Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The significance of in-group and out-group categorization was identified using a method called the minimal group paradigm. Tajfel and colleagues found that people can form self-preferencing in-groups within a matter of minutes and that such groups can form even on the basis of completely arbitrary and invented discriminatory characteristics ...
A simple cladogram showing the evolutionary relationships between four species: A, B, C, and D. Here, Species A is the outgroup, and Species B, C, and D form the ingroup. In cladistics or phylogenetics, an outgroup [1] is a more distantly related group of organisms that serves as a reference group when determining the evolutionary relationships of the ingroup, the set of organisms under study ...
In a 1994 review of the existing literature on the ideas people employ to legitimize and support ideas, structures, and behaviors, psychologists John T. Jost and Mahzarin Banaji observed that the existing theories of ego-justification (i.e., the utilization of stereotypes as a means to protect the self) [5] [6] and group justification (i.e ...
Members are generally connected through performing similar actions or possessing similar outlooks. As they only exist for a very brief period of time, it is very easy for an out-group member to become an in-group member and vice versa. [4] Examples of collectives include audiences at a show, bystanders, people at the park, etc. [4]
The out-group homogeneity effect is the perception of out-group members as more similar to one another than are in-group members, e.g. "they are alike; we are diverse". [1] Perceivers tend to have impressions about the diversity or variability of group members around those central tendencies or typical attributes of those group members.
Group threat theory, also known as group position theory, [1] is a sociological theory that proposes the larger the size of an outgroup, the more the corresponding ingroup perceives it to threaten its own interests, resulting in the ingroup members having more negative attitudes toward the outgroup. [2]
Empirical research also suggests that physical and psychological similarity among group members, whether in appearance, background, or personality traits, increases perceptions of group cohesion or entitativity. For example, groups with members who share physical traits such as skin color—often seen as essential characteristics—are ...
Also, in-group members will 'explain away' out-group success to external factors such as luck or circumstance. [1] The bias reinforces negative stereotypes and prejudice about the out-group and favouritism of the ingroup through positive stereotypes.