Ingroup bias
Encyclopedia
In-group–out-group bias, also called intergroup bias, refers to the phenomenon of in-group favoritism, a preference and affinity for one’s in-group over the out-group, or anyone viewed as outside the in-group. This can be expressed in evaluation of others, linking, allocation of resources and many other ways. This interaction has been researched by many psychologists and linked to many theories related to group conflict and prejudice. The phenomenon is primarily viewed from a social psychology
standpoint rather than a personality psychology
perspective. Thus, the phenomenon centers around the perception of others in relation to oneself, rather than individual differences in cognition. There are several theories that relate to this overarching phenomenon. The minimal group paradigm theorizes that individuals can identify their own in-group and an out-group within minutes of perceived separateness. The realistic conflict theory proposes that intergroup conflict arises when two groups engage in competition over limited resources. Lastly, research has shown that group conflict can cause views of in-group variability, the belief that members of one's own group are more diverse, and out-group homogeneity bias, the belief that outsiders are all alike.
.
The concept of ingroup-outgroup bias was also addressed in Muzafer Sherif's Robbers Cave Experiment in 1954. In this classic experiment, 22 eleven year old boys were closely monitored during their time at a summer camp that was run by the experimenters. The boys were placed in one of two groups, the Rattlers or the Eagles. At first, they were unaware of the other group. But after time, they began to notice the other group and develop an expressed weariness for these outsiders. The camp staff (experimenters) then began to set up encounters and competitions between the two groups. As the competition wore on, tempers flared, exchanges escalated and became more hostile, and the boys experienced a spiral model of conflict intensification. The ingroup-outgroup bias could readily be seen in the boys' behaviors toward each other. They underestimated the performance of the other group and overestimated the performance of their own group. Moreover, "the pro-ingroup tendency went hand in hand with the anti-outgroup tendency" (p. 423).
. That is individuals will find a reason, no matter how insignificant, to prove to themselves why their group is superior. This phenomenon was pioneered and studied most extensively by Henri Tajfel
, a British social psychologist who looked at the psychological root of in-group/out-group bias. To study this in the lab, Tajfel and colleagues created what are now known as minimal groups which occur when “complete strangers are formed into groups using the most trivial criteria imaginable”. In Tajfel’s studies, participants were split into groups by flipping a coin, and each group then was told to appreciate a certain style of painting none of the participants were familiar with when the experiment began. What Tajfel and his colleagues discovered was regardless of the fact that a) participants did not know each other, b) their groups were completely meaningless and c) none of the participants had any inclination as to which “style” they like better, almost always across the board participants “liked the members of their own group better and they rated the members of their in-group as more likely to have pleasant personalities”. By having a more positive impression of individuals in the in-group, individuals are able to boost their own self-esteem as members of that group.
Robert Cialdini
and his research team looked at the number of university T-shirts being worn on college campuses following either a win or loss at the football game. Not surprisingly, the Monday after a win there were more T-shirts being worn, on average, than following a loss.
In another set of studies done in the 1980s by Jennifer Crocker and colleagues, self-esteem was studied using minimal group processes in which it was shown that individuals with high self-esteem who suffer a threat to the self-concept exhibit greater ingroup biases than people with low self esteem who suffer a threat to the self concept. While some studies have supported this notion of a negative correlation between self-esteem and in-group bias, other researchers have found that individuals with low self-esteem have a higher prejudice to both in-group and out-group members. Some studies have even showed that high-self esteem groups showed a greater prejudice than did lower self-esteem groups. This research suggests that there is an alternative explanation and additional reasoning as to the relationship between self-esteem and in-group/out-group biases.
One area of controversy within this field of research is the vehicle for measuring and creating these biases. The use of minimal groups, which are groups that have entirely no meaning or significance to them (such as those used in Tajfel’s study) are hard to come by in the real world and are relatively unnatural. In addition, based on the research there is contradicting evidence as to the correlation between self-reported self-esteem levels and in-group/out-group bias. However, we can use this information to look at the nature of real world consequences of such biases such as prejudice, stereotyping and bullying.
effect. A person's beliefs about the group may be changed depending upon whether they are part of the ingroup or outgroup.
