Even arbitrary group divisions trigger in-group bias and out-group derogation that harm cooperation

Evidence

Allport’s ideas about social categorization and recategorization at higher levels of inclusiveness foreshadowed many of the theoretical and empirical developments of importance to contemporary thinking about prejudice and prejudice reduction. Indeed, social categorization is as central to contemporary work in intergroup relations (see also Brewer & Gaertner, 2001) as it was to Allport’s thinking about nature of prejudice. Although Allport’s analysis focused primarily on personality dynamics, he identified the central role of categorization, particularly in terms of the distinction between ingroups and outgroups. This distinction became the cornerstone for socialcognitive (Hamilton & Trolier, 1986), social-identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), and self-categorization (Turner, 1985) approaches to prejudice. In the process of categorizing people into groups, people typically classify themselves into one of the social categories and out of the others. Because of the centrality of the self in social perception, this distinction has a profound influence on evaluations, cognitions, and behavior. Perhaps one reason why ethnocentrism is so prevalent is because these biases operate even when the basis for the categorization is quite trivial, as when group identity is assigned randomly in laboratory experiments. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 545 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

The first is the tendency for individuals to perceive their own in-group and its members in comparatively positive terms (as being, for instance, more honest, cooperative, fair, and trustworthy). This bias is termed, aptly enough, “in-group bias” (Brewer, 1979). The second is a tendency for individuals to devaluate the attributes, values, and practices of out-groups and their members—a process known as “out-group derogation.” — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1973 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Mild individual in-group preference generates macro segregation spontaneously — David Theo Goldberg, The Threat of Race: Reflections on…, 383; Anticipatory loss of group standing drives outgroup discrimination — Brenda Major and Alison Blodorn and Gregory Major Blascovich, The threat of increasing diversity: Why…, 14; Segregation sustains conflict by institutionalizing mutual ignorance and suspicion — Miles Hewstone and Ed Cairns and Alberto Voci and Juergen Hamberger and Ulrike Niens, Intergroup Contact, Forgiveness, and…, 104 (+18 more)

Broader Connections

• In-group bias operates even when group assignment is arbitrary and trivial #corroborates (0.95) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 545
• Groups split favorably toward their own members and derogate outgroup attributes #corroborates (0.92) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1973
• In-group bias arises from preferential in-group treatment rather than out-group hostility #complicates (0.85) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1404
• In-group preference and out-group prejudice have distinct origins and consequences #complicates (0.85)
• Most ingroup bias overvalues the ingroup rather than devaluing the outgroup #complicates (0.82) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 555
• Recategorization into a common identity, not cooperation itself, reduces intergroup bias #complicates (0.75) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 572