Us and them: Belonging, Bias and the Bridge of Common Humanity
We have all heard the well-worn trope that we are “wired to belong.” It’s a phrase that shows up everywhere, from wellness slogans to leadership manuals to dating apps - and its one I have used myself many times. What we talk about less frequently is the “dark side” of human belonging; that the very instincts that help us build bonds can also fuel exclusion, prejudice, and othering
The tendency to favour those we perceive as similar to ourselves while viewing others with suspicion or indifference is a basic tenet of belonging science and one that has far-reaching implications. As Robert Sapolsky says: What we do with our ‘us’s’ and ‘thems’ presents one of the most central challenges to our future as humans.
The Psychology of Belonging
In-group bias represents one of the most robust findings in social psychology. We naturally categorise people into "us" and "them," often based on minimal criteria; shared interests, geographic proximity, or even arbitrary group assignments during our studies. Once these categories form, research shows that we consistently evaluate in-group members more favourably, remember their positive actions more readily, and give them the benefit of the doubt in ambiguous situations.
These instincts were once lifesaving. In small tribal groups, loyalty and quick judgments about outsiders helped our ancestors survive. But in a globalised world, those same instincts often backfire, fueling misunderstanding, division, and prejudice that hurts “us” as much as it hurts “them”.
Fortunately, understanding the tension between our capacity for universal compassion and our group instincts offers crucial insights into both personal relationships and broader social dynamics. And rather than be at the mercy of our sometimes faulty wiring, we can learn to control the switchboard through intentional practices that expand empathy, soften boundaries, and widen our circle of care.
The Neuroscience of Us and Them
Brain imaging studies reveal that in-group bias operates at the neural level. When we view faces of in-group members, areas associated with empathy and social cognition show increased activity. Our brains find it easier to understand and relate to people we perceive as similar to ourselves. Conversely, out-group faces may activate threat-detection systems in the brain, even when no actual danger exists.
This neural tendency toward group-based thinking can override conscious intentions. People who explicitly reject prejudice still show implicit biases in reaction time tests and brain scans. The automatic nature of these responses suggests that overcoming in-group bias requires more than good intentions; it demands sustained effort and strategic intervention.
Common Humanity as Antidote
Common humanity offers a powerful counterweight to group-based thinking (it’s almost my favourite topic in Compassion Training). This concept, rooted in both philosophical traditions and psychological research, emphasises the fundamental similarities that unite all people despite surface differences. We share basic needs for safety, connection, and meaning. We all experience joy and suffering, hope and fear. We all struggle with uncertainty and long for acceptance.
Research on compassion and empathy suggests that highlighting shared human experiences can reduce in-group bias. When people focus on universal aspects of the human condition rather than group differences, they show increased willingness to help others and reduced prejudice toward out-group members. This shift in perspective doesn't eliminate the recognition of differences but places them within a broader context of shared humanity.
Contemplative practices that cultivate awareness of common humanity have shown particular promise. Studies have shown that when people regularly reflect on the ways their experiences mirror those of others - for example, through compassion meditation - their wellbeing increases because they feel more connected to other people.
The Paradox of Identity
Modern life presents a particular challenge in balancing group identity with universal compassion. Healthy identity formation requires some degree of group belonging. Families, communities, professions, and cultural groups provide meaning, support, and shared values that contribute to psychological well-being. The goal is not to eliminate group identification but to hold it lightly, recognising that our various identities represent only partial aspects of who we are.
The healthiest approach to group identity maintains "permeable boundaries": a sense of belonging that doesn't require exclusion or superiority. This allows people to take pride in their affiliations while remaining open to connection across group lines. In contrast, rigid group boundaries that define identity primarily in opposition to others tend to increase conflict and reduce empathy. It’s the difference between a society we fear and the one we aspire to.
Practical Applications
Understanding the interplay between in-group bias and common humanity has practical implications for education, leadership, and conflict resolution. Effective diversity initiatives, for example, often work not by trying to eliminate awareness of group differences but by creating shared goals and positive contact experiences across group boundaries. When people work together toward common objectives, category boundaries become less salient and individual relationships can develop.
