Ingroup bias: what is it and how does this favoritism appear?

There are many contexts in which we show favoritism for those we consider part of the group.

Studies on ingroup bias have allowed us to explain why and under what circumstances members of a group tend to value their own group (the ingroup) more positively, in contrast to their negative evaluation of a different group (the outgroup).

We will now briefly review the concepts of in-group and out-group, and then review some of the theories that social psychology has used to explain the phenomenon known as ingroup bias..

Ingroup and outgroup: a brief definition

It is very common to hear that humans are social beings, but what do we mean by this phrase? In general, we refer to the fact that our processes of identification and personality construction have to do with the bonds we establish with other people.

These bonds take, for example, the form of behavioral norms, roles, affections, rivalries, among other elements. Not only that, but these elements allow us to recognize ourselves as competent members of a social group (i.e., as people who are part of it). At the same time, they allow us to establish differences with the other membersand, in this way, to think of ourselves as individuals with unique characteristics.

The one with which we identify ourselves and of which we feel we are competent members is the one we know as the endogroup ("endo" means "within"). But for a group to recognize and identify itself as such, it is necessary to establish a difference (which may be complementary or antagonistic) with other groups. The latter are what we know as the exogroup ("exo" means "outside"). It is then in the web of intergroup relations that a large part of our psychological and social a large part of our psychological and social development is formed..

• You may be interested in "Stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination: why should we avoid prejudging?"

The ingroup bias

The ingroup bias (or ingroup bias), is also called ingroup favoritism. As the latter name suggests, it is the tendency to favor or value more positively the behaviors, attitudes or preferences of ingroup members compared to outgroup members. It is about establishing favoritism towards the members of the ingroup, even if this implies a detriment to the members of the outgroup.even if this implies a detriment to the characteristics of the exogroup.

As is easy to imagine, the latter can have important effects on discriminatory attitudes and behaviors, i.e., a psychosocial rejection of the exogroup. And, in contrast, an esteem or overestimation of the ingroup. But not necessarily: to explain this, some theories of social psychology have distinguished between "ingroup bias" and "outgroup negativity", where the latter refers specifically to the exercise of violence and discrimination by the ingroup towards the outgroup.

Although they are related, they are distinct phenomena, in which power relations and categories of power and status are involved. power relations and the majority-minority categories established between the ingroup and the exgroup. between the endogroup and the ex-group.

To explain why this occurs, social psychology has resorted to the study of intergroup relations of categorization in identity formation. In other words, it has been necessary to study how identity is formed through the establishment of a series of categories, in which both cognitive bases and links between members of different groups participate.

Why does it happen? Explanations from Social Psychology

There have been many theoretical proposals from social psychology that have explained why the members of a group tend to value their own group more positively; and how this valuation is related to their own group.and how this evaluation is related to the negative evaluation of the other group.

We will now briefly explain some of the theories that have provided explanations for the ingroup bias.

Social identity and self-concept theory

The British psychologist Henry Tajfel developed important studies on categorical perception in the 1950s. Among other things he analyzed the effects of categorization on discriminatory behaviors. Later, in the 1970's, Turner and Brown reformulated these studies and finally developed the Social Identity Theory and the Self-Categorization Theory of the Self.

In broad strokes what they did was to propose that, in order to form an identity, it is necessary for the process of categorization to occur with certain cognitive components.. In other words, many of the elements that define our identity have to do with belonging to different groups and social categories. For the same reason, self-concept (the image we have of ourselves) is constructed through social identity, always related to categories and roles.

Thus, self-concept and self-esteem are consolidated through identification with social groups; thus, they are a reflection of the norms and practices expected in a particular group. In this sense, the ingroup bias occurs as a way of maintaining self-esteem by intensifying the differences between the ingroup and the outgroup (known as the accentuation principle); this requires identification with a social group and also comparison with others.

Conflict and competition theory

Through the experiment of the den of thievesMuzafer and Carolyn Sherif showed that a context of competitiveness favors the increase of hostility of the ingroup towards the outgroup.

In contrast, an environment where tasks requiring interdependence prevail and where members of different groups pursue common goals may reduce such hostility. According to their research, ingroup bias and negative attitudes toward the exogroup arise when group members have to compete with limited resources.

Ingroup derogation theory.

Although ingroup bias refers specifically to the favoring of the ingroup over the outgroup, multicultural studies have also offered us explanations for the opposite phenomenon.

That is, when members of a group tend to rate members of their own group more harshly than members of the outgroup. This occurs especially when the ingroup belongs to a social minority.. Some research has also suggested that people belonging to more collectivist cultures tend to judge their own group less favorably than the exgroup (although they rate individual members positively); and people from more individualistic cultures rate the ingroup more positively, and each member more negatively.

Bibliographical references:

• Scandroglio, B., López, J.S. and Sebastián, C. (2008). Social Identity Theory: a critical synthesis of its foundations, evidence and controversies, 21(1): 80-89.
• Betancor, V., Leyens J-P., Rodríguez, A. and Quiles, M. (2003). Differential ingroup and outgroup attribution of morality and efficacy dimensions: an indicator of ingroup favoritism. Psicothema, 15(3): 407-413.
• Tejada, A., García C., & Navas, M. (2003). Test of interethnic endogroup bias: reliability and validity evidence studies. Psicothema, 15(1): 101-108.