1

In-Group bias

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Instructor

Course

Date
 2

In-Group bias

It is naturally simpler for people to form negative opinions about people who do not

belong to their social or other groups such as workgroups, fraternities, church or school groups.

This type of cognitive bias is referred to as in-group bias or in-group favoritism. It is the natural

tendency for members of a similar group to accord preferential treatment to one another while

harming or disfavoring non-members of the group. This type of bias is common in any group,

even when the group is randomly created, making the membership to the group ineffective.

Group connections create a healthy relationship in which the members may view other members

as having excellent and indistinguishable characters perceived to the group identity. The

members of a group act as a unit and are more likely to regard the success of their group as a

result of teamwork or determination, while when describing that of another group, they tend to

associate it with good luck or other factors unrelated to hard work and teamwork.

Fundamentally, in-group bias clouds individuals judgment and could lead to unfair treatment of

people who don’t belong to a specific group or lead to discrimination and prejudice in larger

groups.

In-group bias could potentially lead to negative results involving hurting people who do

not belong to the same groups as we. The tendency to perceive the members of the groups that an

individual belongs could lead them to think lowly of people who do not belong to the same

group. As a result, it could lead to unfair treatment as people feel justified to commit socially

immoral actions to benefit their own groups. The systemic effects of in-group bias are more

significant and lead to prejudice and stereotyping of members of a particular group. When two or

more groups compete over opportunities on any challenge, the members of each group develop

hostility towards the other groups, which creates conflict and encourages the formation of
 3

stereotypes to belittle or demonize other groups (Moore, Parker & Silversa 2012). Discrimination

may also occur as people extend accord their fellow group members privileges while

underserving people who do not belong to their group. This further results in uneven outcomes

for members of different groups. For instance, in public service, in-group bias could lead to

unequal distribution of resources as leaders distribute the best resources to members of their

group.

Group identities can be formed and broken easily, and therefore, membership in groups is

not permanent, nor is in-group bias. Experiments on this topic indicate that group identities can

be formed from simple group divisions even when the groups are formed through simple

processes such as coin flips or random selection (Moore, Parker & Silversa 2012). Subjects of

the group division will immediately perceive the members of the formed group as extremely

indistinguishable and therefore begin to portray in-group biases. Similarly, group membership

and affiliation to random groups change frequently, makings in-group biases less permanent. A

group can be formed to compete with a specific group. After the competition, the groups can be

joined together to face even a larger team, and therefore in-group bias in such a case can be

viewed as an ebb that can go back and forth randomly. However, some group memberships are

permanent and exhibit more long-lasting in-group biases than random short-term groups. Such

long-lasting in-group biases include biases based on religious, gender or ethnic membership in

which a member of one gender, church, or ethnicity perceives the fellow members as having

better qualities than non-members. Such in-group bias often leads to discrimination and

prejudice against a minority group.

In-group bias is best portrayed in political party cultures, especially before elections.

Before any national elections, political parties hold party primaries to determine the most
 4

suitable candidate to be fronted as the party presidential candidate. Several people apply to

become the party flag bearer in which process each aspirant attracts support from a fraction of

the party members. These different party fractions argue with each other and exhibit

stereotypical views and negative perceptions against each other. Each group perceives their

candidate as the best shot at clinging to the top seat. Research conducted on democrats in the

2008 presidential elections revealed significant in-group bias among each of the two factions,

Obama supporters and Hillary Clinton supporters (The Decision Lab 2020). The in-group bias

was intense to some extent it was predicted that Clinton’s section would break from the

Democrats party to run as an independent. However, after the primaries, the different groups

unite immediately to support the winning candidate after the party primaries. Similarly, in 2008

after Obama won the primaries, the two groups merged to support the Obama candidature, and

the in-group bias shifted against the Republican Party. When such groups rejoin to support one

idea, the in-group bias is now focused on the opposing party and not within the in-group.

The tendency to offer preferential treatment to members who belong to the same group

and failing to extend equal courtesy to out-groups could potentially harm the social structures

that keep people united. As people draw support in groups, they can intentionally or

unintentionally cause harm to the out-groups through their treatment. Though the most

deleterious in-group biases are long-lasting, most in-group affiliations are short term as groups

can be formed randomly for temporary tasks. It is notoriously challenging to avoid in-group

biases, especially when different groups compete; however, upholding integrity and fairness

during group conflicts or competitions can significantly reduce the effect of in-group bias.
 5

References

Moore, B. N., Parker, R., Rosenstand, N., & Silversa, A. (2012). Critical thinking (pp. 185-194).

New York: McGraw-Hill.

The Decision Lab. (2020) why do we treat our in-group better than we do our out-group? In-

group bias explained. https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/in-group-bias/