New members of a group must prove themselves to the full members, or “old-timers”, to become accepted. Full members have undergone socialization and are already accepted within the group. They have more privilege than newcomers but more responsibility to help the group achieve its goals. Marginal members were once full members but lost membership because they failed to live up to the group’s expectations. They can rejoin the group if they go through re-socialization. In a Bogart and Ryan study, the development of new members' stereotypes about in-groups and out-groups during socialization was surveyed. Results showed that the new members judged themselves as consistent with the stereotypes of their in-groups, even when they had recently committed to join those groups or existed as marginal members. They also tended to judge the group as a whole in an increasingly less positive manner after they became full members.
The ingroup-outgroup bias often fuels a kind of defective logic known as double-standard thinking. This is where groups members tend to see their own actions as just and fair, but would classify similar actions of an outgroup as the exact opposite. For example, a group may view pride in their own group as nationalism, but the same behavior displayed by an outgroup would be labelled ethnocentrism. A real world example could be seen in a hockey game. If someone on your team plays aggressively and gets under the skin and into the heads of players on the other team, you might call them a good hockey player. Conversely, the other team, and fans of that team, would call this same player dirty, greasy, and perhaps unethical.
Depending on the self-esteem
of an individual, members of the in-group may experience different private beliefs about the group’s activities but will publicly express the opposite—that they actually share these beliefs. One member may not personally agree with something the group does, but to avoid the black sheep effect, they will publicly agree with the group and keep the private beliefs to themselves. If the person is privately self-aware, he or she is more likely to comply with the group even if they possibly have their own beliefs about the situation.
In situations of hazing
within fraternities and sororities
on college campuses, pledges may encounter this type of situation and may outwardly comply with the tasks they are forced to do regardless of their personal feelings about the Greek institution they are joining. This is done in an effort to avoid becoming an outcast of the group. Outcasts who behave in a way that might jeopardize the group tend to be treated more harshly than the likeable ones in a group, creating a black sheep effect. Full members of a fraternity might treat the incoming new members harshly, causing the pledges to decide if they approve of the situation and if they will voice their disagreeing opinions about it.
is any behavior intended to harm another person because he or she is a member of an out-group, the behavior being viewed by its targets as undesirable. Intergroup aggression is a by-product of in-group bias, in that if the beliefs of the in-group are challenged, or the in-group feels threatened, then they will express aggression toward the out-group.
Struch and Schwartz (1989) in a study looking at predictors of intergroup aggression in relation to in-group bias assert that the Belief Congruence Theory contributes to the source of intergroup aggression. The belief congruence theory concerns itself with the degree of similarity in beliefs, attitudes, and values perceived to exist between individuals. This theory also states that dissimilarity increases negative orientations towards others. When applied to racial discrimination, the belief congruence theory explains that it’s the perceived dissimilarity of beliefs that has more of an impact on racial discrimination than race itself.
Struch and Schwartz also suggest that the social identity
theory contributes to intergroup aggression, but because of the similarities rather than the differences between the two groups. When competition
is present between the in-group and out-group similarity between the two groups is threatening, in that one could become superior over the other. Also, similarity between groups may threaten the in-group’s uniqueness which could promote hostility between groups.
The major motive for intergroup aggression is the perception of a conflict of interest between in-group and out-group. The way the aggression is justified is through dehumanizing the out-group, because the more the out-group is dehumanized the “less they deserve the humane treatment enjoined by universal norms.” Dehumanization
of the out-group allows for the in-group to more easily commit violent acts against the others. When the in-group views the out-group as not human, it lowers inhibition for committing all kinds of atrocities. The stronger the perceived conflict, the larger motivation to harm the out-group, the more the out-group is dehumanized. Also, the more separated one feels from the out-group, the less likely one is to empathize with the out-group or humanize them. For instance, in the Struch and Schwartz study, they looked at the aggression Israeli Jews expressed toward the ultraorthodox subsection of Jews in their country. They stated that many Israeli Jews view this subgroup as threatening to their way of life. The perceived conflict is large, and the Israeli Jews feel they are completely separate in their beliefs and way of life, so the aggression expressed is more intense. The predicting factors they discovered to contribute to aggressive behavior toward the out-group were religious group affiliation, perceived in-group-out-group conflict, and decreased “permeability of boundaries” which is essentially the lack of empathy
for the out group.
