Abstract

Artificial social categories were created in a laboratory context in order to test predictions regarding the relative importance of group size and status as determinants of in-group favoritism. Subjects were assigned to categories of ''overestimator'' or ''underestimator'' and were told that one category included a majority of college students while the other represented a minority. Prior to category assignment, half of the subjects had been given confidentiality instructions designed to make them feel highly depersonalized. Based on feedback about test performance, status differentials between the two estimation categories were introduced. Consistent with predictions, there was a three-way interaction between depersonalization, in-group size, and in-group status as determinants of evaluative in-group bias on social trait ratings. Under control conditions (no depersonalization), group status and majority size both contributed to positive valuations of the in-group. Under the depersonalization condition, however, subjects valued minority group membership more than majority categorization, and the effect of status was eliminated.