[Blog]When --They-- Appear, --We-- Begin to Look Better — Ingroup Bias and Collective Self-Enhancement —

2026-09-19

1. When We Look at “Foreigners,” We Are Also Looking at “Ourselves”

The previous chapter examined how people use categories to understand a complex society and how they may perceive members of groups to which they do not belong as more similar to one another than they actually are. Although the category “foreigner” contains an extraordinary diversity of people, perceptions such as “they are all like this” can easily emerge.

Yet when the category of “them” is created, another category is created at the same time: “us.”

The statement “foreigners do not follow rules” may implicitly contain the comparison that “Japanese people follow rules.” Behind the perception that “foreigners do not integrate into local communities” may lie a self-image in which “Japanese people value their communities.”

Talking about foreign residents, therefore, is not necessarily only an act of evaluating them. Through comparison with others, it can also become a way of confirming who we believe ourselves to be.

This chapter examines what happens to our perception of the ingroup—“us”—when an outgroup—“them”—becomes salient. The cognitive challenge addressed by the Balanced Coexistence Model is not limited to prejudice toward foreign residents. We must also consider the possibility that we may perceive our own group more favorably than the evidence justifies.

2. People Tend to View Their Own Groups Favorably

People often have a tendency to evaluate groups to which they belong somewhat more favorably. In social psychology, this tendency is commonly described as “ingroup bias.”

This does not necessarily imply strong nationalism or hostility toward outsiders. It can occur in many kinds of groups, including schools, companies, communities, and sports teams. Feelings such as “my school is a good school,” “people in my company are capable,” or “my community is a good place to live” are not unusual.

Attachment to one’s own group can also create solidarity and cooperation. There is no need to reject a sense of belonging to an ingroup itself.

The problem arises when positive perceptions of one’s own group are excessively strengthened through comparison with an outside group. When the belief that “we are good” becomes dependent on the contrasting belief that “they are bad,” our understanding of ourselves can become distorted.

The Balanced Coexistence Model does not ask people to abandon attachment to their communities or society. It asks whether we are unnecessarily devaluing others in order to affirm ourselves.

3. “Their” Weaknesses Can Make “Our” Strengths Look Greater

When problems involving an outgroup become highly visible, the perceived strengths of the ingroup may become more prominent by comparison.

When rule violations by foreign residents receive attention, the perception that “Japanese people follow rules” may become stronger. When unpaid taxes or social insurance contributions among foreign residents become an issue, an image may develop that “Japanese people properly fulfill these obligations.” When conflicts involving foreign residents in local communities are highlighted, people may strengthen the self-image that “Japanese people preserve community order.”

In reality, however, rule violations also occur among Japanese people. Problems involving taxes and social insurance exist among Japanese nationals as well, and some Japanese residents have little involvement in their local communities.

The point is not to deny problems involving foreign residents. If a genuine problem exists, it should be identified accurately and addressed appropriately.

The problem arises when awareness of an outgroup’s shortcomings causes the shortcomings within the ingroup to disappear from view. “Their problem” does not prove that “we do not have that problem.”

4. Our Self-Image Changes Depending on What We Compare Ourselves With

Evaluations of individuals and groups change depending on the point of comparison.

When examining compliance with social rules in Japan, observing the behavior of Japanese people themselves reveals considerable diversity. But if the comparison is made against an image of “foreigners who do not follow rules,” Japanese people as a whole may appear relatively more disciplined.

The reverse can also occur. When a foreign resident observes a particular problem in Japanese society and thinks, “This would never happen in my country,” that person may be overlooking similar problems within their own society.

Collective self-enhancement is therefore not unique to Japanese people. Human beings generally understand their own groups partly through comparison with outside groups.

Whenever the conclusion “we are better than them” arises, it is useful to ask a prior question: exactly what is being compared with what?

5. Ingroup Failures Tend to Become “Individual,” While Outgroup Failures Can Become “Collective”

Ingroup bias becomes particularly important when the same behavior is explained differently depending on who performs it.