In organisational settings, leaders who emphasise shared values and collective purpose while acknowledging diverse perspectives tend to build more cohesive and creative teams. Rather than pretending differences don't exist, compassionate leaders frame diversity as complementary strengths serving common goals.
Strategies for Leading with Common Humanity
1. Name Shared Purpose and Identity
Leaders can reduce in-group bias by consistently emphasising shared goals and values. This includes framing challenges as collective, not individual. For example, instead of saying "your team is behind on delivery," a leader might say "let's figure out how we can align to meet this target together." This language helps reinforce a sense of unity and reduces feelings of blame or separation.
2. Encourage Personal Storytelling
People connect more easily when they understand each other's context. Creating space for personal stories - in team introductions, retrospectives, or mentoring conversations - can reduce assumptions and deepen empathy. Storytelling does not need to be dramatic or vulnerable to be effective. Even small insights can build bridges.
3. Pause to Reflect on Bias Patterns
Self-awareness is a critical tool for inclusive leadership. Leaders can take time each week to review who they consulted, supported, or praised. Are the same voices showing up? Are others being unintentionally overlooked? Reflection helps reveal habits that may need adjusting.
4. Design Opportunities for Cross-Group Collaboration
When people from different roles or backgrounds work together toward a common objective, relationships evolve. Leaders can support this by mixing teams intentionally, rotating facilitation responsibilities, or inviting unlikely pairs to co-lead initiatives. These interactions reduce anxiety around difference and build trust.
Moving Forward
The path forward doesn't require abandoning all group loyalties or pretending that differences don't matter. Instead, it involves developing what might be called "enlightened group belonging" - the ability to maintain meaningful connections to particular communities while recognizing our fundamental interconnection with all humanity. In a world facing challenges that transcend any single group's boundaries, this balance between belonging and universality may be essential for our collective future.
Our group nature is not a flaw to be overcome but a feature to be understood and channelled constructively. By acknowledging both our need for belonging and our capacity for expansive compassion, we can work toward communities that are both deeply rooted and widely inclusive - places where the recognition of our common humanity enhances rather than threatens our sense of home.
Reflection Questions
Recall a time when you initially felt disconnected from someone who seemed very different from you. What happened when you learned more about their experiences?
When have you felt most understood by someone from a different background than your own? What made that connection possible?
References
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
Amodio, D. M. (2014). The neuroscience of prejudice and stereotyping. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15(10), 670-682.
Batson, C. D., & Ahmad, N. Y. (2009). Using empathy to improve intergroup attitudes and relations. Social Issues and Policy Review, 3(1), 141–177.
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Kawakami, K. (2003). Intergroup contact: The past, present, and the future. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6(1), 5–21.
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Psychology Press.
Kang, Y., Gray, J. R., & Dovidio, J. F. (2014). The nondiscriminating heart: Lovingkindness meditation training decreases implicit intergroup bias. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(3), 1306–1313.
Klimecki, O. M. (2019). The role of empathy and compassion in conflict resolution. Emotion Review, 11(4), 310–325.
Page-Gould, E., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). With a little help from my cross-group friend: Reducing anxiety in intergroup contexts through cross-group friendship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1080–1094.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783.
Richerson, P., & Boyd, R. (2005). Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human evolution. University of Chicago Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Brooks/Cole.
Van Bavel, J. J., Packer, D. J., & Cunningham, W. A. (2008). The neural substrates of in-group bias: A functional magnetic resonance imaging investigation. Psychological Science, 19(11), 1131-1139.
Weng, H. Y., Fox, A. S., Shackman, A. J., Stodola, D. E., Caldwell, J. Z., Olson, M. C., ... & Davidson, R. J. (2013). Compassion training alters altruism and neural responses to suffering. Psychological Science, 24(7), 1171–1180
Saarinen A, Jääskeläinen IP, Harjunen V, Keltikangas-Järvinen L, Jasinskaja-Lahti I, Ravaja N. Neural basis of in-group bias and prejudices: A systematic meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2021 Dec;131:1214-1227. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.10.027. Epub 2021 Oct 29. PMID: 34715150.
