The Dynamic Emergence of Minimal Groups

GPI0010.1177/1368430218802636Group Processes & Intergroup RelationsJackson et al. 802636research-article2018 G Group Processes & P Intergroup Relations I Article R Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 2019, Vol. 22(7) 921–929 The dynamic emergence of minimal © The Author(s) 2018 Article reuse guidelines: groups sagepub.com/journals-permissions https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430218802636DOI: 10.1177/1368430218802636 journals.sagepub.com/home/gpi Christopher Michael Jackson,1 Joshua Conrad Jackson,2 David Bilkey,1 Jonathan Jong3 and Jamin Halberstadt1 Abstract The minimal group paradigm has consistently shown that people will discriminate to favor their own group over an out-group, even when both groups are created arbitrarily by an experimenter. But will people actually form groups that are so arbitrary? And could something as trivial as a randomly assigned name tag color serve as a fault line during group formation? In this study, we use in vivo behavioral tracking (IBT) to precisely and unobtrusively track samples of participants as they assort repeatedly into groups. We find that participants do form groups on the basis of their randomly assigned name tag colors, but that name tag homophily emerges over time, becoming stronger in subsequent groups. Our results suggest that people are unconsciously or consciously biased toward group similarity, even when similarities are essentially meaningless. Our study has implications for theories of intergroup relations and social identity. It also demonstrates the utility of applying real-time tracking to study group formation. Keywords group formation, in vivo behavioral tracking, minimal group, similarity Paper received 5 February 2018; revised version accepted 31 August 2018. Almost 50 years ago, Tajfel (1970) found that they favor in-group over out-group members people show bias against out-group members when distributing resources. even when their group membership is entirely These results offer a sobering view of how even arbitrary. In this often replicated minimal group the shallowest of group identities can nevertheless paradigm, an experimenter assigns participants to one of two groups based on an arbitrary or ran- 1University of Otago, New Zealand dom criterion, such as similarity in art preferences 2University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA (Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971), tendency 3Coventry University, UK to over- or underestimate dots on a screen (Tajfel Corresponding author: et al., 1971), or the result of a coin flip (Billig & Jamin Halberstadt, Department of Psychology, University of Tajfel, 1973). Even when participants are aware Otago, 275 Leith Walk, Dunedin, 9054, New Zealand. of the arbitrariness of their group membership, Email: [email protected] 922 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 22(7) produce prejudice and discrimination. However, ideas, similarity-driven affiliation has been there is surprisingly little evidence that individuals reported in diverse contexts, from dating actually belong to such superficial groups. The min- (Berscheid, Dion, Walster, & Walster, 1971) to imal group paradigm allows participants, perhaps liking for strangers (Byrne, Clore, & Worchel, automatically, to take advantage of group distinc- 1966) to “free-range data harvesting” (Bahns tions created by the experimenter, but it is not clear et al., 2017; Bahns, Pickett, & Crandall, 2011) to that they would have made those distinctions them- computer modeling (Gray et al., 2014; Roberts, selves. If not, then the minimal group paradigm 1989). represents a warning to those seeking to impose However, past research suffers from at least arbitrary social categories, but says nothing about two limitations. First, most studies sample from whether those arbitrary categories are a basis on existing relationships. This sampling method which individuals themselves assemble in real life. runs the risk of mistaking a similarity preference In the current study, we provide the first test of for social influence: it could be that we form rela- minimal group formation—as opposed to minimal tionships with similar others or it could be that group bias—using a new paradigm in which stran- people make us more like them as time passes gers, assigned arbitrary traits, are tracked in real (Anderson, Keltner, & John, 2003). Similarity in time as they interact and form groups within a large existing relationships is also confounded with enclosed area. propinquity—people are more likely to associate with others who are geographically or function- ally near to them (Segal, 1974), and such people Homophily in Group Formation are likely to be similar for other reasons (e.g., Some evidence is consistent with the idea that