In a striking challenge to conventional wisdom about discrimination, new research from the University of Sydney reveals that bias runs deeper than group identity—people instinctively favor those who resemble them, even when the similarity is nothing more than a random coincidence, like the flip of a coin.
New research led by Dr Eliane Deschrijver from the University of Sydney’s School of Psychology showed discriminatory tendencies also emerged when participants were not divided into groups and interacted only with a single person.
Will you offer us a hand? Every gift, regardless of size, fuels our future.
Your critical contribution enables us to maintain our independence from shareholders or wealthy owners, allowing us to keep up reporting without bias. It means we can continue to make Jewish Business News available to everyone.
You can support us for as little as $1 via PayPal at [email protected].
Thank you.
Published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, this study upends traditional theories, particularly social identity theory, which suggests discrimination arises from dividing people into groups. Instead, the findings suggest that even the smallest, most arbitrary differences between individuals can ignite favoritism and bias, reshaping our understanding of human social behavior in profound ways.
The study included seven separate experiments and analyzed data related to discrimination from more than 1400 United Kingdom-based participants. Participants were asked to either repeatedly choose their preferred painting from two (one by Vassily Kandinsky and another by Paul Klee), estimate the number of dots presented in a ‘cloud’ of dots, or take part in a coin toss.
After each choice or coin flip outcome, participants were asked to assign money to another individual. The only information participants were given about that individual was their outcome in the same scenario. Someone asked to pick between two paintings, for instance, was told which painting the person they were allocating money to preferred.
On average, participants allocated 43.1 percent more money to another person demonstrating the same judgment or, in the case of the coin toss, the same chance outcome as their own.
“These findings can have implications for how we understand, and eventually address, discrimination,” Dr Deschrijver said.
“If humans divide resources unequally after a mere chance difference, discrimination may be more widespread and happen for different reasons than presumed at present.
“It was always thought discrimination occurs because people are assigned to groups and favor those in their own group over others. Our research demonstrates it’s possible some of our discriminatory tendencies are driven by individual processes.
“The most surprising finding was that participants would discriminate based on a coin flip. This shows us the most randomly derived dissimilarities can drive us to divide resources in unequal ways, which can be a precursor of discrimination.”
Prior studies have demonstrated discrimination stemming from substantial disagreements, such as conflicting values or political stances. Dr. Deschrijver notes that the causes of discrimination based on seemingly insignificant differences require further investigation.
