After some thought, I’m still unsatisfied with “status” as an explanation of the phenomena. If we must use Hansonian terminology, I think the better explanation is signalling—specifically, signalling tribal affiliation. “who you wish to associate or disassociate” is either very imprecise or circular.
Additionally, I’m uncertain about Hansonian analysis of this phenomena because it makes the thought processes seem so deliberate and considered—when real world examples don’t seem all that reflexively considered. I’m doubtful that people hostile to French Muslims could produce a coherent explanation on demand, and if you waited for them to collect their thoughts, they’d say things isomorphic to “Muslims in France are behaving unFrench.” (whether that is the same thing as in-group bias is a separate question—I do think your explanation of in-group bias artificially narrows its scope)
After some thought, I’m still unsatisfied with “status” as an explanation of the phenomena. If we must use Hansonian terminology, I think the better explanation is signalling—specifically, signalling tribal affiliation. “who you wish to associate or disassociate” is either very imprecise or circular.
Additionally, I’m uncertain about Hansonian analysis of this phenomena because it makes the thought processes seem so deliberate and considered—when real world examples don’t seem all that reflexively considered. I’m doubtful that people hostile to French Muslims could produce a coherent explanation on demand, and if you waited for them to collect their thoughts, they’d say things isomorphic to “Muslims in France are behaving unFrench.” (whether that is the same thing as in-group bias is a separate question—I do think your explanation of in-group bias artificially narrows its scope)