Walden Social Categorization and In-group–Outgroup Bias Discussion
Humanities
Political election cycles provide ample illustration of the relationship between social categorization and ingroup–outgroup bias. Lines are clearly drawn between those who are “us” and those who are “them.” Members of “us” are very similar to each other, and members of “them” are also very similar to each other. Moreover, there is a great difference between “us” and “them.” Most vitally, “us” is superior to “them” in a wide range of ways—even in the absence of any real group interaction.
To prepare for this Discussion, select a current example from the news that illustrates the relationship between social categorization and ingroup-outgroup bias. Then consider how social categorization in your example might be redefined or recategorized to reduce bias.
With these thoughts in mind:
Post by Day 4 a current example you selected from the news and explain how it illustrates the relationship between social categorization and ingroup–outgroup bias. Then explain one way the social categorization in the example might be redefined or recategorized to reduce bias.
Be sure to support your postings and responses with specific references to the Learning Resources and the current literature.
Readings
- Fiske, S. T., Gilbert, D. T., & Lindzey, G. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
- Chapter 29, “Intergroup Bias”
- Dasgupta, N. (2004). Implicit ingroup favoritism, outgroup favoritism, and their behavioral manifestations. Social Justice Research, 17(2), 143–169.
Retrieved from the Walden Library databases. - Perdue, C. W., Dovidio, J. F., Gurtman, M. B., & Tyler, R. B. (1990). Us and them: Social categorization and the process of intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(3), 475–486.
Retrieved from the Walden Library databases. - Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (The Nelson-Hall series in psychology) (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Burnham.
The psychology of intergroup relations by S. Worchel & W.G. Austin. Copyright 1986 by STEPHEN WORCHEL. Reprinted by permission of STEPHEN WORCHEL via the Copyright Clearance Center. - Turner, J. C., & Reynolds, K. J. (2001). The social identity perspective in intergroup relations: Theories, themes, and controversies. In R. Brown & S. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes (pp. 133–152). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Intergroup Processes by Brown, R. & Gaertner, S., in Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology Series. Copyright 2001 by Blackwell Publishing. Reprinted by permission of Blackwell Publishing via the Copyright Clearance Center. - Wenzel, M., Mummendey, A., Weber, U., & Waldzus, S. (2003). The ingroup as pars pro toto: Projection from the ingroup onto the inclusive category as a precursor to social discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(4), 461–473.
Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
