+356 9901 3629


The ‘Us’ against ‘Them’ Mentality: How Group Identity can divide us

Train TrackLet’s imagine you’re having an argument with a friend about a topic you disagree on. You turn into the advocate and start dishing out facts, statistics, and any form of evidence you can think of to support your argument and convince your friend to agree with you. You drown the person with facts, only to realise one frustrating thing: facts do not change people’s minds.

Why does this happen? Humans have the evolutionary tendency to categorise things. In order to make sense of the world, we need to put objects and people into groups according to their ethnicity, gender, social class, religion, political beliefs and so on. The group we belong to gives us an important source of self-esteem, identity and belonging to the social world. We start seeing our in- group as dominant, “the best in the world”, and as a result hold prejudiced views against the out-group.

Tajfel and Turner (1979) explain that we evaluate “us” (our in-group), versus “them” (our out-group) through three mental processes. First, we categorise people according to traits. Then, we go through a process of social identification, whereby we adopt the identity of our in-group and gain a sense of belonging to that group membership. Finally, we engage in social comparison where we start comparing our group with other groups. This is when rivalry tends to develop; the diversity between groups tends to become exaggerated, so prejudice and stereotyping become prominent.

Back to the argument with your friend. According to social psychologist Demis Glasford, people want to feel good about their opinions and the groups they belong to. Therefore, whenever we are presented with a belief or idea that contradicts our own, we experience cognitive dissonance, a mental discomfort which is difficult to accept. The notion of naïve realism, or thinking that our own reality is the correct one, drives us to believe that those who belong to our out-group cannot be right in their beliefs.

UsThis might not seem like a big deal at first, yet the implications can be alarming. When we start thinking of society as divided and adopt an “us” and “them” mentality, we start to blindly accept facts from the source that supports our point of view and completely disregard alternative opinions. We risk falling into the trap of dehumanisation, we strip humanity off members of the out-group and start regarding them as unworthy of respect or opinion. We become quick to attack and address them in derogatory terms. Ever heard the term “addict”, “illegal immigrant” or human beings described in a single negative characteristic in the news? That is an example of how an individual from the out-group becomes reduced to a single characteristic, rather than portrayed as a person with a fully complex life like the rest of the members in our in-group.

Psychologist Albert Bandura describes this dehumanisation as a moral disengagement strategy that tricks people into accepting behaviour that they would otherwise recognise as unfair and unethical. People start to rationalise and justify behaviours of their in-group to make them acceptable, even if they are immoral. This is why oppression, genocides and other corrupt behaviour become normalised. In fact, inter-group conflict remains one of the world’s largest problems, and the last century has seen over 200 million people killed in genocide, war and other forms of oppression (Cikara, 2015).

On a smaller scale, inter-group conflict also affects our everyday life since society, and even governments, have become strongly polarised. In fact, research has shown that in countries with strong patron-client relationships (i.e. in which civilians experience strong allegiance to the authorities in power), citizens support corrupt governments because they expect to receive tangible benefits from corrupt leaders (Manzetti and Wilson, 2007).

The issue of inter-group conflict is reflected in everyday discourse, in comments on social media, and on the news. So what can we do to counter it? First off, we need to challenge how we think about who is responsible for injustice. We tend to give responsibility to a few bad apples within our in-group, but fail to realise that with our actions we might be supporting them. When we accept that we too are part of the group and take responsibility for our actions, change might occur. Secondly, dehumanisation can be overpowered through empathy and respect. Try to truly put yourself in the perspective of individuals from the out-group and objectively understand their point of view. Then, consider the situation from both sides and challenge yourself to make a decision that is unbiased and non-judgemental. Finally, “too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought” (John F. Kennedy). Understand that as difficult as this might be, some views cannot be challenged. When the conversation gets too heated, it may be time to end it. Remember that no matter what our differences may be, our relationship with that person is more important. Sometimes, agreeing to disagree and backing away may be the wisest option.




Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and social psychology review, 3(3), 193-209.

Cikara, M.(2015). When ‘I’ becomes ‘We’. TEDxCambridge.

Demis E. Glasford, John F. Dovidio & Felicia Pratto. (2009). I Continue to Feel So Good About Us: In-Group Identification and the Use of Social Identity – Enhancing Strategies to Reduce Intragroup Dissonance. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin. 35. 415-27.

Luigi Manzetti & Carolin J. Wilson (2007). Why Do Corrupt Governments Maintain Public Support? Comparative Political Studies, 40(8), 949–970.

Henri Tajfel, John Turner, William G. Austin & Stephen Worchel (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. Organizational identity: A reader, 56-65.

Maria Darmanin

About Maria Darmanin

Maria’s life journey has introduced her to the purpose of encouraging others to develop their own voice. Being someone who values active listening, empathy, observation and exploration, makes her invested in supporting those around her to move forward and reach their full potential in life.

TherapyPacks Terms and Conditions

1. TherapyPacks come in bundles of 5 or 10 sessions. Prices of bundles:

  • 5 sessions – €270 – must be utilised within 3 months from date of purchase
  • 10 sessions – €520 – must be utilised within 6 months from date of purchase

2. Bundles are not transferable. This means they cannot be used by, or gifted to, anyone else but the person whose name is listed as the TherapyPacks bundle holder.

3. Bundles which are purchased for Couples Therapy and Family Therapy can only be used by members of the couple or family with one therapist. If members of a couple or family decide to take up individual therapy with another therapist, the bundle will only apply to sessions with the therapist originally referred and cannot be also used for the individual sessions with another therapist. Exceptions will be made if the original therapist is unable to see the client or family and the couple or family are referred to another therapist. After referral, the same conditions will apply.

4. Bundles are valid for a limited time period, as listed above. This means that the bundles will expire once the respective time period has elapsed. Any sessions not utilised within this period will be lost. This means that a refund will not be given for unused sessions. Start date commences on date of purchase of bundles.

5. Bundles are only valid for full price sessions (charged at €60) and not for sessions with trainee psychotherapists, reports or assessments.

6. Full payment needs to be made on purchase, via bank transfer, cash or credit card.

7. Management reserves the right to terminate or suspend the use of the bundles. Reasons for such are at the discretion of the clinic.

8. Refunds or extensions of time period within which bundles may be used is at the discretion of management and will only be granted in exceptional circumstances.

9. Management reserves the right to modify or replace the terms and conditions. In such circumstances, clients will be given adequate notice and time to adhere to such.

10. The clinic’s cancellation policy is applicable also to bundles. Late cancellations or no shows will result in the forfeit of a session within the bundle allocation.

11. Responsibility for ensuring timely use of session bundles remains that of the TherapyPacks bundle holder or, in the case of a minor, their carer/legal guardian.