Ingroup and Outgroup Bias

One of the central questions addressed in the social psychological literature over the past several decades has been the relationship between social identity and intergroup relations (Tajfel and Turner 1986). Central to this research is the relationship between one’s perception of belonging to a particular group (ingroup) and the perception of a group to which one does not perceive membership (outgroup). This dynamic gives rise to stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination of the outgroup, which further strengthens identification with the ingroup (Hogg 2006). Ingroup identification includes attitudes about merit, or justifications for an ingroup’s dominant position. In the U.S. case, this is largely viewed as individual mobility or individualism; members of the ingroup experience upward social mobility primarily as the result of individual effort. Individuals who perceive their group as lower in status, for example, may opt for a strategy that dissociates themselves from the group with the expectation that personal effort alone will allow for individual upward mobility. “[This] ideology of mobility is very convenient for the dominant group,” as Hogg (2006:123) notes, since it serves as a justification for their higher status. By extension, outgroups do not experience similar social mobility due to the lack of such effort, as opposed to structural barriers that may inhibit or prohibit mobility in a systemic fashion (Hogg and Abrams 1988). This we define as individualist sentiments directed at outgroups. Stereotypes of outgroups therefore are associated with attitudes about individual mobility.

Competent and Cold: Specifying the Model Minority Stereotype

One of the major advances in intergroup relations research in the past 13 years has focused primarily on the impact of stereotypes for multiple outgroups. Social psychologist Susan Fiske and colleagues (2002) proposed a two-axis cognitive map termed the stereotype content model (SCM). The two axes refer to perceived competence and perceived warmth of a given outgroup. By creating a two-dimensional map of stereotypes, we can better understand how the stereotypes of these groups relate to one another. The ingroup is viewed as both warm and competent, whereas outgroups are subordinate either by their relative coldness or incompetence''.

Jerry Z. Park,1 Brandon C. Martinez,2 Ryon Cobb,3 Julie J. Park,4 and Erica Ryu Wong