The sibling rivalry that divided a town - Jay Van Bavel and Dominic Packer

翻译人员: Jiayi E 校对人员: Yanyan Hong

In the years before World War Two,

在第二次世界大战前，

a pair of brothers worked together as shoemakers

在一座名叫黑措根奥拉赫的德国村庄

in the German town of Herzogenaurach.

有一对一起制作鞋子的兄弟。

But during the war, the siblings had a terrible argument—

但是在战争期间， 兄弟二人有了一场剧烈的争论——

a fight so explosive it split the family business in two.

这场激烈的争吵导致了 他们的家族企业一分为二。

At first, the feud only infected their newly competing personnel.

一开始，他们的分歧只 影响到了内部员工。

But over the coming years,

但是随着时间的推移，

this disagreement divided all of Herzogenaurach.

他们的分歧导致了整座村庄的分裂。

Residents became fiercely loyal to one brand of shoe.

村民们激烈地展示着 他们对某一方的忠心。

Local businesses chose sides and marriage across lines was discouraged.

当地商家们纷纷站队， 跨分歧的婚姻也遭到阻止。

Herzogenaurach eventually became known as “the town of bent necks”

黑措根奥拉赫逐渐成为了“低头村”，

because its residents looked down to ensure they were interacting

因为村民们为了保证只与自己人交流，

with members of their group.

纷纷低下他们的头。

But could such a serious divide really be about shoes?

但是如此严重的分裂 真的只是因为鞋子吗？

Doesn’t it take more significant cultural differences

难道不是更深层的文化差异

to produce this degree of conflict?

才导致如此极端的冲突？

To answer this question, we can turn to social psychologist Henri Tajfel

为了回答这个问题，

我们可以求助社会心理学家 亨利 · 泰弗尔（Henri Tajfel）

and his collaborators at the University of Bristol.

以及他在布里斯托大学的合作者们。

This team developed the minimal group paradigm,

他们团队设计了最小群体范例，

a methodology designed to investigate

一种旨在研究人们产生分裂 所需的、最低条件的理论方法。

the minimal conditions required to turn people against each other.

Their plan was to gather participants without the usual factors

他们的方案是在选取参与者时 去掉容易产生争议的常见因素，

that lead to hostility,

such as religious, ethnic, gender, or other cultural differences.

比如宗教、种族、性别， 以及其他文化差异。

Then, they would split into groups,

参与者们分到不同的小组后，

and run them through scenarios that added one variable at a time

经历了一系列场景 每个场景仅对应一个变量，

to see what stirred up conflict.

从而测试是什么造成矛盾。

But first, they needed a control condition—

但是首先他们需要一个控制组——

a pair of groups without any group bias.

一对没有群体偏向的群组。

The researchers told participants they were being grouped

实验者们跟参与者们说他们是按照 估算正确与不正确而划分的；

based on their ability to estimate things correctly or incorrectly;

but in reality, the groups were totally random.

但是实际上群组是完全随机组合的。

Since the researchers ensured none of the participants interacted,

因为实验者们保证了没有任何 参与者们互相互动过，

no one could form any judgments or personal bonds.

没有人会产生任何意见或私交。

Then everyone was given resources to distribute.

之后，所有人收到 可以分享的同等资源。

Each participant was free to give resources to members of either group,

每位参与者可以任意赠与 两个群组里任何人资源，

and importantly, everything was anonymous.

且所有互动都是匿名的。

So whatever a participant decided,

所以参与者们的任何选择，

it had no impact on how many resources they personally would receive.

都不会影响到他们本人收到的资源。

With all the ingredients for discrimination removed

当所有可造成歧视的因素都被剔除，

and no reason for competition over resources,

而且没有理由为了资源而竞争时，

the scientists assumed this would make a conflict-free baseline

科学家们认为这应该是 后续研究中的无分歧基线。

for further research.

But even in these groups,

但是即使在这些群组里，

where membership was only defined by a perceived similarity

仅因为拥有相似的任意技能，

in possessing an arbitrary skill,

individuals still showed in-group bias.

参与者们还是展现了 对自己所在组的偏向。

They consistently gave more to members of their own group than the out-group.

比起另一个群组的人， 他们把资源更多的分享给本组的人。

Later, research went even further,

随着研究的深入，

informing participants that the only thing determining their group membership

即便告诉参与者们 分组仅是依据扔硬币的正反。

was a coin flip.

But group bias still occurred.

但群体偏向仍然存在。

The minimal groups of “us” and “them” were enough.

最基本的“我们”和“他们” 两种分类已经足够。

So, in the absence of stereotypes, resource conflicts and status differences,

所以当刻板印象、资源抢夺 和身份差异都不存在时，

what was left?

还剩下了什么？

What could possibly account for people showing clear preferences

到底是什么让人们偏向自己所在的

for the most temporary and meaningless of groups?

最暂时和毫无意义的群组。

The answer that came to Tajfel and his colleagues was social identity.

社会身份 是泰弗尔和他同事们的给出的答案。

People regularly use group membership to help determine their sense of identity.

人们经常借用群体关系 来确定自己的身份，

And these minimal group experiments suggested that simply being categorized

而这些最小群体范例说明

仅仅被归类为某群体的一部分

as part of a group is enough to link that group to a person’s sense of self.

就足够将该群体 与个人的自我意识关联起来，

Then, in an effort to create a meaningful identity,

所以为了创造一个有意义的身份，

participants allocated more resources to their in-group than the out-group—

参与者们给予了自己组员更多资源，

pursuing their group's interests despite no clear benefit to themselves

为群组目标奋斗，

尽管群组的安危和他们自己毫无关系。

as individuals.

Variants of these experiments have been conducted around the globe,

这类实验的变式 在全球范围内进行着，

examining how a shared sense of “us” can affect our attention,

研究“我们”这种共同的意识

对我们注意力、洞察力、 记忆力和情绪的影响。

perception, memory, and emotions.

The mental processes behind minimal group distinctions

最小群体范例背后的心理历程

appear to be the same as many of those that underlie real group identities.

与真正的群组身份背后的一样。

So it is possible that these seemingly insignificant differences can harden

所以即使是看似不重要的区别

into much more serious divides.

也可以造成重大的分歧。

That said, minimal groups don't always drive people apart.

尽管如此，最小群体范例 不只会导致人们分裂。

Bringing individuals together in a new group

把陌生的人们 组成为一个新的群体，

can temporarily help people overcome entrenched biases.

可以帮助他们暂时克服固有偏见。

However, these positive effects are easily negated by external factors

但是，这些正面的效应 会很容易被抵消，

比如当有外部因素 强化已有的群组身份时。

that reinforce existing group identities.

Ultimately, the psychology of groups is part of the human condition,

归根结底，群体心理学 是人类组成的一部分，

and our tendency towards in-group bias is an undeniable part of that.

而我们对自己群体的偏好 又是其中不可割舍的一部分。

So it's up to all of us to make our groups and ourselves

所以大家都有责任来确保 我们和所属的群体尽可能的包容。

as inclusive of others as possible.