Minimal group paradigms tend to involve contrived group distinctions, such as dot estimation tendencies and aesthetic preferences. Researchers assume that these novel category distinctions lack informational value. Our research tests this notion. Specifically, we used the classic overestimator versus underestimator and Klee versus Kandinsky minimal group paradigms to assess how category labels influence minimal group responses. In Study 1, we show that participants represented ingroup faces more favorably than outgroup faces, but also represented overestimator and underestimator category labels differently. In fact, the category label effect was larger than the intergroup effect, even though participants were told that estimation tendencies were unrelated to other cognitive tendencies or personality traits. In Study 2, we demonstrate that Klee and Kandinsky were also represented differently, but in this case, the intergroup effect was stronger than the category label effect. In Studies 3 and 4, we examined effects of category labels on how participants allocate resources to, evaluate, and ascribe traits to ingroup and outgroup members. We found both category label and intergroup effects when participants were assigned to overestimator and underestimator groups. However, we found only the intergroup effect when participants were assigned to Klee and Kandinsky groups. Together, this work advances but does not upend understanding of minimal group effects. We robustly replicate minimal intergroup bias in mental representations of faces, evaluations, trait inferences, and resource allocations. At the same time, we show that seemingly arbitrary category labels can imply characteristics about groups that may influence responses in intergroup contexts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

最小但并非毫无意义：看起来任意类别标签可能意味着比组成员身份更多。

最小的组范例往往涉及人为的组区别，例如点估计趋势和审美偏好。研究人员认为，这些新颖的类别区分缺乏信息价值。我们的研究验证了这一概念。具体来说，我们使用经典的高估与低估以及Klee与Kandinsky最小组范例来评估类别标签如何影响最小组响应。在研究1中，我们表明参与者代表组内的面孔比外部组的面孔更有利，但代表高估者和低估者类别标签的方式也有所不同。实际上，即使告知参与者估计趋势与其他认知趋势或人格特质无关，类别标签效应也大于群体间效应。在研究2中，我们证明Klee和Kandinsky的代表也有所不同，但是在这种情况下，组间效应要比类别标签效应强。在研究3和4中，我们研究了类别标签对参与者如何分配资源，评估和归因于内向和外向成员的特征的影响。当参与者被分配到高估者和低估者组时，我们发现类别标签和群体间效应。但是，当将参与者分配到Klee和Kandinsky组时，我们仅发现组间效应。总之，这项工作取得了进步，但并没有破坏对最小群体影响的理解。我们在面孔，评估，特质推断和资源分配的心理表征中强烈复制最小的群体间偏差。与此同时，我们表明，看似随意的类别标签可能暗示着可能影响群体间情境中响应的群体特征。（PsycInfo数据库记录（c）2020 APA，保留所有权利）。