Ingroups and outgroups
In sociology and social psychology, an ingroup is a social group to which a person psychologically identifies as being a member. By contrast, an outgroup is a social group with which an individual does not identify. For example, people may find it psychologically meaningful to view themselves according to their race, culture, gender, age, or religion. It has been found that the psychological membership of social groups and categories is associated with a wide variety of phenomena.
The terminology was made popular by Henri Tajfel and colleagues during his work in formulating social identity theory. The significance of ingroup and outgroup categorization was identified using a method called the minimal group paradigm. Tajfel and colleagues found that people can form self-preferencing ingroups within a matter of minutes and that such groups can form even on the basis of completely arbitrary and invented discriminatory characteristics, such as preferences for certain paintings.
The psychological categorization of people into ingroup and outgroup members is associated with a variety of phenomena. The following examples have all received a great deal of academic attention.
This refers to the fact that under certain conditions, people will prefer and have affinity for one’s ingroup over the outgroup, or anyone viewed as outside the ingroup. This can be expressed in one's evaluation of others, linking, allocation of resources, and many other ways.
Discrimination between ingroups and outgroups is a matter of favoritism towards an ingroup and the absence of equivalent favoritism towards an outgroup. Outgroup derogation is the phenomenon in which an outgroup is perceived as being threatening to the members of an ingroup. This phenomenon often accompanies ingroup favoritism, as it requires one to have an affinity towards their ingroup. Some research suggests that outgroup derogation occurs when an outgroup is perceived as blocking or hindering the goals of an ingroup. It has also been argued that outgroup derogation is a natural consequence of the categorization process.
People have been shown to be differentially influenced by ingroup members. That is, under conditions where group categorization is psychologically salient, people will shift their beliefs in line with ingroup social norms.
This generally refers to the tendency of groups to make decisions that are more extreme than the initial inclination of its members, although polarization toward the most central beliefs has also been observed. It has been shown that this effect is related to a psychologically salient ingroup and outgroup categorization.
Categorization of people into social groups increases the perception that group members are similar to one another. An outcome of this is the outgroup homogeneity effect. This refers to the perception of members of an outgroup as being homogenous, while members of one's ingroup are perceived as being diverse, e.g. "they are alike; we are diverse”. This is especially likely to occur in regard to negative characteristics. Under certain conditions, ingroup members can be perceived as being similar to one another in regard to positive characteristics. This effect is called ingroup homogeneity.
Postulated role in human evolution
In evolutionary psychology, ingroup favoritism is seen as an evolved mechanism selected for the advantages of coalition affiliation. It has been argued that characteristics such as gender and ethnicity are inflexible or even essential features of such systems. However, there is evidence that elements of favoritism are flexible in that they can be erased by changes in social categorization. One study in the field of behavioural genetics suggests that biological mechanisms may exist which favor a coexistence of both flexible and essentialist systems.
- Amity-Enmity Complex
- Ambivalent prejudice
- Bandwagon effect
- Benevolent prejudice
- Cultural identity
- Collective narcissism
- Common ingroup identity
- False consensus effect
- Hostile prejudice
- Social class
- Social dominance orientation
- See "Kandinsky versus Klee experiment", Tajfel et al. (1971) in Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination.
- Tajfel, H. (1970). "Experiments in intergroup discrimination". Scientific American. Springer Nature. 223 (5): 96–102. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1170-96. JSTOR 24927662. PMID 5482577.
- Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination = Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination.
- Tajfel, H.; Billig, M. G.; Bundy, R. P.; Flament, C. (April–June 1971). "Social categorization and intergroup behaviour". European Journal of Social Psychology. 1 (2): 149–178. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420010202.
- Tajfel, H. (1974). Social Identity and Intergroup Behavior.
- Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., Akert, R. D. & Sommers, S. R. (2015). Social psychology (9th, illustrated, revised ed.). London: Pearson Education. ISBN 978-0-13393654-4.CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
- Brewer, Marilynn B. (Fall 1999). "The Psychology of Prejudice: Ingroup Love and Outgroup Hate?". Journal of Social Issues. 55 (3): 429–444. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00126.
- Hewstone, Miles; Rubin, Mark; Willis, Hazel (February 2002). "Intergroup Bias". Annual Review of Psychology. 53: 575–604. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135109. PMID 11752497.
- Zhong, Chen-Bo; Phillips, Katherine W.; Leonardelli, Geoffrey J.; Galinsky, Adam D. (2008). "Negational categorization and intergroup behavior". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 34 (6): 793–806. doi:10.1177/0146167208315457. PMID 18391025.
- Leyens, Jacques-Philippe; Yzerbyt, Vincent; Schadron, Georges (1994). Stereotypes and Social Cognition. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. pp. 104–107. ISBN 978-0-80398583-4.
- Quattrone, George A.; Jones, Edward E. (1980). "The perception of variability within in-groups and out-groups: Implications for the law of small numbers". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 38 (1): 141–152. doi:10.1037/0022-35220.127.116.11. ISSN 0022-3514.
- Jackson, Lynne M. (2011). The Psychology of Prejudice: From Attitudes to Social Action. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. pp. 110–112. ISBN 978-1-43380920-0.
- L. Cosmides; J. Tooby; R. Kurzban (April 1, 2003). "Perceptions of race". Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 7 (4): 173–179. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00057-3. PMID 12691766. Retrieved 16 July 2012.
- L. A. Hirschfeld (1996). Race in the Making: Cognition, Culture, and the Child's Construction of Human Kinds. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Mit Press. ISBN 978-0-26208247-1.
- F. J. Gil-White (August–October 2001). "Are Ethnic Groups Biological "Species" to the Human Brain? Essentialism in Our Cognition of Some Social Categories". Current Anthropology. University of Chicago Press. 42 (4): 515–553. doi:10.1086/321802. JSTOR 10.1086/321802.
- R. Kurzban; J. Tooby; L. Cosmides (December 18, 2001). "Can race be erased? Coalitional computation and social categorization". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 98 (26): 15387–15392. Bibcode:2001PNAS...9815387K. doi:10.1073/pnas.251541498. PMC 65039. PMID 11742078.
- G. J. Lewis; T. C. Bates (November 2010). "Genetic Evidence for Multiple Biological Mechanisms Underlying In-Group Favoritism". Psychological Science. 21 (11): 1623–1628. doi:10.1177/0956797610387439. PMID 20974715. Retrieved 16 July 2012.