A influência da relevância social no viés de grupo

Behaviors found in every culture, general human tendencies, are knew in Evolutionary Psychology as evolved psychological mechanisms. Those behaviors date back the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness, and a well know example of such behavior is the group bias (or intergroup bias). This bias consists of recognizing members of your own group and favor them, while disregarding or even harming outsiders. This behavior was and still is extensively studies, among the most important conclusions about this phenomenon is the Minimal Groups Paradigm, in which it was discovered that the group bias could trigger even when the groupings were done in following very arbitrary criteria. In the current study, our goal was to test if the participants, when playing an economic game, would behave in a similar fashion under a minimal group situation and real groups, with social meaning. With this in mind we made two experimental conditions, a Low Social Meaning one (LSM) where the groups were represented by letters (H, B, O and Y) in which participants would be ramdomly assorted to each group; and the High Social Meaning condition (HSM) in which religion was used as a group marker, containing the two most dominating religious groups in Brazil, catholic and evangelic, another group containing all the other affiliations e the fourth and last group representing atheists and agnostics. The ratio of donations in-group/out-group was roughly the same across both conditions. However, the amount of wafers donated to ingroup was significantly bigger in the HSM condition. By verifying which aspects of the individual best predicted the observed group bias, we discovered that the in-group Entitativity perception as well as the Group Identification were the most relevant variables, however, only in the HSM condition. Simultaneously, by verifying the generosity, biased or not, we observed that the agreeableness personality factor was the only variable able to predict it, and only in the LSM condition. We conclude that our generosity, or the lack of it, is for most part defined by our personality, the Agreeableness factor in particular. But this very generosity can be biased by the social meaning of the involved groups and that, if the social meaning is big enough, even people who, thanks to their personality, normally wouldn’t show generosity, are able to do so when the receiver is an in-group member.