Gruppeninterne Bevorzugung (in-group bias): Die Anatomie von Vorurteilen

X (Twitter) Facebook LinkedIn Email Reddit WhatsApp Pocket Telegram SMS

Gruppeninterne Bevorzugung, manchmal auch als gruppeninterne Voreingenommenheit, ist ein Muster der Bevorzugung von Mitgliedern der eigenen Gruppe (in-group) gegenüber Mitgliedern der Außengruppe (out-group). Dies kann sich in der Bewertung anderer, in der Verteilung von Ressourcen und auf viele andere Arten äußern.

Dieser in-group bias Effekt wurde von vielen Psychologen erforscht und mit vielen Theorien zu Gruppenkonflikten und Vorurteilen in Verbindung gebracht. Das Phänomen wird in erster Linie vom Standpunkt der Sozialpsychologie aus betrachtet. Studien haben gezeigt, dass gruppeninterne Bevorzugung durch die Bildung kultureller Gruppen entsteht. Diese kulturellen Gruppen können auf der Grundlage scheinbar trivialer, beobachtbarer Merkmale unterteilt werden, aber mit der Zeit assoziieren die Bevölkerungen bestimmte Merkmale mit bestimmten Verhaltensweisen, was die Kovariation erhöht. Dies begünstigt dann eine gruppeninterne Voreingenommenheit.

janeelliott.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPktMLmMha8

Jane Elliott Experiment; Blaue Augen versus braune Augen / Maske versus keine Maske

Elliott unterrichtete Drittklässler an einer Schule in Riceville, Iowa, einer kleinen Stadt im ländlichen Norden Iowas.

Ihre 28 Schüler waren am Morgen nach Kings Ermordung in den Klassenraum gekommen, um über die Ereignisse zu sprechen.

“Was glaubt ihr, wie es sich anfühlt, ein schwarzer Junge oder ein schwarzes Mädchen zu sein? hatte Elliott ihre Schüler gefragt. Die Kinder waren allesamt weiß.

“Das ist schwer zu sagen, es sei denn, wir haben die Diskriminierung selbst erlebt, nicht wahr? Würdet ihr es gerne herausfinden?”

Die Kinder hatten eifrig geantwortet: “Ja!”

Elliot trennte die blauäugigen Kinder von den Kindern mit braunen und grünen Augen. Sie ließ die blauäugigen Kinder grüne Armbänder aus Bastelpapier anlegen.

Dann sagte sie den Kindern, dass die braunäugigen Schüler schlauer seien.

Elliott hatte eine Erklärung dafür parat: Intelligenz, so erklärte sie den Kindern, wird durch Melanin bestimmt. Sie schrieb das Wort an die Tafel. Je mehr Melanin, desto dunkler die Augen einer Person – und desto intelligenter die Person.

Ein Kind bemerkte, dass Elliott eine “Blaue” sei, obwohl sie Lehrerin ist. Ein Junge meldete sich zu Wort und erklärte, wenn sie braune Augen gehabt hätte, wäre sie Direktorin oder Superintendentin geworden.

Elliott schickte die braunäugigen Kinder zuerst zum Mittagessen und gab ihnen eine längere Pause. Die braunäugigen Kinder durften aus dem Brunnen trinken, während die blauäugigen Kinder Pappbecher benutzen mussten.

Die Veränderung trat sofort ein, so Elliott. Die Kinder mit braunen Augen waren plötzlich selbstbewusster – und herablassender. Sie beschimpften die blauäugigen Kinder mit bösen Worten.

Die Kinder mit den blauen Augen machten dumme Fehler und wurden ängstlich und mutlos.

Die beiden Gruppen spielten nicht mehr zusammen. Kämpfe brachen aus.

“Ich beobachtete, wie sie all die Verhaltensweisen an den Tag legten, die ihnen die wichtigen Erwachsenen in ihrem Leben vorlebten”, sagte Elliott. “Mir gefiel nicht, was ich sah.”

Elliott sagte, sie habe aus der Übung gelernt, dass Menschen nicht mit Vorurteilen geboren werden, sondern dieses Verhalten erlernen. Und wenn es erlernt werden kann, so Elliott, kann es auch wieder verlernt werden.

Zwei prominente theoretische Ansätze zum Phänomen der Bevorzugung einer Gruppe sind die realistische Konflikttheorie und die Theorie der sozialen Identität. Die realistische Konflikttheorie geht davon aus, dass Wettbewerb zwischen Gruppen und manchmal auch Konflikte zwischen Gruppen entstehen, wenn zwei Gruppen gegensätzliche Ansprüche auf knappe Ressourcen haben. Im Gegensatz dazu geht die Theorie der sozialen Identität davon aus, dass ein psychologischer Drang nach positiv unterscheidbaren sozialen Identitäten die allgemeine Ursache für gruppenbegünstigendes Verhalten ist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPktMLmMha8
***

Weeks, K. P., Weeks, M., & Long, N.. (2017). Generational perceptions at work: In-group favoritism and out-group stereotypes. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1108/EDI-07-2016-0062
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Show/hide publication abstract

