It is a well-researched feature of human behavior to delineate between a familiar social circle – “us”, and individuals and groups that are not included in this social circle – “them”. The proper scientific term for such phenomena is ‘in-group preference’. Two scientific articles, delving into different aspects of in-group preference, will be discussed below. “Whites’ Opposition to Busing: Symbolic Racism or Realistic Group Conflict?” by Lawrence Bobo is set to prove that the opposition to the desegregation policy of busing is based not on cultural prejudice, but on the objective threat to the way of life perceived by the white population. “Changing In-Group Boundaries: The Effect of Immigration on Race Relations in the United States” by Vasiliki Fouka and Marco Tabellini provides a broader view of an in-group preference mechanism in action, illustrated by Hispanic migration into the United States.
Evolutionary psychology explains, with the help of coalitional theory, gives us an insight into human group behavior. It explains, that invasion of an out-group into the space of an in-group is most commonly perceived as a threat and the individuals of an out-group are perceived as an enemy (Fouka & Tabellini, 2021). For this effect, we can examine the opposition towards busing, which is in essence very similar to migration from one nation to another. It is the geographical movement of individuals from one area to another, accompanied by either permanent or long-term integration into a social space of the group that existed there previously. This shows that the mechanism of in-group preference is rather flexible and occurs both on a relatively small scale of a public school and on a scale of nations and racial groups inside them. Moreover, the effect of in-group preference seems to be deeply rooted in human psychology and circumvents more rational beliefs of individuals, when they perceive a threat to their in-group (Bobo L, 1983).
Another notable feature of in-group preference flexibly is how the same individuals can be included or excluded, depending on the perceived out-group. To help understand why that happens the concept of affective distance is introduced (Fouka & Tabellini, 2021). Affective distance determines the ease with which an individual could be included as a member of an in-group. The main point of Fouka and Tabellini (2021) is to demonstrate, how in the case of Hispanic migration the black population of the US becomes an in-group for the white population. A similar example is provided by Bobo (1983) when the parents unite for political action against busing. People that otherwise belong to a different social group, united against an out-group based on being parents of children in the same school. In this case, children that are being bused in and their parents appear to be an out-group, and affective distance with them had been higher. It is entirely possible that two decades later same people might unite as a member of an in-group in order to oppose Hispanic immigration into the US. This demonstrates that negative disposition to the members of an out-group is not permanent and could be changed if the in-group is reframed.
In conclusion, governments should undoubtedly take these psychological effects into account when crafting, for example, immigration policies. Government officials should be rather careful when making generalized statements, as not to outline any social group as out-group, thus creating hostility and providing a basis for bigotry. The academic world should strive to study this effect more in order to find ways of creating more a tolerant and equitable society.
References
Bobo D, L. (1983). Whites’ opposition to busing: symbolic racism or realistic group conflict? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1983, 45(6), 1196-1210.
Fouka V. & Tabellini M. (2021). Changing in-group boundaries: the effect of immigration on Race relations in the United States. American Political Science Review, 116(03), 968-984. Web.