Parochialism, by which we mean in-group preferences and out-group prejudice, has the potential to influence public policy. In-group preferences and out-group prejudice can lead individuals to evaluate a policy based on how that policy affects the groups they belong to rather than on the basis of their ideological priors or the impact of that policy on society at large. Unchecked, parochialism likely leads to problematic policies and perverse social outcomes. While the evidence suggests that this bias can be mitigated if issues are framed in ways that encourage reflection as opposed to unreflective immediate responses, policy makers face incentives to leverage parochialism rather than combat it. The solution may instead require limiting policy makers and our ability to make decisions for others and promoting an institutional environment that encourages our interacting with diverse others rather than insularity. Stated another way, limited government and open society may be the path beyond our parochialism.

The study aimed at investigating any bias in the perceptions of young people from two ethnic groups who were not directly involved in an ethnic conflict. Assuming that such perception bias only happens in the members of ethnic groups who were involved in the conflict and in those who became the victims of the other group's transgression. Therefore, we predicted that the subjects from the Dayaknese group would evaluate the photos of their own group members more positively compared to their perception of the Madurese photos. Meanwhile, there would be no bias among Madurese students in evaluating both Dayak and Madura photos. An experimental approach was carried out using photos of neutral faces of Dayaknese and Madurese people. Each photo was presented with negative or positive words. The participants of the study comprised 111 students who represented Madurese and Dayaknese ethnic groups, as well as Javanese who had not been involved in the conflict serving as the control group. They were asked to evaluate the photos in terms of the negativity and positivity of each picture. A two-way ANOVA supported the hypothesis that the Dayaknese evaluated their own groups better than the other ethnic groups, while the Madurese did not.