Exogroup homogeneity effect: what is it and how does it influence us?

This bias is related to the way we perceive members of other groups.

How many times have we heard 'all X's are the same? People tend to group under the same definition people who share some kind of trait, falsely attributing to them common characteristics.

This phenomenon is what in social psychology has been called the relative exogroup homogeneity effectand in this article we will look at it in greater depth.

Relative exogroup homogeneity effect: definition.

The effect of homogeneity relative to the exogroup is a social phenomenon that occurs when a person, who belongs to a given group, sees the members of other groups as more similar to each other, while perceiving the members of his or her own group as very varied. In other words, this phenomenon refers to how people tend to see the exogroup. tend to see the out-group, i.e., an in-group, as uniform, whereas we are aware of the differences between the members of the out-group and the in-group.We are aware of the nuances present in the ingroup, our own.

When we meet someone, we tend to get a first impression, which may be strongly influenced by the way we see, in very general terms, the rest of their peers who share some characteristic. These characteristics can be race, gender, age, nationality, profession, among many others..

As can be understood, this tendency, so common in most human beings, is the raw material on which stereotypes are based.

Between error bias and coping mechanism

There is some controversy as to whether this phenomenon should be considered a bias due to mistaken beliefs or, on the other hand, whether it serves as an adaptive mechanism of social perception.

By bias, in this case, we would mean that people, on the basis of erroneous information, we make judgments of others without really knowing what they are like.In this case, as an adaptive mechanism of social perception, this effect would have the function of simplifying the information of the world, making generalization and categorization help us to synthesize the world.

Study of this phenomenon

One of the earliest scientific approaches to this effect is found in the 1981 work of Jones, Wood and Quattrone. In their study they asked university students, who frequented four different clubs, what they thought of the members of their own club and those who frequented the other three.

The results showed that there was a significant tendency to generalize in describing the members of the other clubs, attributing the same characteristics and behaviors to them. On the other hand, when talking about their own club, they emphasized that there were individual differences, that everyone was the way they were, and that everyone was the way they were.Each one was the way he or she was, and because they went to the same place, they did not have to be the same.

Many other studies have addressed this phenomenon, but taking into account characteristics that are difficult to modify, such as gender, race and nationality. It is well known how in the United States, especially in cities where the distribution of black and white people is highly localized in certain neighborhoods, as one moves away from majority black neighborhoods and into majority white neighborhoods, the idea that those of the other race are all the same becomes much stronger.

Possible explanations for this effect

Although research might suggest that the reason people tend to generalize the characteristics of people who belong to a group other than their own is due to a lack of contact between members of one group and the other, this has been shown not to be the case.

One might think that the fact of not knowing the members of another group encourages the generation of stronger stereotypes and prejudices arising from the lack of contact and the avoidance of contact. However, there are many cases in everyday life that demonstrate that this belief is false.

A clear example of this is the differentiation that men and women make with respect to the other gender. These prejudices do not arise because men have little contact with women and vice versa.While it is true that men and women tend to have more friends of their gender, it is not few people of the other gender who tend to be part of the contact list. Sayings such as 'all men/women are the same' do not arise precisely from ignorance, but from an interest in generalizing about the other group.

It is for this reason that it has been necessary to come up with some more sophisticated explanations to better understand why this is the case. One of them is the way in which human beings store and process information concerning the ingroup and outgroup. One of the theories that has best expounded this idea is the self-categorization theory.

Self-categorization theory

According to this theory, the effect of homogeneity to the exogroup is due to the different contexts present when perceiving the endo- and exogroup.

Thus, hypothetically, the homogeneity effect to the exogroup occurs because of different contexts, in which both intra- and inter-group comparisons are made. both intra- and intergroup comparisons are made..

When any person, who belongs to a certain group, has knowledge of another group, it is normal for him to make a comparison between his group and the other, thus giving rise to an intergroup process.

To facilitate this comparison, it is necessary to synthesize the information corresponding to both one's own group and the other, i.e., to make generalizations about both the in-group and the out-group; this makes the process easier.

It is here that special emphasis is placed on characteristics that are shared by most of the members of the exogroup, the idea that they are all the same, and that they are all the same.. But, when we move on to comparing exclusively the members of the endogroup, i.e., an intragroup process, we pay more attention to differential traits among its members.

Being part of the same group and knowing several of its members better, he will be aware of the individual differences of his peers, differentiating between himself and the other peers.

Self-categorization theory has shown some evidence that, in intergroup situations, both the ingroup and the outgroup are perceived more homogeneously. However, in a context where one group is isolated from others, differences and heterogeneity emerge more easily.

Bibliographical references:

• Quattrone, G. A.; Jones, E. 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:10.1037/0022-3514.38.1.141
• Judd, C. M.; Ryan, Carey S.; Park, B. (1991). Accuracy in the judgment of in-group and out-group variability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 61 (3): 366–379. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.3.366
• Rubin, M., Hewstone, M., Crisp, R. J., Voci, A., & Richards, Z. (2004). Gender out-group homogeneity: The roles of differential familiarity, gender differences, and group size. In V. Yzerbyt, C. M. Judd, & O. Corneille (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism (pp. 203-220). New York: Psychology Press.