But, follow-up studies showed that people with many friends from other races still distinguished members of their own race better than members of a different race. In out-group polarization, individual outgroup members are similarly judged in an all-or-none fashion. Social identity theory is able to explain this because it only predicts conflict and social competition when the group relations are unstable and perceived as illegitimate and thus insecure. Because the other werewolves are similar to George, he is more likely to understand and like them than he is to understand and like John, who is from a different group. Seeing the members of your own group as a diverse set of people is called ingroup heterogeneity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1051-1068.
The terminology was made popular by and colleagues during his work in formulating. Likewise, people who root for the same baseball team may be vastly different from one another, but their common bond offers some similarities. Research has shown that people are able to generate a larger number of such meaningful subgroups for ingroups than for outgroups. Evidence of conflict and discrimination between groups is all around, which is not to say that this is inevitable, as many groups coexist peacefully most of the time. Because the polarity direction of character change can be determined only on a rooted phylogeny, the choice of outgroup is essential for understanding the evolution of traits along a phylogeny. Outgroup Homogeneity Definition Outgroup homogeneity is the tendency for members of a group to see themselves as more diverse and heterogeneous than they are seen by an outgroup.
They get to know each other better, and George realizes that he likes being friends with John. The chosen outgroup is hypothesized to be rather closely related to the other groups, but less closely than any single one of the other groups is to each other. For example, Jarvis et al. One study in the field of suggests that biological mechanisms may exist which favor a coexistence of both flexible and systems. Because John belongs to a different group than George, he is an outgroup member to George. Is everyone pretty much the same to him? Usually this is done by considering some ~ of organisms we know are not too.
After the civil rights movement, the doll studies no longer showed outgroup bias, indicating that African Americans no longer accepted their lower status as legitimate. The so-called minimal group studies show that people tend to favor their own group in terms of reward allocations even when they are categorized on a trivial basis e. Outgroup Stereotypes But, let's just say that George and John become friends. Choosing a closely related outgroup relative to the ingroup is more useful when looking at subtle differences, while choosing an unduly distant outgroup can result in mistaking for a direct evolutionary relationship due to a. It has been argued that characteristics such as gender and are inflexible or even features of such systems.
These researchers suggest this is because people have a more simplified mental representation of outgroup members; that is, people have many more dimensions along which they think about and evaluate members of their own groups than members of the outgroups. All things being equal, people tend to like others from their ingroup more than from an outgroup. As George realizes that he likes John, he also realizes that vampires aren't so bad. This is normally done by including an ~ in the input data so that the root is necessarily between the ~ and the rest of the taxa in the tree, or by introducing additional assumptions about the relative rates of on each branch, such as an application of the molecular clock. This also corroborates with geological evidence. This is especially likely to occur in regard to negative characteristics. When one uses an ~ in phylogenetic inference, the ingroup is implicitly assumed to be.
History and Context of Outgroup Homogeneity In some of the earliest research on this topic, Bernadette Park and Myron Rothbart explored a number of aspects of outgroup homogeneity. A conceptually similar effect known as outgroup polarization has been demonstrated by Patricia Linville and E. In and , an ingroup is a to which a person as being a member. So, is George cured of the outgroup-ingroup difference? Again, although people have more detailed and intricate knowledge of themselves, empirically how one perceives oneself does not account for differences in perceived variability of ingroups and outgroups. Usually this is done by considering some ~ of organisms we know.
Therefore, an appropriate outgroup must be unambiguously outside the of interest in the phylogenetic study. Therefore, phylogeneticists typically use more than one outgroup in cladistic analysis. Outgroup homogeneity has been demonstrated even with minimal groups. An outcome of this is the outgroup homogeneity effect. When rating males and females with various college majors, the ingroup ratings were more likely to take into account the college major, whereas ratings made by outgroup members relied simply on the gender category. However, there is evidence that elements of favoritism are flexible in that they can be erased by changes in social categorization. This phenomenon often accompanies ingroup favoritism, as it requires one to have an affinity towards their ingroup.
Face Recognition One area of research that has demonstrated the persistent effects of outgroup homogeneity is a group of studies on facial recognition. This still leaves open the question of why the ingroup should feel this ingroup reciprocity. In or , an outgroup is a more distantly related group of organisms that serves as a reference group when determining the relationships of the ingroup, the set of organisms under study, and is distinct from. This is true whether the participant is white or of a minority race. It's not just race, either; researchers did the same experiment using male and female subjects.
When people are asked to look at photographs of people of the same or different race as them, they are better able to distinguish between people of the same race. 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. Gender, ethnicity, occupation, economic and social position are all meaningful dimensions by which a person can define him- or herself and others in terms of ingroups and outgroups; this is a process of social and self categorization. Evolutionary arguments have been advanced, proposing that people may have good reasons to trust and reward those within their ingroup, who may in turn help them in the future. One obvious and recurring explanatory factor is self-interest: People may favor their own groups, and derogate outgroups, because it benefits them through resources or rewards.
Although undoubtedly differences in familiarity do exist, this does not appear to be the whole story. In behavioral terms, ingroup bias refers to the tendency to favor the ingroup over the outgroup in some way, for example, in terms of the allocation of resources or rewards: a form of discrimination. Ingroups are groups to which a person belongs, and outgroups are groups to which a person does not belong and which could therefore become target for ingroup bias. John, meanwhile, is a vampire. We envisaged that the factors that best predict levels of outgroup prejudice among Christian, Muslim and secular youth might be related to individual pupils their sex, age, friendships and religion , to where they live social deprivation and ethnic make-up and to their school type of school, size, ethnic make-up, levels of social deprivation, academic achievement and the neighbourhood in which the school is located.