Shah, Kruglanski, and Thompson (1998) studied the impact of the need for closure on in-group bias and found that high need for closure increased in-group favoritism and out-group derogation. The article suggests that over-identification with one’s in-group has been regarded as a fundamental social psychological phenomenon at the root of numerous pernicious intergroup conflicts in the world. Also, they note that the smallest experience of exclusion or inclusion in any type of group (large or small) is enough to instigate in-group bias. Their results, from three different studies, all suggest a link between need for closure and group membership as a strong contributor to self-esteem. The determinants of individual differences in need for closure were based one’s liking of the in-group, one’s disliking of the out-group, and one’s collective self-esteem
. This study displayed a link between the self-esteem one acquires based on the membership within a group and how challenges to this self-esteem could potentially cause aggressive behaviors.
is a hostile or negative attitude toward people in a distinct group, based solely on their membership within that group. There are three components. The first is the affective component, representing both the type of emotion linked with the attitude and the severity of the attitude. The second is a cognitive component, involving beliefs and thoughts that make up the attitude. The third is a behavioral component, relating to one’s actions – people do not just hold attitudes, they act on them as well. Prejudice primarily refers to a negative attitude about others, although one can also have a positive prejudice in favor of something. Prejudice is similar to stereotype
in that a stereotype is a generalization about a group of people in which identical characteristics are assigned to virtually all members of the group, regardless of actual variation among the members.
Social psychologist Henri Tajfel
claimed that the major underlying motive of prejudice is self-esteem
. In his in-group experiment, individuals sought to enhance their self-esteem by identifying with specific social groups. The researcher found that even when the reasons for differentiation are minimal, being in the in-group makes members want to treat the out-group unfairly, because such actions build self-esteem.
In a study done by Dasgupta et al (2009), the researchers examine prejudice through the scope of in-groups vs. out-groups. The study examines the impact of emotions on implicit intergroup evaluations (prejudice). Experiment 1 of the study showed that in a social group, two negative emotions: anger and disgust, created implicit bias where none had existed before. If the group had prior knowledge of the prejudice, than the negative emotion increased the prejudice if the emotion was applicable to the out-group stereotype. In experiment 2, disgust increased bias against the relevant groups but anger did not. In experiment 3, anger increased bias against anger-relevant groups. This study shows that if the group has already been primed with the prejudice, negative emotions will only exacerbate the prejudice. On the same token, if the emotion-specific threat is not applicable to the group or the group has not been primed with the emotion, then the degree of prejudice remains constant. Therefore, prejudice in relation to in-groups and out-groups tells us that the stronger the original prejudices are, the stronger the effect they will have on the overall group. This feeling will then in turn affect their behavior towards the outgroup.
Study 1 of Dasgupta et al’s experiment is particularly important as it uses the minimal groups paradigm
, which creates arbitrary groups of us versus them. Study 1 sampled 121 people (75 men and 46 women). With no prior stereotype or heuristic
at work, it would be realistic to expect that the emotion priming
would have no effect. However, the emotion manipulations were successful in producing the expected data, F (2, 189) = 66.38, p< .001. Thus, the study showed that both disgust and anger show effects on IAT
performance indicating that a bias was created against the out-group where none existed before.
Dasgupta et al conclude that emotions may focus attention on specific features of out-groups. This increased attention to the stereotypical negative features may increase negative evaluations of the group. At the most basic level, classification of individuals into an outgroup identifies them as a potential source of danger. When the target outgroup is a familiar entity, the influence of emotions may be inhibited. Accordingly, negative emotions will only exacerbate implicit bias if they are applicable to the stereotypes and threats attached to the group.
To date, social psychologists have developed a number of theories to explain why people engage in stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. The value of
these theories is the ability to help us understand realistic and contemporary issues.
