The review reports that minimal-group categorization produces in-group favoritism in resource allocation, cooperation, prosocial behavior, and evaluation¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2010 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The review reports that in-group members usually allocate more resources to, cooperate more with, and evaluate more positively members of their own group, even under trivial group designations. → Gehlbach 2010

Evidence¶

Gehlbach 2010¶

Gehlbach, Hunter. (2010). The social side of school: Why teachers need social psychology. Educational Psychology Review 22, no. 3: 349-362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9138-3

q2 · i? · review · r2

Narrative review of the minimal group paradigm, attributing findings to Devine (1995) and studies such as Sherif et al. (1961) and Galinsky and Moskowitz (2000), where even trivial labels like overestimators versus underestimators produced in-group favoritism across ten traits.

"In-group members usually allocate more resources to, are more cooperative with, and behave in more prosocial ways towards members of their own group."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• A growth-mindset-of-personality workshop reduced retaliatory aggression and increased prosocial behavior among urban high school students — related
• An audio-augmented toy produced significantly longer cooperative play than the same toy without augmentation in triads of 6- to 11-year-olds — related