because neighborhoods may be socioeconomi- people do form assortative groups based on cally segregated). superficial traits. When people make friends Studies that sample emerging relationships (Bahns, Crandall, Gillath, & Preacher, 2017; with a high degree of choice (Bahns et al., 2017; Poteat, Espelage, & Green, 2007), form romantic Halberstadt et al., 2016) address issues related to relationships (Kalick & Hamilton, 1986; propinquity and social influence, but remain sus- Kerckhoff & Davis, 1962), or decide whether to ceptible to a second confound: the social infer- continue living with roommates (Bahns, Crandall, ences participants draw from similarity. For Canevello, & Crocker, 2013; Berg, 1984), they example, Jackson, Halberstadt, Jong, and Felman appear to show homophily—grouping on the (2015) found that participants preferred romantic basis of (sometimes superficial) shared traits. partners who shared their religious beliefs, but To explain the prevalence of homophily, many that the preference was in fact a consequence of theorists have argued that people are attracted to the inferences they made about religiosity (i.e., similar others—even arbitrarily similar others— that religious individuals are less open-minded), for one or more of several well-studied reasons. rather than religiosity per se. In the context of From an evolutionary perspective, favoring simi- group formation specifically, Jackson, Lemay, lar others in the context of romantic relation- Bilkey, and Halberstadt (2017) found that similar- ships increases the chances that attraction will be ity-based inferences concerning attachment inse- reciprocated (the matching hypothesis; Walster, curities could simultaneously produce homophily Aronson, Abrahams, & Rottman, 1966), and sim- and heterophily (a preference for dissimilar oth- ilarity more generally may signal safety, or even ers) in the same sample. Perhaps because indi- kinship (Smith, 1964). From a more proximate viduals with high attachment avoidance desire the motivational perspective, similar others are more traits that they inferred from avoidance in others likely to reinforce our existing beliefs about our- (e.g., low intimacy), these participants showed selves and the world, satisfying a desire for self- similarity-based grouping. Yet exactly the oppo- verification (Swann, 1983). Consistent with these site occurred in participants high on attachment Jackson et al. 923 anxiety, most likely because they dislike the traits segregation (e.g., Schelling, 1971; Zhang, 2004), they inferred from others’ anxiety (e.g., low emergent adolescent friendships (Kandel, 1978), warmth and high insecurity). Taken as a whole, and online networks (Yardi & Boyd, 2010) sug- these studies raise doubts as to whether homoph- gests that homophily increases over time. This ily occurs because people desire similarity rather dynamic may occur because people come to enjoy than because people make positive inferences in-group interactions more—and therefore seek about similar others. out in-groups more as time passes—or because social networks become more malleable over time, such that people show more willingness to Real-Time Tracking of Social move farther to fulfill their desire for similar oth- Groups Over Time ers. Although self-categorization theory suggests, Resolving the ambiguities associated with social conversely, that superficial social grouping is influence, propinquity, and inference requires a strongest in the absence of richer information paradigm in which people who differ on an arbi- and therefore should decrease as familiarity trarily and randomly manipulated trait are free to increases (Boutyline & Willer, 2017; Hogg, 2000), associate with others, with the resulting grouping studies of groups in naturalistic settings show lit- observed with great precision. Past research has tle direct evidence for this prediction (e.g., Hinds, not met these conditions because of the difficulty Carley, Krackhardt, & Wholey, 2000). In addition, in tracking group formation in real time, not to our paradigm—in which participants do not mention controlling for people’s previous rela- communicate—does not involve deep familiari- tionships, backgrounds, and dimensions of zation. Given these parameters, social categoriza- similarity. tion does not make a clear prediction concerning However, a new method termed in vivo behav- how groups should change over time, and may ioral tracking (IBT; Halberstadt et al., 2016) allows even predict greater homophily over time as researchers to precisely gather spatial data from grouping divisions become more salient. groups of people as they interact and form groups in real time, while also permitting the manipula- The Current Study tion of contextual features of their environment In this study, we apply IBT to study the forma- (Jackson,

Load more