In Oswald’s (2005) study on the prejudice felt towards Arabs after the September 11th attack on the United States
, she hoped to provide insight into the underlying mechanisms for anti-Arabism
or anti-Arab sentiments. Oswald’s research found that self-categorization and personal ideologies accounted for a larger percentage of the variance in anti-Arab reactions than perceived threats. However, the best explanation for anti-Arab reactions was a combination of the three perspectives.
The importance in this finding is that based on self-categorization theory
, it was hypothesized that respondents who supported clear group distinctions and who identified with being Americans would be more likely to report anti-Arab sentiments. As expected, the self-categorization items were significant predictors and accounted for between 27% and 34% of the variance in prejudice, stereotypes, discrimination, and social distance. Therefore, this is relevant to in-group and out-group biases because Oswald's data showed that those who categorize themselves as them versus others due to their fear of danger, are more likely to have a strong prejudice.
Social psychology
Social psychology is the scientific study of how people's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others. By this definition, scientific refers to the empirical method of investigation. The terms thoughts, feelings, and behaviors include all...
standpoint rather than a personality psychology
Personality psychology
Personality psychology is a branch of psychology that studies personality and individual differences. Its areas of focus include:* Constructing a coherent picture of the individual and his or her major psychological processes...
perspective. Thus, the phenomenon centers around the perception of others in relation to oneself, rather than individual differences in cognition. There are several theories that relate to this overarching phenomenon. The minimal group paradigm theorizes that individuals can identify their own in-group and an out-group within minutes of perceived separateness. The realistic conflict theory proposes that intergroup conflict arises when two groups engage in competition over limited resources. Lastly, research has shown that group conflict can cause views of in-group variability, the belief that members of one's own group are more diverse, and out-group homogeneity bias, the belief that outsiders are all alike.
Origins of the theory
In 1906, the sociologist William Sumner posited that humans are a species that join together in groups by their very nature. However, he also maintained that, beyond this, humans had an innate tendency to favor their own group over others; saying, "Each group nourishes its own pride and vanity, boasts itself superior, exists in its own divinities, and looks with contempt on outsiders" (p. 13). This is seen on the group level with ingroup-outgroup bias, and when experienced in such larger groups as tribes, ethnic groups, or nations, it is referred to as ethnocentrismEthnocentrism
Ethnocentrism is the tendency to believe that one's ethnic or cultural group is centrally important, and that all other groups are measured in relation to one's own. The ethnocentric individual will judge other groups relative to his or her own particular ethnic group or culture, especially with...
.
Application
The concept of in-group–out-group bias has been applied in an analysis of attitudes toward immigration policy in the U.S.The concept of ingroup-outgroup bias was also addressed in Muzafer Sherif's Robbers Cave Experiment in 1954. In this classic experiment, 22 eleven year old boys were closely monitored during their time at a summer camp that was run by the experimenters. The boys were placed in one of two groups, the Rattlers or the Eagles. At first, they were unaware of the other group. But after time, they began to notice the other group and develop an expressed weariness for these outsiders. The camp staff (experimenters) then began to set up encounters and competitions between the two groups. As the competition wore on, tempers flared, exchanges escalated and became more hostile, and the boys experienced a spiral model of conflict intensification. The ingroup-outgroup bias could readily be seen in the boys' behaviors toward each other. They underestimated the performance of the other group and overestimated the performance of their own group. Moreover, "the pro-ingroup tendency went hand in hand with the anti-outgroup tendency" (p. 423).
Self-esteem
A key notion in understanding in-group–out-group biases is determining the psychological mechanism that drives the bias. One of the key determinants of group biases is the need to improve self-esteemSelf-esteem
Self-esteem is a term in psychology to reflect a person's overall evaluation or appraisal of his or her own worth. Self-esteem encompasses beliefs and emotions such as triumph, despair, pride and shame: some would distinguish how 'the self-concept is what we think about the self; self-esteem, the...
