The “Us vs. Them” Mentality
A Psychological Relic in Modern Society
Human beings are social creatures, hardwired to form connections and thrive in groups. Yet this innate tendency has a darker side, one that continues to plague modern society: the “us vs. them” mentality. While this form of tribalism had its place in early human survival, it is increasingly anachronistic in today’s interconnected, globalized world. It is not only unsophisticated but also destructive, perpetuating cycles of division, misunderstanding, and conflict. Understanding its psychological roots and societal manifestations can help us recognize why it persists and how we might overcome it.
The Evolutionary Roots of Tribalism
Imagine early humans navigating a world rife with dangers. Forming small, cohesive groups was a matter of survival. Protection against predators, access to shared resources, and mutual defense from rival groups depended on strong social bonds. In this context, the “us vs. them” mentality served a critical evolutionary purpose. Identifying with one’s group (the in-group) and distrusting others (the out-group) helped ensure that loyalty remained strong and resources stayed within the community.
Fast forward thousands of years, and the same cognitive patterns persist, though the stakes are no longer as immediate as survival against saber-toothed cats or rival clans. Today, these patterns manifest in politics, sports fandom, cultural conflicts, and even workplace dynamics. What was once a tool for survival has become a stumbling block for progress, creating unnecessary divisions in an increasingly interconnected world.
Social Identity and the Human Need for Belonging
The psychology behind the “us vs. them” mentality is deeply tied to social identity theory, which explains how individuals derive self-esteem from their membership in a group. Being part of an in-group provides a sense of belonging and purpose, but it also fosters comparison. To bolster their self-image, people often elevate their own group while denigrating others.
I recall an experience from my childhood that exemplifies this. Growing up in a small, insular town, there was an unspoken rivalry between the kids from “our” neighborhood and those from a nearby subdivision. The rivalry wasn’t rooted in any real conflict — just a vague sense that “we” were somehow better, tougher, or more deserving. It manifested in minor pranks, competitive games, and even avoidance. Reflecting on it now, I see how arbitrary the divisions were. We all went to the same school, lived similar lives, and faced similar challenges. But the mere idea of a boundary was enough to fuel a sense of separation.
This tendency doesn’t fade with age. Adults, too, find themselves drawn to in-groups, whether through political affiliation, national identity, or even something as trivial as the brand of phone they use. These affiliations become a source of pride, and the instinct to defend them — sometimes irrationally — remains strong.
Fear and the Psychology of the “Other”
Fear plays a pivotal role in the “us vs. them” dynamic. When individuals perceive a threat to their in-group, whether real or imagined, their distrust of the out-group intensifies. This is rooted in an evolutionary bias known as negativity bias, which prioritizes threats over neutral or positive stimuli. Fear of the unknown — of those who look, think, or act differently — fuels the perception that the out-group is dangerous or inferior.
Consider the political landscape in the United States. Rhetoric often centers on fear: fear of losing jobs, fear of cultural erosion, fear of physical safety. Politicians and media outlets exploit this fear, painting out-groups as scapegoats for complex societal problems. It is a tactic as old as time because it works. Fear simplifies; it eliminates nuance and fosters a sense of unity among those who share the same anxieties. Yet it is this very simplicity that reveals the unsophistication of the “us vs. them” mindset. Complex issues demand complex solutions, not binary thinking.
The Role of Media and Technology
Modern technology has amplified the “us vs. them” mentality in ways our ancestors could never have imagined. Social media platforms, for instance, thrive on division. Their algorithms are designed to prioritize content that elicits strong emotional reactions, often outrage or fear. This creates echo chambers where in-groups are constantly validated, and out-groups are relentlessly vilified.
An acquaintance once shared a story with me about their experience on social media during a heated election. They had innocuously “liked” a post that criticized a political figure. Within minutes, they received messages from friends who supported that figure, accusing them of betrayal. What struck me was not the content of the post but the intensity of the reaction. It was as though this person’s loyalty to their friend group was being questioned over a single click. Social media magnifies these dynamics, turning minor disagreements into existential threats to one’s identity.
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” — Margaret Mead
Cognitive Biases at Play
The persistence of the “us vs. them” mentality can also be attributed to several cognitive biases:
Confirmation Bias: People seek out information that supports their preexisting beliefs and dismiss evidence that contradicts them. This reinforces divisions, as individuals are less likely to engage with or understand opposing perspectives.
Out-Group Homogeneity Effect: Members of the out-group are perceived as being all the same, while in-group members are seen as unique individuals. This bias dehumanizes the out-group and makes empathy more difficult.
Group Polarization: Discussions within like-minded groups often lead to more extreme positions. This phenomenon explains why ideological divides seem to grow deeper over time.
Why People Fail to Recognize the Problem
One of the most frustrating aspects of the “us vs. them” mentality is how difficult it is for people to see its toxicity. Several factors contribute to this blindness:
Emotional Investment: People are emotionally tied to their in-groups. Admitting that their group might be part of the problem feels like a betrayal.
Cognitive Simplicity: It is easier to divide the world into “good” and “bad” than to wrestle with complexity. Thinking critically requires effort, and many prefer the comfort of simplistic narratives.
Lack of Exposure: Individuals who have limited interaction with out-groups are more likely to believe stereotypes and buy into divisive rhetoric.
Social Reinforcement: Group loyalty is often rewarded, while dissent can lead to ostracism. This creates a strong incentive to conform to in-group norms, even when they are harmful.
Anachronism in a Modern World
The persistence of the “us vs. them” mentality is, in many ways, a relic of a bygone era. In an interconnected world where borders are increasingly blurred — economically, culturally, and socially — this form of tribalism feels outdated. It hinders progress, stifles collaboration, and perpetuates cycles of mistrust. Sophisticated societies should be moving toward inclusion and cooperation, not clinging to divisive instincts.
The late anthropologist Margaret Mead once said, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” Her words underscore the power of collaboration across boundaries. Yet the “us vs. them” mindset makes this kind of unity difficult, if not impossible.
Moving Beyond Division
So how do we move beyond this toxic way of thinking? The answer lies in fostering empathy, promoting critical thinking, and creating opportunities for meaningful intergroup interaction.
Empathy Development: Teaching people to see the humanity in others is perhaps the most powerful antidote to division. This starts with education that emphasizes shared experiences and common goals.
Critical Thinking Skills: Encouraging individuals to question their biases and challenge simplistic narratives can weaken the grip of “us vs. them” thinking. Media literacy programs, in particular, can help people navigate divisive content more thoughtfully.
Intergroup Dialogue: Creating spaces where people from different backgrounds can engage in meaningful conversation reduces fear and fosters understanding. When individuals interact as equals, stereotypes often dissolve.
Accountability for Leaders and Media: Politicians, influencers, and media outlets that exploit division for personal gain must be held accountable. Encouraging more responsible leadership is essential for fostering a culture of unity.
A Personal Reflection
As a psychologist and educator, I often think back to my childhood rivalry with the neighboring kids and how it shaped my early understanding of “us vs. them.” It was harmless, perhaps even amusing, at the time. But the echoes of those simplistic divisions remain in the larger, more consequential conflicts of adulthood. The lesson, I believe, is clear: the boundaries we draw are often illusions, born of fear and misunderstanding. The sooner we recognize their artificiality, the sooner we can focus on the challenges and opportunities that unite us all.
In a world that feels increasingly divided, rejecting the “us vs. them” mentality is not just an act of sophistication; it is an act of survival. It is a step toward becoming the kind of society that future generations can admire — not for its tribalism, but for its ability to transcend it.