Cited by 1,283Social and Intergroup PsychologySocial Power and Status DynamicsDeath Anxiety and Social Exclusion

Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behaviour

Billig, Michael, Tajfel, Henri·1973·European Journal of Social Psychology

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

Crossref · 10.1002/ejsp.2420030103

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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)
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