When a Japanese person violates a rule, people may say, “That individual is inconsiderate,” or “Perhaps there were particular circumstances.” The behavior is explained through individual personality or circumstances. When a foreign resident violates the same rule, however, the explanation may become “foreigners do not understand the rules” or “their culture is different.”

As a result, problems within the ingroup may be treated as exceptions, while problems involving the outgroup may be remembered as characteristics of the group itself.

This can create a significant asymmetry in social perception. Numerous problematic acts by Japanese individuals may remain cognitively dispersed as separate cases, while a smaller number of acts by foreign residents may be aggregated into a single category called a “foreign resident problem.”

As far as possible, the same analytical standards should be applied to the same behavior. Would we give the same explanation if the nationalities were reversed? This question can be a useful way to identify asymmetry in our own thinking.

6. “Our” Successes Are Not Necessarily Characteristics of the Entire Group Either

Just as failures within an outgroup should not be generalized, successes within an ingroup should not automatically be treated as characteristics of the entire group.

Japanese society has accumulated many social achievements over time in areas such as public safety, transportation, administration, education, healthcare, social insurance, and community order. As discussed in Part II of this book, these achievements should not be dismissed.

However, if these outcomes are explained simply by saying “Japanese people are superior,” we lose sight of how institutions were formed and which mechanisms actually support people’s behavior.

Compliance with rules may be shaped by education, institutions, enforcement, social norms, infrastructure, public services, and the behavior of others. If social achievements are explained solely through national or ethnic characteristics, we may fail to recognize the institutional conditions necessary to preserve them.

The Balanced Coexistence Model analyzes social success not to deny the value of one’s own society, but to understand what actually produces successful outcomes so that those conditions can be maintained.

7. Recognizing Social Strengths Is Different from Collective Self-Enhancement

Recognizing the strengths of one’s own society is not, by itself, ingroup bias.

If institutions function well, their achievements can legitimately be acknowledged. If evidence shows that public safety is high, public spaces are well maintained, administrative services are stable, or social insurance systems function broadly and effectively, these can reasonably be recognized as social achievements.

The distinction lies in whether the evaluation is based on comparable facts and identifiable institutional factors, or whether it becomes a self-contained explanation that says, “We are better simply because we are us.”

Understanding the actual strengths of society is also important when asking foreign residents to share and maintain them. Why does this rule exist? Why should this institution be preserved? What social benefit does it protect? If these questions can be answered, integration becomes more than a demand for obedience.

Appreciation of one’s society and critical thinking are compatible. Indeed, understanding the value of one’s society accurately requires avoiding both collective self-glorification and indiscriminate self-denial.

8. Is the Boundary of “Us” Fixed?

When considering ingroups and outgroups, another fundamental question arises: who exactly belongs to “us”?

Does “us” include only Japanese nationals? What about a foreign national who was born and raised in Japan? What about a permanent resident who has lived in Japan for several decades? What about a Japanese national with roots in another country?

Part VI considered permanent residents as enduring members of Japanese society. Even when a person remains legally a foreign national, decades of life, employment, taxation, family relationships, and community participation may make that person socially part of “us.”

The boundary “foreigners are them, Japanese are us” may therefore be clear as a legal distinction based on nationality, but it is far less simple as a description of social relationships.

The Balanced Coexistence Model does not deny the legal significance of nationality. Nor, however, does it assume that legal nationality and social membership are always identical.

9. Shared Goals Can Change the Boundaries of “Us”

Who people perceive as belonging to their ingroup can change depending on the situation.

In the workplace, the shared identity of “employees of the same company” may become more important than the distinction between Japanese and foreign workers. In disaster preparedness, people may relate to one another not primarily as Japanese and foreigners, but as residents of the same community. At a child’s school, the shared role of “parents at the same school” may become more significant than nationality.

