ADOLESCENT DIVERSITY: IN-GROUPS AND IN-GROUP BIAS
1
Abstract
This research paper is a literature review which examines numerous articles and various sources
and seeks to understand not only the formation, but also the various roles and impacts of
in-groups and outgroups as they relate to the Social Identity theory. Social identity can be
described as a person's view of who they are based on their associations to either one particular
group or several groups. The group in which we belong is known as the in-group while those
who are not part of our social group are called an out-group. A core idea of the social identity
theory is that commonly, members of an in-group will attempt to point out the negative features
of out-groups to enhance their own self image. This often leads to in-group bias which can result
in prejudices between cultures and societies. Increased awareness and finding similarities
between the in-group and out-groups can help combat this
ADOLESCENT DIVERSITY: IN-GROUPS AND IN-GROUP BIAS
2
Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................3
The Social Identity Approach and Group Identity...........................................................................4
In-groups and out-groups.................................................................................................................7
In- group Bias.................................................................................................................................. 8
Impacts of In-group Bias........................................................................................................... 9
Overcoming In-group Bias.......................................................................................................11
Conclusion..................................................................................................................................... 13
References......................................................................................................................................14
ADOLESCENT DIVERSITY: IN-GROUPS AND IN-GROUP BIAS
3
The Social Identity Approach: In-groups and In-group Bias
The social identity theory was the most significant psychological advance made by Henri
Tajfel. Social identity is a person's perception of who they are based on their membership in
either one or several groups. According to Tajfel (1979), people's affiliations with certain
groups—such as their socioeconomic class, family, sports team, etc.—were a significant source
of pride and self-esteem. We develop a sense of social identity, that is, a feeling that we belong in
the social realm, through being a part of groups.
Through the process of social categorization (i.e., the division of people into social
groups), humans created the "them" and "us" division of the world. Henri Tajfel argued that
grouping things together is a common cognitive function, and that this is the basis for
stereotyping, which is the practice of categorizing and grouping individuals. Thus, the formation
of in-groups and out-groups.
ADOLESCENT DIVERSITY: IN-GROUPS AND IN-GROUP BIAS
4
The Social Identity Approach and Group Identity
A group can be thought of as a collection of people who believe they belong to a distinct
social category, who experience some emotional connection with this shared self-identification,
and who arrive to a certain degree of social agreement regarding the essence of their group and
what it means to be included in it. Social groupings enable its members to define themselves in
terms of their surroundings. These classifications happen to be mainly both relational and
comparative in the sense that they characterize the person as being akin to or dissimilar from, as
being "better" or "worse" than, someone who belongs to other groups.
The social identity approach places a strong emphasis on shedding light on attitudes and
behavior as the end product of the interplay between psychological processes and social, cultural,
and politically charged environments (Verkuyten, 2021). It is pointed out that the way
psychological processes play out is heavily influenced by how an environment of social
interaction is established. In order to understand the formation of groups and in-group bias there
are certain factors that need to be taken into consideration.
Firstly, the social identity approach focuses on the procedures used to distinguish
between social groupings and the manner in which individuals refer to both themselves and other
individuals as members of the aforementioned groups (Verkuyten, 2021). Group identity is
simultaneously social and individual, as well as public and private . It is regarded as a
fundamental theory that helps to comprehend how people interact with one another and the rest
of society as a whole. The meaning of a person's racial, ethnic, or other category of group
identity cannot be reduced to an individual's personal points of view and peculiar beliefs because
it involves social reality in the context of shared meanings that are ingrained in matters such as
laws, rules, symbols, collective representations, and cultural discourses. This implies that it is
ADOLESCENT DIVERSITY: IN-GROUPS AND IN-GROUP BIAS
5
important to understand what these public impressions are and that individuals must
progressively build a sense of who they are based on the perceptions of the groups to which they
belong.
Secondly, the social identity approach contends that group identification, which
profoundly alters and modifies people's psychology and conduct, provides the basis that makes
group activity possible (Verkuyten, 2021). People think, feel, and act not just as individuals, with
regard to their own self-esteem and unique interests, but also as members of groups with similar
views, understandings, and objectives, that is, collective self-esteem and shared interests. The
conventional group understandings become self-relevant when a person declares themselves to
be a group member. Self-stereotyping is the process through which someone begins to define
themselves and others in accordance with the standards, ideals, and principles that are shared by
the group with which they have identified with.
