Social Categories and Business Ethics

The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics 1:149-172 (1998)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this article, I want to draw attention to one strand ofthe 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 anevolutionary 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.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 99,245

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-03-22

Downloads
51 (#346,631)

6 months
7 (#587,762)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

On Messick and Naturalism: A Rejoinder to Fort.Edwin M. Hartman - 2000 - Business Ethics Quarterly 10 (3):735-742.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references