“Purpose: the purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between stereotypes, in-group favoritism, and in-group bolstering effects across generations. design/methodology/approach: based on the trends found in a qualitative study on generational stereotypes, questions on work ethic, work-life balance, and use of technology were administered to 255 participants identified as millennials, generation x, and baby boomers. hypotheses predicted that with a strong stereotype, traditional in-group favoritism will not be found; however, an in-group bolstering effect will emerge. in the absence of a strong stereotype, traditional in-group favoritism is expected. findings: generally, there was a strong stereotype that baby boomers are worse at technology than generation x and generation x is worse than millennials. there was also a strong stereotype that millennials do not do what it takes to get the job done as much as other generations. in the presence of these stereotypes, traditional in-group favoritism was not found, but in-groups bolstered themselves by rating themselves more favorably than other groups rated them. although these findings did not hold for every item studied, there was moderate support for all three hypotheses. practical implications: as employees become aware of their biases, they can collaborate better with employees who are different than they are. practical recommendations are suggested. originality/value: the paper applies theory of in-group favoritism to the perceptions of generational cohorts.”

Abbink, K., & Harris, D.. (2019). In-group favouritism and out-group discrimination in naturally occurring groups. PLoS ONE

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221616
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Show/hide publication abstract

“We study in-group favouritism and out-group discrimination in a multiplayer dictator game in a naturally occuring group setting. an allocator divides a large sum of money among three groups of around 20 recipients each and also to themselves. the groups are supporters of two rival political movements in thailand and politically neutral subjects. the non-rival outgroup acts as a reference point and allows us to measure in-group favouritism and outgroup discrimination. a treatment with artificial groups serves as a control. we find both ingroup favouritism and out-group discrimination among the naturally occurring groups. in artificial groups, favouritism is observed, but not discrimination. our results suggest that the two behaviours are not driven by the same motive, and only when groups are in conflict that out-group discrimination is likely to occur.”

Aksoy, B., & Palma, M. A.. (2019). The effects of scarcity on cheating and in-group favoritism. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2019.06.024
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Show/hide publication abstract

“We study the impact of scarcity on cheating and in-group favoritism using a two-period lab-in-the-field experiment with low-income coffee farmers in a small, isolated village in guatemala. during the coffee harvesting months, farmers in this village experience a significant income boost from selling their coffee beans. however, during the non-harvesting months, they experience a substantial decline in income, inducing a pronounced state of scarcity, while other factors remain similar. using this distinctive variance in income, we first conduct our experiment before the coffee harvest (scarcity period). we then repeat the experiment with the same group of subjects during the harvest season (abundance period). first, using the fischbacher and föllmi-heusi (2013) die-roll paradigm, we find that subjects cheat at high levels in both periods when they are the beneficiaries of the cheating. scarcity does not impact this cheating behavior. secondly, using subjects’ natural village identity, we find significant in-group favoritism for cheating in the abundance period, which disappears during the scarcity period. finally, using a dictator game, we show that this finding holds even when the cost of favoring an in-group member is monetary rather than moral.”

Lewis, G. J., & Bates, T. C.. (2010). Genetic Evidence for Multiple Biological Mechanisms Underlying In-Group Favoritism. Psychological Science

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1177/0956797610387439
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Show/hide publication abstract

“In-group favoritism is ubiquitous and associated with intergroup conflict, yet is little understood from a biological perspective. a fundamental question regarding the structure of favoritism is whether it is inflexibly directed toward distinct, ‘essentialist’ categories, such as ethnicity and race, or is deployed in a context-sensitive manner. in this article, we report the first study (to our knowledge) of the genetic and environmental structure of in-group favoritism in the religious, ethnic, and racial domains. we contrasted a model of favoritism based on a single domain-general central affiliation mechanism (cam) with a model in which each domain was influenced by specific mechanisms. in a series of multivariate analyses, utilizing a large, representative sample of twins, models containing only the cam or essentialist domains fit the data poorly. the best-fitting model revealed that a biological mechanism facilitates affiliation with arbitrary groups and exists alongside essentialist systems that evolved to process salient cues, such as shared beliefs and ancestry. © 2010, the author(s). all rights reserved.”

Cadsby, C. B., Du, N., & Song, F.. (2016). In-group favoritism and moral decision-making. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Plain numerical DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2016.05.008
DOI URL
directSciHub download

Show/hide publication abstract

“We present a controlled laboratory experiment to investigate whether and to what extent people will cheat on behalf of a member of their own in-group at the expense of a non-member. we investigate the impact of social/group identity on cheating by running a new variant of the die-under-cup methodology (fischbacher and föllmi-heusi, 2013) that captures both the key features of in-group bias and cheating behavior. specifically, we examine the following questions: does moral concern curb people from cheating to benefit a member of their own in-group? is the moral burden of cheating as strong a deterrent for such cheating for others as it is for purely selfish cheating? we find evidence of dishonesty to benefit not only oneself but also one’s in-group. in particular, we find that some people lie to increase the payoff of an in-group member even though such a lie does not affect their own monetary payoff.”