threat of increasing diversity: Why…, 14; Segregation sustains conflict by institutionalizing mutual ignorance and suspicion — Miles Hewstone and Ed Cairns and Alberto Voci and Juergen Hamberger and Ulrike Niens, Intergroup Contact, Forgiveness, and…, 104 (+20 more)

Broader Connections

• Mere minimal group categorization alone triggers discrimination against outgroups #corroborates (0.97) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 430
• Mere group membership drives discrimination independent of economic self-interest. #corroborates (0.96) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2730
• In-group bias arises even without conflict, hostility, or self-interest #corroborates (0.96) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2705
• Mere categorization into a group triggers differentiation and discrimination #corroborates (0.95)
• Even arbitrary group divisions trigger in-group bias and out-group derogation that harm cooperation #expands (0.92)