. That is individuals will find a reason, no matter how insignificant, to prove to themselves why their group is superior. This phenomenon was pioneered and studied most extensively by Henri Tajfel
Henri Tajfel
Henri Tajfel was a British social psychologist, best known for his pioneering work on the cognitive aspects of prejudice and social identity theory, as well as being one of the founders of the European Association of Experimental Social Psychology.-Early life in Poland:Tajfel grew up in Poland...
, a British social psychologist who looked at the psychological root of in-group/out-group bias. To study this in the lab, Tajfel and colleagues created what are now known as minimal groups which occur when “complete strangers are formed into groups using the most trivial criteria imaginable”. In Tajfel’s studies, participants were split into groups by flipping a coin, and each group then was told to appreciate a certain style of painting none of the participants were familiar with when the experiment began. What Tajfel and his colleagues discovered was regardless of the fact that a) participants did not know each other, b) their groups were completely meaningless and c) none of the participants had any inclination as to which “style” they like better, almost always across the board participants “liked the members of their own group better and they rated the members of their in-group as more likely to have pleasant personalities”. By having a more positive impression of individuals in the in-group, individuals are able to boost their own self-esteem as members of that group.
Robert Cialdini
Robert Cialdini
Robert B. Cialdini is Regents’ Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Marketing at Arizona State University.He is best known for his popular book on persuasion and marketing, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. Influence has sold over 2 million copies and has been translated into twenty-six...
and his research team looked at the number of university T-shirts being worn on college campuses following either a win or loss at the football game. Not surprisingly, the Monday after a win there were more T-shirts being worn, on average, than following a loss.
In another set of studies done in the 1980s by Jennifer Crocker and colleagues, self-esteem was studied using minimal group processes in which it was shown that individuals with high self-esteem who suffer a threat to the self-concept exhibit greater ingroup biases than people with low self esteem who suffer a threat to the self concept. While some studies have supported this notion of a negative correlation between self-esteem and in-group bias, other researchers have found that individuals with low self-esteem have a higher prejudice to both in-group and out-group members. Some studies have even showed that high-self esteem groups showed a greater prejudice than did lower self-esteem groups. This research suggests that there is an alternative explanation and additional reasoning as to the relationship between self-esteem and in-group/out-group biases.
One area of controversy within this field of research is the vehicle for measuring and creating these biases. The use of minimal groups, which are groups that have entirely no meaning or significance to them (such as those used in Tajfel’s study) are hard to come by in the real world and are relatively unnatural. In addition, based on the research there is contradicting evidence as to the correlation between self-reported self-esteem levels and in-group/out-group bias. However, we can use this information to look at the nature of real world consequences of such biases such as prejudice, stereotyping and bullying.
Beliefs
Beliefs within the ingroup are based on how individuals in the group see their other members. Individuals tend to upgrade likeable in-group members and deviate from unlikeable group members, making them a separate outgroup. This is called the black sheepBlack sheep
In the English language, black sheep is an idiom used to describe an odd or disreputable member of a group, especially within a family. The term has typically been given negative implications, implying waywardness...
effect. A person's beliefs about the group may be changed depending upon whether they are part of the ingroup or outgroup.
New members of a group must prove themselves to the full members, or “old-timers”, to become accepted. Full members have undergone socialization and are already accepted within the group. They have more privilege than newcomers but more responsibility to help the group achieve its goals. Marginal members were once full members but lost membership because they failed to live up to the group’s expectations. They can rejoin the group if they go through re-socialization. In a Bogart and Ryan study, the development of new members' stereotypes about in-groups and out-groups during socialization was surveyed. Results showed that the new members judged themselves as consistent with the stereotypes of their in-groups, even when they had recently committed to join those groups or existed as marginal members. They also tended to judge the group as a whole in an increasingly less positive manner after they became full members.
The ingroup-outgroup bias often fuels a kind of defective logic known as double-standard thinking. This is where groups members tend to see their own actions as just and fair, but would classify similar actions of an outgroup as the exact opposite. For example, a group may view pride in their own group as nationalism, but the same behavior displayed by an outgroup would be labelled ethnocentrism. A real world example could be seen in a hockey game. If someone on your team plays aggressively and gets under the skin and into the heads of players on the other team, you might call them a good hockey player. Conversely, the other team, and fans of that team, would call this same player dirty, greasy, and perhaps unethical.
