Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behaviour
Abstract
The present study is one of a series exploring the role of social categorization in intergroup behaviour. It has been found in our previous studies that in ‚minimal' situations, in which the subjects were categorized into groups on the basis of visual judgments they had made or of their esthetic preferences, they clearly discriminated against members of an outgroup although this gave them no personal advantage. However, in these previous studies division into groups was still made on the basis of certain criteria of ‚real' similarity between subjects who were assigned to the same category. Therefore, the present study established social categories on an explicitly random basis without any reference to any such real similarity. It was found that, as soon as the notion of ‚group' was introduced into the situation, the subjects still discriminated against those assigned to another random category. This discrimination was considerably more marked than the one based on a division of subjects in terms of interindividual similarities in which the notion of ‚group' was never explicitly introduced. In addition, it was found that fairness was also a determinant of the subjects' decisions. The results are discussed from the point of view of their relevance to a social‐cognitive theory of intergroup behaviour.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Any in-group/out-group distinction, even one based on the most trivial of shared characteristics, triggers both positive feelings for the in group and negative evaluations of the out group.
“A vast literature in social psychology demonstrates that any such in-group/out-group distinction, even one based on the most trivial of shared characteristics, triggers both positive feelings for the in group and negative evaluations of the out group”
From The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States (2019) · cites this paper as Billig & Tajfel 1973
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 28 · Cited by 1,283
- Authors
- Billig, M., & Tajfel, H.
- Affiliations
- University of Bristol (GB)
- ORCID
- Billig, Michael
- Venue
- European Journal of Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1973-01
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 27-52
- ISSN
- 0046-2772 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-0992
- OpenAlex
- W2011754800
- Cited by
- 1,283
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2026: 45 · 2025: 69 · 2024: 83 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 61 · 2021: 69 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 59 · 2018: 48 · 2017: 52 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 45 · 2014: 52 · 2013: 41 · 2012: 46
- FWCI
- 27.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- European Journal of Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
- Keywords
- social categorization, intergroup behavior, out-group discrimination, fairness, social cognitive theory, minimal group paradigm
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review