The social functions of ingroup bias: Creating, confirming, or changing social reality

Abstract

We describe our motivational analysis of ingroup bias. Central to our approach are two functions of ingroup bias: an identity function (the creation and expression of one's social identity) and an instrumental function (the facilitation of intergroup competition and social change). We present a research programme on the determinants of these two functions in which we have focused on socio-structural factors (group status and status stability), psychological factors (group identification and threat), and strategic considerations concerning the audience to which ingroup bias is communicated. In addition, we relate the different functions of ingroup bias to different forms of ingroup bias (symbolic versus material forms of ingroup bias; ingroup favouritism versus outgroup derogation). Our conclusions centre on the social and diverse nature of motivations underlying ingroup bias, and the integration of identity and instrumental perspectives on this phenomenon.

Notes

¹In keeping with our more social and group-level focus on motivation, we focus our analysis on intra- and intergroup perspectives on ingroup bias, and exclude more intra-psychological approaches like cognitive models (e.g., Fiske, 1998) and personality approaches (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950).

²It is important to note that the social identity approach also describes some of the more instrumental aspects of ingroup bias, especially as they relate to collective action and the position of a group within the status hierarchy. These particular aspects can be contrasted with the more purely identity aspects within this framework like the research on the minimal intergroup situation.

³We want to stress that the expected asymmetry of forms of ingroup bias by which different functions are served is relative. In principle, both functions of ingroup bias can be served to some degree by both forms of ingroup bias. For example, with respect to our analysis of ingroup bias in soccer chants (Study 8), at one level these songs are symbolic in nature, while arguably also serving instrumental functions (i.e., promoting team support and performance). Thus the different functions and forms represent distinct but related dimensions of ingroup bias.

⁴As indicated, totally stable intergroup situations are hardly imaginable, if not impossible. Still, members of low-status groups may believe that status differences are stable, leading to acceptance, passivity, or even justification of the status quo (i.e., especially when they are regarded as legitimate). However, when there is a clear trigger or channel for action (e.g., an opportunity to express ingroup bias on a dimension related to social change) this will make “cognitive alternatives” (Tajfel, 1978) for the status quo salient, even in the case of stable low-status groups.

⁵We did not find asymmetries in results between the ingroup-favouring and outgroup derogatory components of the symbolic ingroup bias measure, which may be explained by the fact that for expressing positive group distinctiveness one can either focus on what makes the ingroup better, or the outgroup worse.

⁶As with the “form of ingroup bias” dimension, we also need to stress that difference between social groups and categories in the prevalence of identity and instrumental functions is relative rather than absolute. For instance, some social categories (“feminists”) are defined by certain goals (social change).