Before World War Two, a pair of brothers worked together as shoemakers in the German town of Herzogenaurach. However, during the war, a terrible argument ensued between the siblings, causing a split in the family business. This feud didn’t just affect their newly competing personnel, but over time, it divided the entire town of Herzogenaurach. Residents became fiercely loyal to one brand of shoe, local businesses chose sides, and marriages across these lines were discouraged. The town eventually earned the nickname “the town of bent necks” as residents would look down to ensure they were interacting with members of their own group. But could such a serious divide really be about shoes? Or does it take more significant cultural differences to produce this degree of conflict?
To answer this question, we can turn to social psychologist Henri Tajfel and his collaborators at the University of Bristol. They developed the minimal group paradigm, a methodology designed to investigate the minimal conditions required to turn people against each other. The plan was to gather participants without the usual factors that lead to hostility, such as religious, ethnic, gender, or other cultural differences. They would then split them into groups and run them through scenarios that added one variable at a time to see what stirred up conflict.
The researchers told participants they were being grouped based on their ability to estimate things correctly or incorrectly; but in reality, the groups were totally random. Since the researchers ensured none of the participants interacted, no one could form any judgments or personal bonds. Then everyone was given resources to distribute. Each participant was free to give resources to members of either group and importantly, everything was anonymous. So whatever a participant decided, it had no impact on how many resources they personally would receive.
With all the ingredients for discrimination removed and no reason for competition over resources, the scientists assumed this would make a conflict-free baseline for further research. But even in these groups, where membership was only defined by a perceived similarity in possessing an arbitrary skill, individuals still showed in-group bias. They consistently gave more to members of their own group than the out-group. Later, research went even further, informing participants that the only thing determining their group membership was a coin flip. However, group bias still occurred. The minimal groups of “us” and “them” were enough.
In the absence of stereotypes, resource conflicts, and status differences, what was left? What could possibly account for people showing clear preferences for the most temporary and meaningless of groups? The answer that came to Tajfel and his colleagues was social identity. People regularly use group membership to help determine their sense of identity. These minimal group experiments suggested that simply being categorized as part of a group is enough to link that group to a person’s sense of self. Then, in an effort to create a meaningful identity, participants allocated more resources to their in-group than the out-group—pursuing their group’s interests despite no clear benefit to themselves as individuals.
Variants of these experiments have been conducted around the globe, examining how a shared sense of “us” can affect our attention, perception, memory, and emotions. The mental processes behind minimal group distinctions appear to be the same as many of those that underlie real group identities. So it is possible that these seemingly insignificant differences can harden into much more serious divides. However, minimal groups don’t always drive people apart. Bringing individuals together in a new group can temporarily help people overcome entrenched biases. However, these positive effects are easily negated by external factors that reinforce existing group identities.
Ultimately, the psychology of groups is part of the human condition, and our tendency towards in-group bias is an undeniable part of that. So it’s up to all of us to make our groups and ourselves as inclusive of others as possible.
Imagine you are a resident of Herzogenaurach during the feud. Write a short diary entry from the perspective of someone who is loyal to one of the shoe brands. Describe how the feud affects your daily life, relationships, and interactions with others in the town. Share your entry with the class and discuss the emotional and social impacts of group divisions.
Participate in a classroom activity where you are randomly assigned to one of two groups. Without knowing the criteria for the grouping, engage in a resource distribution task where you allocate points or tokens to members of either group. Reflect on your choices and discuss how group identity influenced your decisions, even in the absence of meaningful differences.
Form two teams and debate the following statement: “Group biases are an inevitable part of human nature and cannot be completely eliminated.” Use evidence from the article and additional research to support your arguments. After the debate, discuss ways to mitigate the negative effects of group biases in society.
Research a real-world example of group conflict or division (e.g., political, religious, or cultural). Analyze the situation using the concepts of social identity and minimal group paradigm discussed in the article. Present your findings to the class, highlighting the factors that contributed to the conflict and potential solutions for reconciliation.
In small groups, create a multimedia presentation (e.g., video, slideshow, or infographic) that illustrates the concept of in-group bias and its effects. Use examples from the article, historical events, or current issues. Present your project to the class and discuss how understanding group psychology can help promote inclusivity and reduce conflict.
Feud – A long-standing quarrel or conflict between two individuals or groups. – The feud between the Montagues and the Capulets in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet resulted in tragic consequences.
Town – A human settlement that is larger than a village but smaller than a city. – I grew up in a small town where everyone knew each other.
Shoemakers – People or businesses that make or repair shoes. – The local shoemakers crafted beautiful handmade leather boots.
Business – An organization or economic system where goods and services are exchanged for money. – She started her own business selling handmade jewelry.
Personnel – The people who work for an organization or company. – The company’s personnel department is responsible for hiring and managing employees.
Brand – A type of product manufactured by a particular company under a specific name. – Nike is a well-known brand in the sportswear industry.
Local businesses – Small businesses that operate within a specific community or area. – The local businesses in the neighborhood contribute to the sense of community and provide essential services.
Marriages – The formal union of two people as partners in a personal relationship. – They celebrated their 25th wedding anniversary last month.
Conflict – A serious disagreement or argument between individuals, groups, or nations. – The conflict between the two political parties escalated into a heated debate.
Group bias – A tendency to favor one’s own group or have a preference for individuals within the same group. – The study revealed a clear group bias among the participants, as they consistently rated members of their own team higher than those from other teams.