Thirdly, group identities provide people a feeling of belonging within their own group
and are associated with an inclination to seek out positive group distinctive characteristics along
important dimensions of intergroup comparison. By favorably contrasting their ingroup from
relevant outgroups on those factors that are of significance to their group, they attempt to
reinforce their feeling of self-worth. The inclination to draw positive comparisons in favor of
one's own group combines with a number of other factors to influence intergroup behavior.
It is also important to note that group identities revolve around differences and labels that
are socially established and accepted. They suggest intersubjective perceptions that conceptually
involve a trio of interconnected elements. These include social classification or the
socio-structural component, along with the specific behavioral and standard repercussions and
demands connected to the category, and lastly, the ontological judgments or the psychological
ADOLESCENT DIVERSITY: IN-GROUPS AND IN-GROUP BIAS
6
aspect. These three collectively make up the essential and interconnected external characteristics
that characterize a group identity.
ADOLESCENT DIVERSITY: IN-GROUPS AND IN-GROUP BIAS
7
In-groups and out-groups
An ingroup is a social group that an individual identifies with on the basis of traits such
as ethnicity, nationality, religion, socioeconomic status, or political viewpoint. On the other hand,
according to the same criteria that would lead a person to identify with an ingroup, an outgroup
is a social group that person does not belong to (Shatz, n.d). Persons can categorize their
in-groups and out-groups based on a very broad criteria which can also have a heavy influence
on their thoughts and actions. For example, typically, persons of the same gender tend to be more
understanding and sympathetic toward each other. Another common example is where a player
of a particular sports team performs a trick which is viewed as skillful by their supporters, but
when a player of the opposing team does the same trick, they may consider it to be a foul.
There are an incredible variety of ingroups and outgroups which a person might
potentially identify given the broad array of characteristics that people can use to differentiate
between ingroups and outgroups. As a result, some of these groups will be more significant to
individuals than others. However, which groups are more significant might change depending on
the context, for instance, if the issue of belonging to a certain group is particularly worthwhile.
The natural tendency of individuals to identify with ingroups and outgroups is such a compelling
and innate inclination that they may be persuaded to join a new minimal ingroup based on
completely indeterminate, pointless and spurious criteria. Simply speaking, even if those who
make up the group have no other characteristics in common, just the mere act of being informed
that they are a part of the group might actually be enough of a motive for an individual to
socially identify with it. However, it is also important to take note that the mere fact that
someone considers a certain set of individuals to be a member of their ingroup does not imply
ADOLESCENT DIVERSITY: IN-GROUPS AND IN-GROUP BIAS
that those people share that perspective or think the person in question is a member of the
ingroup.
8
ADOLESCENT DIVERSITY: IN-GROUPS AND IN-GROUP BIAS
9
In- group Bias
The tendency of individuals to favor members of their own "in" group over members of
other groups is known as ingroup bias or ingroup favoritism. Intergroup biases are a class of
biases that includes ingroup prejudice. This category also contains ingroup derogation, outgroup
negativity, and outgroup homogeneity in addition to ingroup bias. Outgroup negativity is the
propensity to discriminate against or view members of the outgroup as inferior (Hewstone et al.,
2002). According to Boldry (2007), outgroup homogeneity is the propensity to view members of
the ingroup as different and distinctive while viewing members of the outgroup as uniform with
many of the same traits. For instance, we think that our own city or country is very diverse and
vibrant, but we assume that all the people in a competitor city or nation behave and think in
precisely the same manner because of the stereotype that we possess of them. The propensity to
judge members of the group one belongs to or their own culture with greater severity than
members of other groups is known as ingroup derogation. This form of bias is noticed less
frequently than other biases. A higher percentage of people of underprivileged and minority
groups experience this (Rudman et al., 2002).
Henri Tajfel who was a British psychologist, led the studies in the 1970’s which sought to
understand and explain psychological roots of in-group bias. Tajfel together with his associates
constructed minimal groups to investigate this in the lab. In these groups, strangers are placed
together based on quite meaningless reasons such as tossing a coin. The groups the participants
were placed in were only a matter of randomness which was explained to those who participated.
