Cultural Differences Don't Require Hostility: Overcoming Prejudice on Social Media

When Differences Become a Source of Debate

Indonesia is known as a nation with diverse ethnicities, languages, religions, traditions, and customs. This diversity is a social asset that allows society to learn from one another's experiences. However, these differences can also become a source of misunderstanding.

This situation is increasingly visible on social media, where comments regarding accents, regional customs, beliefs, or someone's way of dressing escalate into mockery and intergroup debates.

Have we ever seen someone labeled a certain way simply because they come from a specific region? For example, someone might be considered rude because their accent sounds assertive, or judged as arrogant because their communication style is different.

Such judgments often arise before we truly get to know the person. The problem is not just unpleasant comments, but the habit of evaluating individuals based on assumptions about their group.

Social media makes these issues even more complex. Information spreads rapidly, while the context of an event is often left out.

Video clips, screenshots, and provocative comments can shape public perception before the facts are fully understood.

Therefore, cultural prejudice should be viewed not only as an issue of communication ethics but also as a psychological problem that affects human relationships.

Why Are We Prone to Prejudice?

In multicultural psychology, stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination are related but distinct concepts.

Stereotypes are generalizations about the characteristics of a certain group. Prejudice is an attitude or judgment toward someone based on their group membership, while discrimination relates to actions that disadvantage someone due to their group identity.

Stereotypes can form because humans tend to categorize information to better understand their social environment. However, this process becomes a problem when generalizations are treated as truths that apply to all members of a group.

A bad experience with one person, for example, is then used to judge an entire cultural group.

The social identity theory by Tajfel and Turner (1979) helps explain this tendency. Individuals build part of their identity through groups they consider part of themselves, such as ethnic, religious, or cultural communities.

In certain conditions, a person may favor their own group (ingroup) and view other groups (outgroup) less positively.

This does not mean everyone is inherently discriminatory, but it shows how the boundary between “us” and “them” can influence social judgment.

On social media, this tendency can strengthen when users only interact with people who share similar views. The same opinions are repeated, while differing viewpoints are seen as threats to group identity.

As a result, a person may feel their judgment is correct simply because many people in their circle agree with that opinion.

Research by Chen, Ahmed, and Chib (2021) shows that social media consumption and discussions involving different groups are linked to the formation of stereotypes against immigrant groups.

These findings remind us that how a person accesses and discusses information is related to how they view other groups.

Figure 2. Social media can shape how we view other groups.

The Indonesian context also warrants attention. Research by Putra and Wagner (2017) on interreligious prejudice shows that perceptions of how one's own group and other groups judge each other can play a role in intergroup relations.

Prejudice is not only influenced by direct experience but also by assumptions about how other groups view us.

When someone feels their group is being belittled or rejected, defensive attitudes toward other groups can intensify.

However, social media does not always increase intolerance. Research by Shidiq, Muhtadi, and Yusuf (2026) in Indonesia did not find significant statistical evidence that exposure to social media for religious and political information correlates with the level of religious intolerance in their sample.

These findings show that the relationship between social media and prejudice is not simple. The type of interaction, the content of the information, and social conditions must be considered.

Building a More Inclusive Digital Space

If prejudice can be formed through psychological processes and social interactions, efforts to reduce it must be made consciously.

First, verify information before making a judgment.

When encountering a post that disparages a cultural group, question the source, the context of the event, and whether the conclusion is supported by evidence.

One experience is not enough to represent an entire group.

Second, distinguish between criticism of behavior and attacks on identity.

A person's behavior may be criticized if it harms others, but criticism should not be generalized into insults against a specific tribe, religion, language, or culture.

The phrase “that behavior is harmful” focuses more on the action than a statement that blames an entire group.

Third, expand cross-cultural interaction, both directly and through digital spaces.

Pettigrew and Tropp (2006), through a meta-analysis of 713 independent samples from 515 studies, found that intergroup contact is generally associated with a reduction in prejudice.

Contact that occurs under supportive conditions, such as having shared goals and equal relationships, can yield better results.

Interaction also has the potential to help someone understand the experiences of other groups and reduce anxiety when dealing with differences.

In practice, schools can hold collaborative activities that involve students from different cultural backgrounds.

Workplaces can foster discussions that provide equal space for employees to share their experiences.

On social media, users can follow diverse sources of information, engage in polite dialogue, and listen to others' experiences without immediately viewing differences as a threat.

Fourth, build cultural literacy alongside digital literacy.

Digital literacy helps a person evaluate information, while cultural literacy helps one understand that behavior and communication styles can have different meanings in different cultural contexts.

Both are important so that society does not easily equate difference with error.

Fifth, create a digital environment that does not normalize discrimination.

Digital platforms, educational institutions, families, and society need to play a role in creating an environment that does not normalize identity-based insults.

Proportional reprimands, clear community guidelines, and support for those targeted by discrimination can help build a safer space for interaction.

Learning to See Humans, Not Just Labels

Diversity does not automatically produce tolerance, just as difference does not automatically cause conflict.

Intergroup relations are influenced by how individuals understand identity, interpret information, and interact with people different from themselves.

Multicultural psychology invites us to see that everyone has experiences that are broader than the cultural labels attached to them.

A person cannot be fully understood solely by their ethnicity, religion, language, or region of origin.

Change can start with simple actions: pausing before judging, checking information before sharing it, and being willing to listen to experiences different from our own.

We do not always have to agree with others, but we can still treat them with respect.

Amidst the heavy flow of digital information, the ability to live together is determined not only by how much we know about other cultures, but also by the willingness to correct our own prejudices.

Different cultures are not a reason to be hostile. Differences can actually be an opportunity to broaden understanding and build a more inclusive society.

Brief Author Biography

Masitoh Afiya Slamet is a Master of Psychology student with an interest in multicultural psychology and the application of psychological science in society, particularly regarding stereotype bias, prejudice, and intergroup relations on social media.

Bibliography

Chen, V. H. H., Ahmed, S., & Chib, A. (2021). The role of social media behaviors and structural intergroup relations on immigrant stereotypes. International Journal of Communication, 15, 3227–3248.

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783.

Putra, I. E., & Wagner, W. (2017). Prejudice in interreligious context: The role of metaprejudice and majority–minority status. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 27(3), 226–239.

Shidiq, A. R., Muhtadi, B., & Yusuf, A. A. (2026). Social media and religious intolerance in Indonesia. Studia Islamika, 33(1), 1–33.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47).