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

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Helen Chang

In the years before World War Two,

在第二次世界大戰前的那幾年，

a pair of brothers worked together as shoemakers

有一對鞋匠兄弟一起工作，

in the German town of Herzogenaurach.

地點在德國的黑措根奧拉赫。

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

但在戰爭期間， 這對手足大吵了一架——

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

他們吵得非常兇，

導致家族事業分家。

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

最初，鬥爭只存在於 他們互相競爭的員工之間。

But over the coming years,

但在接下來的年間，

this disagreement divided all of Herzogenaurach.

整個黑措根奧拉赫 都因為他們的不合而分裂。

Residents became fiercely loyal to one brand of shoe.

居民變得非常忠於 其中一個鞋子品牌。

Local businesses chose sides and marriage across lines was discouraged.

地方企業選邊站， 兩邊的人通婚則會被勸阻。

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

最後，黑措根奧拉赫成了 一般所知的「低頭城鎮」，

because its residents looked down to ensure they were interacting

因為其居民要低頭看鞋子， 確保他們互動的對象

with members of their group.

是和自己同一邊的人。

But could such a serious divide really be about shoes?

但這麼嚴重的分裂， 真的只是因為鞋子嗎？

Doesn’t it take more significant cultural differences

不是應該要有更明顯的文化差異，

to produce this degree of conflict?

才會產生這種程度的衝突嗎？

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

要回答這個問題，

我們可以去轉向社會心理學家

亨利‧泰菲爾

and his collaborators at the University of Bristol.

以及他在布里斯托爾 大學的共同研究者。

This team developed the minimal group paradigm,

這個團隊發展出了 「最小團體研究典範」，

a methodology designed to investigate

這個方法論的目的是在探究 最少要符合什麼條件

the minimal conditions required to turn people against each other.

才能讓人彼此對抗。

Their plan was to gather participants without the usual factors

他們的計畫是招集受試者，

這些人沒有一般會導致敵意的因素，

that lead to hostility,

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

比如宗教、人種、性別， 或其他文化上的差異。

Then, they would split into groups,

接著，這些人被分組，

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

讓他們體驗情境， 一次增加一個變數，

to see what stirred up conflict.

看什麼會激起衝突。

But first, they needed a control condition—

但首先，他們需要 一種當控制組的情況——

a pair of groups without any group bias.

兩組人，沒有任何對組的偏見。

The researchers told participants they were being grouped

研究者告訴受試者，他們分組的依據

based on their ability to estimate things correctly or incorrectly;

是他們正確或錯誤估計事物的能力，

but in reality, the groups were totally random.

但實際上，分組是完全隨機的。

Since the researchers ensured none of the participants interacted,

因為研究者有確保 受試者彼此間不能互動，

no one could form any judgments or personal bonds.

沒有人能形成任何評斷或個人連結。

Then everyone was given resources to distribute.

接著給予每個人資源，讓他們分發。

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

每位受試者都可以自由將資源 給予任何一組的成員。

and importantly, everything was anonymous.

重要的是，一切都匿名進行。

So whatever a participant decided,

所以不論受試者怎麼決定，

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

都不會影響到他們個人 會接收到多少資源。

With all the ingredients for discrimination removed

所有歧視的因素都被除去了，

and no reason for competition over resources,

也沒有理由要為了資源競爭，

the scientists assumed this would make a conflict-free baseline

科學家假設，

這會成為沒有衝突的基線值，

for further research.

供進一步研究用。

But even in these groups,

但就連在這些組中，

where membership was only defined by a perceived similarity

組員身分的定義只有 自身感知大家具有

in possessing an arbitrary skill,

相似的某種任意技能，

individuals still showed in-group bias.

受試者仍然展現出對同組的偏心。

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

他們給予同組成員的資源 很一致地比給非同組成員多。

Later, research went even further,

後來，研究再進了一步，

informing participants that the only thing determining their group membership

告知受試者

他們就只是根據 擲硬幣的結果被分組的。

was a coin flip.

But group bias still occurred.

但對組的偏心仍然會產生。

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

只要有「我們」 和「他們」之別就足夠了。

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

所以，沒有刻板印象、資源衝突，

以及身分地位差異，

what was left?

還剩什麼？

What could possibly account for people showing clear preferences

有什麼原因能說明這些人 會展現清楚的偏心，

for the most temporary and meaningless of groups?

即使他們的分組是最暫時性 且完全無意義的？

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

泰菲爾和他的同事 想到的答案是社會認同。

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

人通常會用團體成員身分

來協助決定他們的認同感。

And these minimal group experiments suggested that simply being categorized

而這些最小團體實驗

指出單單只是被分到一個團體，

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

就足以將那個團體 和人的自我意識連結起來。

Then, in an effort to create a meaningful identity,

接著，因為試圖要創造出 有意義的認同，

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

受試者分給同組成員的資源 就會比其他組更多——

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

追求所屬團體的利益，

儘管自己個人不會 明顯得到什麼益處。

as individuals.

Variants of these experiments have been conducted around the globe,

這個實驗的各種版本 在全球各地進行，

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

探討共同的「我們」感

會如何影響我們的注意力、感受、

perception, memory, and emotions.

記憶力，以及情緒。

The mental processes behind minimal group distinctions

最小團體區別背後的心理過程

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

似乎和許多真實的團體認同 背後的心理過程相同。

So it is possible that these seemingly insignificant differences can harden

所以，的確有可能 這些似乎微不足道的差異

into much more serious divides.

能夠強化成更嚴重的分裂。

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

話雖如此，最小團體 不見得都會把人分開。

Bringing individuals together in a new group

把個人集結到一個新的團體裡，

can temporarily help people overcome entrenched biases.

能暫時協助他們克服 根深蒂固的偏見。

However, these positive effects are easily negated by external factors

然而，這些正面的影響 很容易就會被消除，

會強化既有團體認同的 外部因素就可能將它們消除。

that reinforce existing group identities.

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

到頭來，團體的心理本來 就是人類境況的一部分，

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

而我們對同組偏心的傾向 也是它無可否認的一部分。

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

所以，要靠我們自己來讓 我們的團體和我們自己

as inclusive of others as possible.

盡可能包容接納其他人。