Depending on the self-esteem
Self-esteem
Self-esteem is a term in psychology to reflect a person's overall evaluation or appraisal of his or her own worth. Self-esteem encompasses beliefs and emotions such as triumph, despair, pride and shame: some would distinguish how 'the self-concept is what we think about the self; self-esteem, the...
of an individual, members of the in-group may experience different private beliefs about the group’s activities but will publicly express the opposite—that they actually share these beliefs. One member may not personally agree with something the group does, but to avoid the black sheep effect, they will publicly agree with the group and keep the private beliefs to themselves. If the person is privately self-aware, he or she is more likely to comply with the group even if they possibly have their own beliefs about the situation.
In situations of hazing
Hazing
Hazing is a term used to describe various ritual and other activities involving harassment, abuse or humiliation used as a way of initiating a person into a group....
within fraternities and sororities
Fraternities and sororities
Fraternities and sororities are fraternal social organizations for undergraduate students. In Latin, the term refers mainly to such organizations at colleges and universities in the United States, although it is also applied to analogous European groups also known as corporations...
on college campuses, pledges may encounter this type of situation and may outwardly comply with the tasks they are forced to do regardless of their personal feelings about the Greek institution they are joining. This is done in an effort to avoid becoming an outcast of the group. Outcasts who behave in a way that might jeopardize the group tend to be treated more harshly than the likeable ones in a group, creating a black sheep effect. Full members of a fraternity might treat the incoming new members harshly, causing the pledges to decide if they approve of the situation and if they will voice their disagreeing opinions about it.
Aggression
Intergroup aggressionAggression
In psychology, as well as other social and behavioral sciences, aggression refers to behavior between members of the same species that is intended to cause humiliation, pain, or harm. Ferguson and Beaver defined aggressive behavior as "Behavior which is intended to increase the social dominance of...
is any behavior intended to harm another person because he or she is a member of an out-group, the behavior being viewed by its targets as undesirable. Intergroup aggression is a by-product of in-group bias, in that if the beliefs of the in-group are challenged, or the in-group feels threatened, then they will express aggression toward the out-group.
Struch and Schwartz (1989) in a study looking at predictors of intergroup aggression in relation to in-group bias assert that the Belief Congruence Theory contributes to the source of intergroup aggression. The belief congruence theory concerns itself with the degree of similarity in beliefs, attitudes, and values perceived to exist between individuals. This theory also states that dissimilarity increases negative orientations towards others. When applied to racial discrimination, the belief congruence theory explains that it’s the perceived dissimilarity of beliefs that has more of an impact on racial discrimination than race itself.
Struch and Schwartz also suggest that the social identity
Social identity
A social identity is the portion of an individual's self-concept derived from perceived membership in a relevant social group. As originally formulated by Henri Tajfel and John Turner in the 1970s and 80s, social identity theory introduced the concept of a social identity as a way in which to...
theory contributes to intergroup aggression, but because of the similarities rather than the differences between the two groups. When competition
Competition
Competition is a contest between individuals, groups, animals, etc. for territory, a niche, or a location of resources. It arises whenever two and only two strive for a goal which cannot be shared. Competition occurs naturally between living organisms which co-exist in the same environment. For...
is present between the in-group and out-group similarity between the two groups is threatening, in that one could become superior over the other. Also, similarity between groups may threaten the in-group’s uniqueness which could promote hostility between groups.
