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.[1] 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.
Contents |
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). [2] 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 ethnocentrism.
The concept of in-group–out-group bias has been applied in an analysis of attitudes toward immigration policy in the U.S.[3]
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). [4]
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-esteem. 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.[1]
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.[1][5]
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.[6] While some studies have supported this notion of a negative correlation between self-esteem and in-group bias,[7] other researchers have found that individuals with low self-esteem have a higher prejudice to both in-group and out-group members.[6] Some studies have even showed that high-self esteem groups showed a greater prejudice than did lower self-esteem groups.[8] 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.[6][8] 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 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 sheep effect.[9] 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.[10]
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.[9]
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.[10] 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.
Intergroup aggression 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.[11] 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.[11]
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.”[11] 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.[11] 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.[11] 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.[11] 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.[11]
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.[12] 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.[12] 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.[12] 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 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.[1] The second is a cognitive component, involving beliefs and thoughts that make up the attitude.[1] The third is a behavioral component, relating to one’s actions – people do not just hold attitudes, they act on them as well.[1] 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.[1]
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.[1]
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).[13] 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.[13] 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.[13] In experiment 2, disgust increased bias against the relevant groups but anger did not. In experiment 3, anger increased bias against anger-relevant groups.[13] This study shows that if the group has already been primed with the prejudice, negative emotions will only exacerbate the prejudice.[13] 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.[13] 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.[13] 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.[13]
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.[13] 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.[13]
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.[14] 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.[14] 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.[14] 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.[14] 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.