The following task given to each individual was to distribute money to other participants while
keeping each of their identities a secret. They received no further information but the
participant-specific code numbers that identified the group to which each participant belonged.
ADOLESCENT DIVERSITY: IN-GROUPS AND IN-GROUP BIAS
10
For the majority of the time, Tajfel and his colleagues observed that participants offered
more money to members of their own groups, (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Taking into consideration
that regardless of lacking any prior knowledge about any of their identities while also
acknowledging that they were placed in the same group as a result of a random coin flip, they
were biased toward the other members of their group. Furthermore, Tajfel came to realize in
other studies that even in small groups, participants assessed and judged their in-group as having
a greater likelihood for possessing appealing personalities while also expressing fondness for
their fellow members and identifying with them more.
ADOLESCENT DIVERSITY: IN-GROUPS AND IN-GROUP BIAS
11
Impacts of In-group Bias
In-group bias can have significant impacts on individuals. In-group prejudice can affect
our connections with persons who are not seen as a part of the same group that they are.
Individuals are prone to conducting themselves toward others in an unjust manner and to viewing
similar actions among people somewhat differently according to the group they belong to due to
our natural tendency to prefer in-group members. For as long as our group benefits, individuals
can even feel that engaging in unethical or dishonest behavior is justifiable (The Decision Lab,
n.d).
Additionally, in-group bias also has noteworthy impacts on society as a whole. A major
factor in prejudice and discrimination is in-group bias, due to which people favor those who
belong to their own in-group in preference to others, while also withholding the same
courteousness from those outside it (The Decision Lab, n.d). Different groups experience
unequal results as a consequence of this. For instance, judges' decision-making may be impacted
by in-group bias in the criminal justice system.
The main advantage of ingroup bias can be explained in terms of the system of
cooperation called general exchange. In this arrangement, people lend a hand on their own
initiative without anticipating virtually anything in exchange for their assistance. A group that
adheres to this approach ensures each person in the group has access to assistance when they
require it simply because everyone in the group is prepared to assist anyone who needs it without
conditions. Each person reaps the advantages of this group-level trait, which offers them an edge
against members of groups that don't adhere to this structure. Therefore, we benefit ourselves as
well as the other members of the group when we cooperate with and favor the members of our
ingroup (Balliet, 2014).
ADOLESCENT DIVERSITY: IN-GROUPS AND IN-GROUP BIAS
12
In contrast to any overt hostility against outgroups, many discriminating attitudes and
actions are largely driven by the desire to foster and sustain harmonious relationships within the
ingroup. Although it's the main motivation and a beneficial one, ingroup bias lays the
groundwork for negativity and outgroup derogation. When there is intergroup rivalry or a
perceived danger to the ingroup, the negativity of the outgroup is accentuated (Time & Brewer).
Even when making judgments which may have quite significant consequences, people
still exhibit outgroup prejudice. In a case study, it was discovered that citizens who possessed
particular ethnic names were far less inclined to receive aid from local government authorities
than their counterparts whose ethnicities were not displayed. According to Distelhorst and Hou
(2014), identity-based politics and intentional discrimination are not necessary conditions nor
prerequisites for the existence of substantial ingroup biases that alter the conduct of government
officials. Also, we perceive morality as a set of principles that must be applied consistently and
in all circumstances, yet research indicates that we often find it difficult to apply our moral
standards equally to both our ingroups and our outgroups. For instance, liberals hold fellow
liberals to a different set of moral standards than to conservatives, with the reverse also being
true.Following that, there are barriers to the open flow and interchange of inventions and
breakthroughs since individuals frequently reject ideas, items, and information that originate
from members of outgroups. For example, companies will occasionally resist adopting the
effective strategies of their rivals in an effort to set themselves apart from them. (Antons & Piller,
2015). Furthermore, group homogeneity contributes to stereotypes, which have an impact on the
social identities and self-perceptions of stereotyped people as well as restrict a person's
opportunities and range of options.
