SOCIAL CATEGORIES AND BUSINESS ETHICS

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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Business ethics quarterly 1998-01, Vol.8 (S1), p.149-172
Main Author: Messick, David M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Altruism
Bank loans
Biological altruism
Business ethics
Discrimination
Employment discrimination
Evolution
Favoritism
Gender discrimination
Group dynamics
Mortgage loans
Organization theory
Population
Pragmatism
Principles
Sex discrimination
Social psychology
We they distinction
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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.
ISSN:1052-150X
2153-3326
DOI:10.1017/S1052150X00400126