This does not mean that differences in nationality disappear. Rather, a broader common category can emerge, making the previous boundary between ingroup and outgroup less dominant.

This is also why Chapter 52 identified shared goals as one of the conditions supporting high-quality interpersonal experiences. When people work together toward a common objective, they can more easily perceive one another not as “them,” but as people pursuing the same goal.

Social integration does not require eliminating every difference. It can mean retaining categories such as “Japanese” and “foreign national” while developing a broader shared identity: “members who sustain the same society.”

10. Criticism of the Outgroup and Examination of the Ingroup Should Be Symmetrical

To maintain cognitive balance, the standards used to evaluate an outgroup should also be applied to the ingroup.

If unpaid social insurance contributions among foreign residents are considered a problem, the same institutional issue among Japanese nationals should also be examined. If crime involving foreign residents is discussed, the overall picture should be assessed using comparable populations and indicators. If foreign residents are expected to participate in local communities, the actual level of community participation among Japanese residents should also be considered.

This is not an attempt to minimize or dismiss problems involving foreign residents. It is a method for placing those problems in their proper context.

If a problem exists among foreign residents, address that problem. If the same problem exists among Japanese residents, address it there as well. If the problem is specific to a particular residence system, improve that system. If it is caused by a particular individual, treat it as that individual’s responsibility.

Instead of beginning with “Who did it?”, begin with “What happened?”, “Why did it happen?”, and “What is the actual scope of the problem?” Such symmetry transforms emotional comparisons between groups into concrete problem-solving.

11. Recognizing Our Own Weaknesses Does Not Destroy Trust in Society

People may feel uncomfortable acknowledging problems within their own society or group. It can seem that admitting weaknesses will undermine social pride or trust.

But trust cannot be sustained by a story that says, “There is nothing wrong with us.”

As Chapter 53 argued, trust in society does not mean believing that society never fails. It can also mean expecting that society is capable of discovering failure, understanding its causes, and correcting it.

Acknowledging problems in Japanese society does not negate the value of Japanese society. On the contrary, the capacity to examine its own problems and improve its institutions can itself become a foundation of social trust.

The same principle applies to foreign residents. Pointing out a genuine problem involving foreign residents is not inherently exclusionary. Cognitive distortion arises when that problem is transformed into an essential characteristic of an entire group or when different standards are applied depending on who committed the act.

12. Toward a Self-Understanding That Does Not Require “Them”

A mature society does not need a permanently inferior “them” in order to confirm its own value.

The strengths of Japanese society do not become real only through comparison with the shortcomings of foreign residents. Institutions, public order, labor protections, social security, education, and community systems built over many years can be examined, valued, and preserved on their own merits.

At the same time, where problems exist, they should be corrected. Where lessons can be learned from foreign residents or other societies, they should be learned. Where social rules should be shared with foreign residents, the reasons for those rules should be explained and compliance reasonably expected.

Balanced coexistence is neither an ideology of denying one’s own society nor one of affirming it unconditionally. It means separating an understanding of society’s achievements and problems from emotional comparison with an outgroup, and examining them as far as possible through concrete facts and institutional structures.

“We” are not good because “they” are bad. Nor are “they” bad because “we” are good. Each action, institution, achievement, and problem should be evaluated on the basis of evidence relevant to that particular issue.

From this perspective, the boundary between “them” and “us” becomes not a permanent line of opposition, but a social category that can be questioned and reconsidered when necessary.

Yet a deeper cognitive asymmetry remains. Why is the same behavior sometimes understood as a characteristic of the outgroup when performed by one of “them,” but as an individual exception when performed by one of “us”? And once a belief such as “foreigners are like this” has formed, why do people begin to notice and remember information that confirms it?

The next chapter examines how one individual’s behavior becomes transformed into a perceived characteristic of an entire group through asymmetrical attribution and confirmation bias. To move beyond cognitive traps, we must ask not only “What did I see?” but also “Why did I interpret it in that way?”