ADOLESCENT DIVERSITY: IN-GROUPS AND IN-GROUP BIAS
13
Overcoming In-group Bias
As we can understand from the information above, although there are significant benefits
of ingroup bias, there are also a number of quite harmful effects. Luckily, there are a variety of
techniques which can help in reducing the more undesirable impacts in order to attain a more
positive and healthy society. These techniques, or a combination of these techniques can be
incorporated into society to reduce in-group bias.
Firstly, education and awareness is vital. In order to address the issues at hand, persons
must first be made aware of them. It can be beneficial to clarify why intergroup bias might be
harmful both generally and for present-day circumstances. It is also vital to explain exactly what
ingroups as well as outgroups are, why individuals develop them, and how they might affect
people's beliefs and behavior.
Another technique is creating a shared group identity (Shatz, n.d). This may be
accomplished by encouraging individuals to forge a group identity that can be recognized by
both their ingroup and outgroup, ideally while preserving the unique characteristics of each
subgroup. Additionally, it might be helpful to identify shared issues or traits between the
members of the two groups.
As previously stated, individuals usually view their own ingroup as diverse while they
perceive each member of outgroups to be essentially the same. Therefore, the in-group should
take into consideration the heterogeneity of the outgroup. They must try to distinguish the
differences between the outgroup members, for instance, especially when it comes to
characteristics that are thought to be typical of the members of the outgroup.
Lastly, it is also important to boost communication amongst group members. The ingroup
bias can be lessened by interactions, regular contact, and mutually beneficial relationships
ADOLESCENT DIVERSITY: IN-GROUPS AND IN-GROUP BIAS
14
between groups. The connections between individuals can take a number of different forms,
including actual friendships, collaboration especially under certain circumstances, awareness that
an ingroup member is closely associated with a particular outgroup member, and even
hypothetical contacts with outgroup members (Shatz, n.d).
ADOLESCENT DIVERSITY: IN-GROUPS AND IN-GROUP BIAS
Conclusion
The social identity approach involves the formation of out-groups and in-groups. The
formation of in-groups and out-groups are as a result of individuals’ division of the world into
“us” and “them”. The “us” refers to the in-group, the group to which we belong. On the other
hand, “them” refers to the out-group, in which we do not identify with. Naturally, members of
in-groups attempt to enhance their own self-image by pointing out the negative aspects of
out-groups. This typically leads to in-group bias. In-group bias, although it can be beneficial,
also can also be extremely harmful. However, there are a variety of techniques which can be
implemented to overcome those negative impacts.
15
ADOLESCENT DIVERSITY: IN-GROUPS AND IN-GROUP BIAS
16
References
Antons, D., & Piller, F. T. (2015). Opening the black box of “Not Invented Here”: Attitudes,
decision biases, and behavioral consequences. Academy of Management Perspectives,
29(2), 193-217.
Balliet, D., Wu, J., & De Dreu, C. K. (2014). Ingroup favoritism in cooperation: A meta-analysis.
Psychological bulletin, 140(6), 1556.
Brewer, M. B. (2007). The social psychology of intergroup relations: Social categorization,
ingroup bias, and outgroup prejudice. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social
psychology: Handbook of basic principles (p. 695–715). The Guilford Press.
Boldry, J. G., Gaertner, L., & Quinn, J. (2007). Measuring the Measures: A Meta-Analytic
Investigation of the Measures of Outgroup Homogeneity. Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations, 10(2), 157–178.
Distelhorst, G., & Hou, Y. (2014). Ingroup bias in official behavior: A national field experiment
in China. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 9(2), 203-230.
Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual review of psychology,
53(1), 575-604.
ADOLESCENT DIVERSITY: IN-GROUPS AND IN-GROUP BIAS
17
Tajfel, H., Turner, J. C., Austin, W. G., & Worchel, S. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup
conflict. Organizational identity: A reader, 56-65.
Shatz, I. (n.d.). Ingroups and Outgroups: How Social Identity Influences People. Effectiviology.
https://effectiviology.com/ingroup-outgroup/#Examples_of_ingroups_and_outgroups
Verkuyten, M. (2021). Group identity and ingroup bias: The Social Identity Approach. Human
Development, 65(5–6), 311–324. https://doi.org/10.1159/000519089