Minimal but not meaningless: Seemingly arbitrary category labels can imply more than group membership.

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).