’ § INGROUP AND OUTGROUP

David G. Myers

Myers, a social psychologist, offers a window into the phenomenon of “us” versus “them.” For better
or worse, we tend to identify with particular groups, think our group is better, andae favor members of
gur group. However the groups are formed, we tend to think our group ig superior, we watch care-
fully, we can see the “ingroup” or “outgroup” bias acting across all sorts of sroupings, including those
defined by race, culture, class, gender, sexual orientation, and religion.
Myers also considers prejudice, noting how it can arise when we simply conform to existing norms.
For example, children who never see women in positions of leadership may be less likely to consider
women as leaders. As you read, _consider in what.ways. grouping enables your sense of identity.and
guna siaNR SR

any stereotyping this may cause. Connections can be made to dialogue (Bohm), the prejudice toward
outgroups, and our rights and responsibilities (Declaration of Independence).

' The social definition of who you are—your group, they were asked to divide some monetary
race, religion, sex, academic major—can also awards among members of both groups. In
imply a definition of who you are not. The cir- experiment after experiment, when groups were
cle that includes “us” excludes “them.” Thus, the defined even in this trivial way, favoritism toward
mere experience of people’s being formed into one’s group resulted. Researcher David Wilder
groups, quite apart from any relationship (1981) summarizes the typical result: “When
between the groups, may promote ingroup bias. given the opportunity to divide 15 points [worth
Ask children, “Which are better, the children in money], subjects generally award 9 or 10 points
your school or the children at (another school to their own group and 5 or 6 points to the other
nearby)?” Virtually all will say their own school group.” This bias occurs with both sexes and
has the better children. people
aceo
of all agesaand nationalities, though espe-
n cpm nen

2 ‘In a series of experiments, British social psy- cially with people from individualistic cultures
chologists Henri Tajfel and Michael Billig (1974; (Gudykunst, 1989). (People in communal cul-
Tajfel, 1970, 1981, 1982) found that even when tures seem somewhat more disposed to identify
the us-them distinction is inconsequential, peo- with all their peers and so to treat everyone the
ple still immediately favor their own group. In same.)
one study, British teenagers evaluated modern 3 Other researchers report that members of
abstract paintings and then were told that they one’s artificial group are also more positively
and some others had favored the art of Paul rated (Brewer, 1979). In fact, some researchers
Klee over that by Wassily Kandinsky. Then, with- report that even forming conspicuous groups on
out ever meeting the other members of their no logical basis—say, merely by composing

Myers, David G. “Ingroup and Outgroup.” Social Psychology. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Co.,
1990, pp. 345-347. Reprinted by permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies.
 THE HUMAN EXPERIENCE: WHO AM I? sg
“
groups X and Y with the flip of a coin—is for the first: Apparently, ingroup bias results pri-
sufficient to produce ingroup bias (Brewer & marily from perceiving that one’s own group is
Silver, 1978; Billig & Tajfel, 1973; Locksley et al., good (Brewer, 1979), and to a lesser_extent.
1980). In Kurt Vonnegut’s novel Slapstick, com-
i aaah Passaic atspramesgnaneetnte
puters gave everyone a new middle name; all Rosenbaum & Holtz, 1985). Although, as
“Daffodil-11’s” then felt unity with one another always, we must be cautious about generalizing
and distance from “Raspberry-13’s.” The self- from laboratory experiments; it seems that pos-
serving bias again surfaces, enabling people to itive feelings for our own groups need not be
achieve a more positive social identity: “We” are mirrored by equally strong negative feelings for
better than “they,” even when “we” and “they” outgroups. Granted, there appears to be some
are alike. Because we evaluate ourselves partly tendency for devotion to one’s own race, reli-
in terms of our group memberships, seeing our gion, and social groups.
own groups as superior helps us feel good about
ourselves.
4 When our group has actually been success- Conformity
ful, we can also make ourselves feel better by
more strongly identifying with it. When queried ° Once established, prejudice is maintained
after their school’s football team has been victo- largely by its own social inertig. If prejudice is a
rious, college students frequently report that “we. social norm-fif itit. is expected—then many peo-
won.” When questioned after their team has been ple will follow the path of least social resistance:
defeated, they are somewhat more likely to They will conform to the social fashion. They will
report that “they lost.” This ten act not so much out of a need to hate as from a
thé reflected glory of a successful ingroup is yrneed to be liked and accepted (Pettigrew,
especially strong among those who have just 1980). COMPA NA “yo ovhes
experienced an ego blow, such as learning they ’ Studies by Thomas Pettigrew (1958) of
did poorly on a “creativity test” (Cialdini et al., Whites in South Africa and the American South
1976). We can also bask in the reflected glory of revealed that during the 1950s those who con-
a friend’s achievement, except when the friend formed most to other social norms were also
. outperforms us on somethine-that is pertinent to most prejudiced; those who in general were less”
~ our identity (Tesser et al., 1988). If you think of conforming mirrored less of the surrounding
yourself as an outstanding psychology student, prejudice. That nonconformity can exact a price
you will likely take more pleasure in a friend’s was painfully evident to the ministers of Little
excelling in mathematics than in psychology Rock, Arkansas, where the Supreme Court’s 1954
° _Ingroup bias is the favoring of one’s group. school desegregation decision was first imple-
Such relative favoritism could reflect (1) liking mented. Most ministers favored integration, but pow $7
for the ingroup, or (2) dislike for the outgroup, usually_only privately: they knew that if they
or some combination of the two. If both, the were to advocate it vigorously they would risk
implication would be that loyalty to one’s group losing members and contributions (Campbell &
is_ generally accompanied by a devaluing of Pettigrew, 1959). Or consider the Indiana steel-
other groups. Is that true? Is ethnic pride con- workers and West Virginia coal miners of the
ducive to | prejudice? Does women’s solidarity same era. In the mills and the mines, integration
with other women stimulate them to dislike was accepted. However, in the neighborhood,
men? Does enthusiastic loyalty to a particular the norm was rigid segregation (Reitzes, 1953;
fraternity or sorority lead its members to dep- Minard, 1952). Prejudice was clearly not a man-
recate independents and members of other fra- ifestation of “sick” personalities, but more sim-
ternities and sororities? Results from experiments ply of the norms that operated in one situation
reveal support for both explanations, especially but not another.

