Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:37:41.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social Categories and Business Ethics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2020

David M. Messick
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this article, I want to draw attention to one strand of the complex web of processes that are involved when people group others, including themselves, into social categories. I will focus on the tendency to treat members of one’s own group more favorably than nonmembers, a tendency that has been called ingroup favoritism. The structure of the article has three parts. First I will offer an evolutionary argument as to why ingroup favoritism, or something very much like it, is required by theories of the evolution of altruism. I will then review some of the basic social psychological research findings dealing with social categorization generally, and ingroup favoritism specifically. Finally, I will examine two problems in business ethics from the point of view of ingroup favoritism to suggest ways in which social psychological principles and findings may be mobilized to help solve problems of racial or gender discrimination in business contexts.

Type
Section IV
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 8 , Issue S1: The Ruffin Series Special Issue No.1 , 1998 , pp. 149 - 172
Copyright
Copyright © Business Ethics Quarterly 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brewer, M. B. (1979). “In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis,” Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307–324.10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, M. B. (1988). “A dual process model of impression formation,” in Srull, T. K. & Wyer, R. S. (Eds), Advances in Social Cognition Vol 1 (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum).Google Scholar
Brewer, M. B. (1993). “Social identity, distinctiveness, and in-group homogeneity,” Social Cognition 11: 150–164.10.1521/soco.1993.11.1.150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, M. B. (1994). “In-group favoritism: The subtle side of intergroup discrimination,” paper presented at the Conference on Behavioral Research and Business Ethics, Northwestern University, August, 1994.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T. (1965). “Ethnocentric and other altruistic motives,” in Levine, D. (Ed), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation Vol 13 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press).Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T. (1975). “On the conflicts between biological and social evolution and between psychology and moral tradition,” American Psychologist 30: 1103–1126.10.1037/0003-066X.30.12.1103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conner, G. B. & Smith, D. S. (1991). “Home mortgage disclosure act: Expanded data on residential lending,” Federal Reserve Bulletin 77: 859–880.Google Scholar
Conner, G. B. & Smith, D. S. (1992). “Expanded HMDA data on residential lending. One year later,” Federal Reserve Bulletin 78: 801–824.Google Scholar
Crawford, C.Smith, M. & Krebs, D. (1987). Sociobiology and Psychology (Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum).Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H. & Mladinic, A. (1994). “Are people prejudiced against women? Some answers from research of attitudes, gender stereotypes, and judgments of competence,” (1-35) in Stroebe, W. & Hewstone, M. (Eds.) European Review of Social Psychology Vol. 51 (London: John Wiley).Google Scholar
Elster, J. (1992). Local Justice (New York: Russell Sage).Google Scholar
Ely, R. J. (1994). “The effects of organizational demographics and social identity on relationships among professional women,” Administrative Science Quarterly 39: 203–238.10.2307/2393234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, S. T. (1993). “Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping,” American Psychologist 48: 621–628.10.1037/0003-066X.48.6.621CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiske, S. T., Bersoff, D. N., Borgida, E., Deaux, K., & Heilman, M. E. (1991). “Use of sex stereotyping research in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkin,” American Psychologist 46: 1049–1060.10.1037/0003-066X.46.10.1049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, S. T. & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social Cognition (2nd Edition) (New York: McGraw-Hill).Google Scholar
Frank, R. (1988). Passions Within Reason (New York: Basic Books).Google Scholar
Gaertner, S. L. & Dovidio, J. F. (1977). “The subtlety of white racism, arousal, and helping behavior,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35: 691–707.10.1037/0022-3514.35.10.691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaertner, S. L. & Dovidio, J. F. (1986). “The aversive form of racism,” in Gaertner, S. L. & Dovidio, J. F. (Eds.) Prejudice, Discrimination, and Racism (61–89) (Orlando, FL: Academic Press).Google Scholar
Gaertner, S.L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P.A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). “The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias,” in Stroebe, W. & Hewstone, M. (Eds.) European Review of Social Psychology Vol. 4 (London: John Wiley).Google Scholar
Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J. A., Murrell, A., & Dovidio, J. F. (1989). “Reducing intergroup bias: the benefits of recategorization,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57: 239–249.10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaertner, S. L., Rust, M. C., Dovidio, J. F., Bachman, B. A., & Anastasio, P. A. (1994). “The contact hypothesis: The role of common ingroup identity on reducing intergroup bias,” Small Group Research 25: 224–249.10.1177/1046496494252005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, W. D. (1964). “The genetical evolution of social behaviour,” I. Journal of Theoretical Biology 7: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackal, R. (1988). Moral Mazes (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Lind, E. A. & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice (New York: Plenum Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. (1964). “Group selection and kin selection,” Nature 201: 1145–1147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messick, D. M. (1991). “The evolution of group-based altruism,” in Selten, R. (Ed.) Game Equilibrium Models I (304–328) (Berlin: Springer-Verlag).Google Scholar
Messick, D. M. & Asuncion, A. G. (1993). “The Will Rogers Illusion in judgments about social groups,” Psychological Science 4: 46–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messick, D. M. & Mackie, D. M. (1989). “Intergroup relations,” Annual Review of Psychology. 40: 45–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Messick, D. M. & van de Geer, J. P. (1981). “A reversal paradox,” Psychological Bulletin 40: 45–81.Google Scholar
Munnell, A. H., Brown, L. E., McEneaney, J., & Tootel, G. M. B. (1992). “Mortgage lending in Boston: Interpreting HMDA data,” Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Working Paper 92-7.Google Scholar
Park, B. & Rothbart, M. (1982). “Perception of outgroup homogeneity and levels of social categorization: Memory for the subordinate attributes of in-group and out-group members,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42: 1051–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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: 475–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, R. H. (1987). “Kin recognition: Functions and mediating mechanisms,” in Crawford, C., Smith, M., & Krebs, D. (Eds.) Sociobiology and Psychology (175–204) (Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum).Google Scholar
Quattrone, G. A. (1986). “On the perception of a group's variability,” in Worchel, S. & Austin, W. A. (Eds.) Psychology of Intergroup Relations (25–48) (Chicago: Nelson-Hall).Google Scholar
Quattrone, G. A. & Jones, E. E. (1980). “The perception of variability within ingroups and out-groups: Implications for the law of small numbers,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 38,: 141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheppard, B. H. & Lewicki, R. J. (1987). “Toward general principles of managerial fairness,” Social Justice Research 2: 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherif, M. (1967). Group Conflict and Co-operation (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul).Google Scholar
Simon, B. (1992). “The perception of ingroup and outgroup homogeneity: Reintroducing the social context,” in Stroebe, W. & Hewstone, M. (Eds.) European Review of Social Psychology Vol. 3 (1–30) (Chichester: John Wiley).Google Scholar
Sole, K., Marton, J., & Homstein, H. A. (1975). “Opinion similarity and helping: Three field experiments investigating the bases of promotive tension,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 11: 1–13.10.1016/S0022-1031(75)80004-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sontag, D. & Engelberg, S. (1994). “Black officers in I. N. S. push racial boundaries,” New York Times (P. 1), October, 30.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H. (1970). “Experiments in intergroup discrimination,” Scientific American 223: 96–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). “Social categorization and intergroup behavior,” European Journal of Social Psychology 1: 149–178.10.1002/ejsp.2420010202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tajfel, H. & Wilkes, A. L. (1963). “Classification and quantitative judgment,” British Journal of Psychology 54: 101–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, S. E., Fiske, S.T., Etcoff, N. L., & Ruderman, A. J. (1978). “Categorical and contextual basis of person memory and stereotyping,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36: 778–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trivers, R. L. (1971). “The evolution of reciprocal altruism,” Quarterly Review of Biology 46: 35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilder, D. A. (1978). “Reduction of intergroup discrimination through individuation of the outgroup,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 26: 1361–1374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. S. (1979). “Structured demes and trait-group variation,” American Naturalist 113: 606–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. S. (1980). The Selection of Populations and Communities (Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin Cummings).Google Scholar