An organizational psychologist divides a cohort of 30 newly hired software engineers into two groups based on a trivial preference: whether they prefer "Tabs" or "Spaces" for code indentation, aiming to study how arbitrary categorization affects team collaboration and bias.
The "Tabs" group are told they possess "high-level architectural vision" and are designated as the superior group. They are allocated high-end mechanical keyboards, dual monitors, and are allowed to work in a spacious, air-conditioned lounge while receiving continuous encouragement from the facilitator. The "Spaces" group are told they are "pedantic, syntax-obsessed code-monkeys" (the inferior group); they are relegated to cramped, noisy cubicles and ordered to work in complete silence. When a "Spaces" engineer asks for assistance with an API setup, the facilitator publicly dismisses them, stating, "As expected, those with a Spaces mindset struggle to see the bigger picture." In response, several "Tabs" engineers smirked and turned away.
During the session, the "Spaces" engineers became withdrawn, anxious, and their speed on a debugging task significantly declined. Conversely, the "Tabs" engineers excelled, outperforming their baseline scores. Although several "Tabs" engineers admitted in post-session interviews that they felt the hierarchy was arbitrary and unfair, they still went along with it and participated in the exclusion of the "Spaces" group during communal breaks. When a "Spaces" engineer accidentally encountered a merge conflict, a "Tabs" engineer muttered, "Classic Spaces error, always breaking the build."
Outline one possible reason why it was necessary to divide the engineers into a superior and inferior group to investigate discriminatory behaviour in this workshop. Justify your answer in relation to the scenario.