98
 INGROUP AND OuTGROUP

® Conformity also maintains other prejudices. men and women (Broverman et al., 1972;
“If we haye come to think that the nursery and Hoffman, 1977). In short, it appears that people’s
the kitchen ‘are the natural sphere of a woman,” attitudes are formed partly as mirrored images of
wrote George ‘Bernard Shaw in an 1891 essay, sufrounding attitudes, be those attitudes of
“we have done 80 exactly as English children “white pridé,” “Black pride,” “male superiority,”
come to think that, cage is the natural sphere or “feminist consciousness.”
of a parrot—because\they have never seen one * In all this, there is a message of hope. If much
anywhere else.” Childrén who have seen women prejudice is not deeply ingrained in one’s per-
elsewhere—children of ‘employed women, for sonality, then as fashions change and new norms
example—tend to have lesistereotyped views of evolve, prejudice can diminish. And so it has.

99
 FROM THE SOULS OF BLACK FOLK

\ W. E. B. DuBois

W. EL B. DuBois ‘examines the African American experience several generations after emancipation
and several decades before the civil rights movement. Long before Martin Luther King’s “I Have a
Dream” speech, DuBois articulates the selfhood of two-ness and second-sight. Whereas the white,
upper-class Emerson called for self-reliance from a place of privilege, DuBois understands how it is
to be perceived as a problem. Moreover, DuBois understands how the “other” (black, woman, gay,
poor) cannot help perceiving him or herself as other. DuBois recognizes that the Declaration of
Independence, the ideal] of kook-learning, the right to vote, and the ideal of self-realization all have
special meaning in the souls of black folk. DuBois understands that deep-seated oppression cultivates
in the oppressed an accommodating mindset not easily set aside. Yet ironically, with his own keen
insights and eloquent prose, DuBois gestures towards a “melted and welded” identity, richer for its
pain and suffering. \
As you read this selection, consider not only how DuBois critiques the privilege and oppression
woven into Plato, Emerson, and Jefferson, but also how he reaches toward a deeper realization of their
ideals—one potentially deeper than thesé, white men could articulate on their own.
\

\ And the heart shall be weary and wonder

\ and cry like the sea,
OF OUR SPIRITUAL STRIVINGS \. All life long crying without avail,
O water, voice of my heart, crying in the \. As the water all night long is crying to me.
sand,
All night long crying with a mournful cry, ARTHUR SYMONS
As I lie and listen, and cannot understand
The voice of my heart in my side or the
voice of the sea,
O water, crying for rest, is it I, is it I?
1
All night long the water is crying to me. Between me and the other world there is
ever an unasked question: unasked by some
Unresting water, there shall never be rest through feelings of delicacy; by others through
Till the last moon droop and the last tide the difficulty of ny tly framing it. Al, neverthe-
fail less, flutter round i, They approach me in a half-
And the fire of the end begin to burn in the hesitant sort of Way, eye me curiously or
west; compassionately, ang then, instead of saying
directly, How does it feel to be a problem? they

DuBois, W. E. B. from The Souls of Black Folk. Chicago: McClurg & Company, 1931, pp. 1-12. All rights reserved.

100