The major motive for intergroup aggression is the perception of a conflict of interest between in-group and out-group. The way the aggression is justified is through dehumanizing the out-group, because the more the out-group is dehumanized the “less they deserve the humane treatment enjoined by universal norms.” Dehumanization
Dehumanization
Dehumanization is to make somebody less human by taking away his or her individuality, the creative and interesting aspects of his or her personality, or his or her compassion and sensitivity towards others. Dehumanization may be directed by an organization or may be the composite of individual...
of the out-group allows for the in-group to more easily commit violent acts against the others. When the in-group views the out-group as not human, it lowers inhibition for committing all kinds of atrocities. The stronger the perceived conflict, the larger motivation to harm the out-group, the more the out-group is dehumanized. Also, the more separated one feels from the out-group, the less likely one is to empathize with the out-group or humanize them. For instance, in the Struch and Schwartz study, they looked at the aggression Israeli Jews expressed toward the ultraorthodox subsection of Jews in their country. They stated that many Israeli Jews view this subgroup as threatening to their way of life. The perceived conflict is large, and the Israeli Jews feel they are completely separate in their beliefs and way of life, so the aggression expressed is more intense. The predicting factors they discovered to contribute to aggressive behavior toward the out-group were religious group affiliation, perceived in-group-out-group conflict, and decreased “permeability of boundaries” which is essentially the lack of empathy
Empathy
Empathy is the capacity to recognize and, to some extent, share feelings that are being experienced by another sapient or semi-sapient being. Someone may need to have a certain amount of empathy before they are able to feel compassion. The English word was coined in 1909 by E.B...
for the out group.
Shah, Kruglanski, and Thompson (1998) studied the impact of the need for closure on in-group bias and found that high need for closure increased in-group favoritism and out-group derogation. The article suggests that over-identification with one’s in-group has been regarded as a fundamental social psychological phenomenon at the root of numerous pernicious intergroup conflicts in the world. Also, they note that the smallest experience of exclusion or inclusion in any type of group (large or small) is enough to instigate in-group bias. Their results, from three different studies, all suggest a link between need for closure and group membership as a strong contributor to self-esteem. The determinants of individual differences in need for closure were based one’s liking of the in-group, one’s disliking of the out-group, and one’s collective self-esteem
Self-esteem
Self-esteem is a term in psychology to reflect a person's overall evaluation or appraisal of his or her own worth. Self-esteem encompasses beliefs and emotions such as triumph, despair, pride and shame: some would distinguish how 'the self-concept is what we think about the self; self-esteem, the...
. This study displayed a link between the self-esteem one acquires based on the membership within a group and how challenges to this self-esteem could potentially cause aggressive behaviors.
Prejudice
PrejudicePrejudice
Prejudice is making a judgment or assumption about someone or something before having enough knowledge to be able to do so with guaranteed accuracy, or "judging a book by its cover"...
is a hostile or negative attitude toward people in a distinct group, based solely on their membership within that group. There are three components. The first is the affective component, representing both the type of emotion linked with the attitude and the severity of the attitude. The second is a cognitive component, involving beliefs and thoughts that make up the attitude. The third is a behavioral component, relating to one’s actions – people do not just hold attitudes, they act on them as well. Prejudice primarily refers to a negative attitude about others, although one can also have a positive prejudice in favor of something. Prejudice is similar to stereotype
Stereotype
A stereotype is a popular belief about specific social groups or types of individuals. The concepts of "stereotype" and "prejudice" are often confused with many other different meanings...
in that a stereotype is a generalization about a group of people in which identical characteristics are assigned to virtually all members of the group, regardless of actual variation among the members.
Social psychologist Henri Tajfel
Henri Tajfel
Henri Tajfel was a British social psychologist, best known for his pioneering work on the cognitive aspects of prejudice and social identity theory, as well as being one of the founders of the European Association of Experimental Social Psychology.-Early life in Poland:Tajfel grew up in Poland...
claimed that the major underlying motive of prejudice is self-esteem
Self-esteem
Self-esteem is a term in psychology to reflect a person's overall evaluation or appraisal of his or her own worth. Self-esteem encompasses beliefs and emotions such as triumph, despair, pride and shame: some would distinguish how 'the self-concept is what we think about the self; self-esteem, the...
. In his in-group experiment, individuals sought to enhance their self-esteem by identifying with specific social groups. The researcher found that even when the reasons for differentiation are minimal, being in the in-group makes members want to treat the out-group unfairly, because such actions build self-esteem.
In a study done by Dasgupta et al (2009), the researchers examine prejudice through the scope of in-groups vs. out-groups. The study examines the impact of emotions on implicit intergroup evaluations (prejudice). Experiment 1 of the study showed that in a social group, two negative emotions: anger and disgust, created implicit bias where none had existed before. If the group had prior knowledge of the prejudice, than the negative emotion increased the prejudice if the emotion was applicable to the out-group stereotype. In experiment 2, disgust increased bias against the relevant groups but anger did not. In experiment 3, anger increased bias against anger-relevant groups. This study shows that if the group has already been primed with the prejudice, negative emotions will only exacerbate the prejudice. On the same token, if the emotion-specific threat is not applicable to the group or the group has not been primed with the emotion, then the degree of prejudice remains constant. Therefore, prejudice in relation to in-groups and out-groups tells us that the stronger the original prejudices are, the stronger the effect they will have on the overall group. This feeling will then in turn affect their behavior towards the outgroup.
Study 1 of Dasgupta et al’s experiment is particularly important as it uses the minimal groups paradigm
Minimal groups paradigm
The Minimal group paradigm is a methodology employed in social psychology to investigate the minimal conditions required for discrimination to occur between groups. Experiments using this approach have revealed that even arbitrary and virtually meaningless distinctions between groups The...
, which creates arbitrary groups of us versus them. Study 1 sampled 121 people (75 men and 46 women). With no prior stereotype or heuristic
Heuristic
Heuristic refers to experience-based techniques for problem solving, learning, and discovery. Heuristic methods are used to speed up the process of finding a satisfactory solution, where an exhaustive search is impractical...
at work, it would be realistic to expect that the emotion priming
Priming
Priming may refer to:* Priming , a process in which the processing of a target stimulus is aided or altered by the presentation of a previously presented stimulus....
would have no effect. However, the emotion manipulations were successful in producing the expected data, F (2, 189) = 66.38, p< .001. Thus, the study showed that both disgust and anger show effects on IAT
IAT
IAT may refer to:*Iat, a minor Ancient Egyptian Goddess of milk, and by association, of nurturing and childbirth* IAT Instituto Andaluz de Tecnología / Andalusian Institute of Technology, a Spanish Technological Center, specialized in R&D&Innovation* IAT Law, a US non-profit organization that...
performance indicating that a bias was created against the out-group where none existed before.
Dasgupta et al conclude that emotions may focus attention on specific features of out-groups. This increased attention to the stereotypical negative features may increase negative evaluations of the group. At the most basic level, classification of individuals into an outgroup identifies them as a potential source of danger. When the target outgroup is a familiar entity, the influence of emotions may be inhibited. Accordingly, negative emotions will only exacerbate implicit bias if they are applicable to the stereotypes and threats attached to the group.
To date, social psychologists have developed a number of theories to explain why people engage in stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. The value of
these theories is the ability to help us understand realistic and contemporary issues.
In Oswald’s (2005) study on the prejudice felt towards Arabs after the September 11th attack on the United States
United States
The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district...
, she hoped to provide insight into the underlying mechanisms for anti-Arabism
Anti-Arabism
Anti-Arabism or Arabophobia is consistent advocacy of discrimination, extermination, prejudice, hostility, hatred, or genocide toward Arabs.-Arab definition:...
or anti-Arab sentiments. Oswald’s research found that self-categorization and personal ideologies accounted for a larger percentage of the variance in anti-Arab reactions than perceived threats. However, the best explanation for anti-Arab reactions was a combination of the three perspectives.
The importance in this finding is that based on self-categorization theory
Self-categorization Theory
Self-categorization theory is a theory of social categorization that includes categorization of the self as a key feature. The theory was developed by John Turner and colleagues, and along with social identity theory it is a constituent part of the social identity approach...
, it was hypothesized that respondents who supported clear group distinctions and who identified with being Americans would be more likely to report anti-Arab sentiments. As expected, the self-categorization items were significant predictors and accounted for between 27% and 34% of the variance in prejudice, stereotypes, discrimination, and social distance. Therefore, this is relevant to in-group and out-group biases because Oswald's data showed that those who categorize themselves as them versus others due to their fear of danger, are more likely to have a strong prejudice.