Ingroups and Outgroups

Ingroups and outgroups are sociological concepts that describe the dynamics between groups of individuals based on identity and social interaction. An ingroup refers to a group that individuals identify with and feel an emotional attachment to, often contrasted with an outgroup, which is the group that ingroup members oppose or view with resistance. This binary categorization fosters an "us versus them" mentality, leading to loyalty among ingroup members while simultaneously creating misunderstandings and stereotypes about outgroup members. The existence of outgroups enhances ingroup cohesion, as members often define themselves in opposition to others. Social Identity Theory posits that individuals derive a portion of their self-concept from their group memberships, influencing how they perceive themselves and their own group compared to others. Ingroup bias is a common phenomenon, where individuals favor their own group over others, which can manifest in positive self-image for ingroup members and negative stereotypes of the outgroup. Political and social contexts can exacerbate these biases, potentially leading to conflict. Understanding ingroups and outgroups is crucial for addressing issues of prejudice and fostering intergroup relations in diverse societies.

Published in: 2021

By: McFeeters, Belinda Bennett

Ingroups and Outgroups

Ingroups and outgroups are those groups which individuals tend to join as a result of social interactions. Ingroup is a sociological term used to describe a group that people identify with and feel some form of attachment to. In many instances, the attachment is based on opposition toward an "outgroup," a group of individuals toward which members of an ingroup harbor a sense of opposition, resistance, and even hatred. Because ingroups and outgroups typically live segregated lives, the "us versus them" mentality becomes a significant part of ingroups and tends to drive the level of loyalty one has for their group. Ingroup bias is also discussed.

Keywords Allport's Intergroup Contact Theory; Culture; Distinctiveness; Diversity; Ingroup Bias; Ingroups; Intergroup Relationships; Outgroups; Personal Identity; Psychologically Primary; Realistic Conflict Theory; Self-Esteem; Social Identity; Social Interaction; Structural-Functional Theory

Ingroups & Outgroups

Overview

Sociologists indicate that social interaction occurs when at least two individuals converse and respond to one another and affect one another's behavior and thought processes via language and symbolic gestures. During this time, each person defines, interprets, and places meaning on the interaction (Stark, 2006). In essence, social interaction can be understood as the exchange of information and ideas in various modes and mediums. Whether the medium is face-to-face or electronic, expressions, eye contact, posture, and voice all have some effect on the outcome of the interaction (Goffman, 1997).

Individuals who take part in these social interactions belong to various groups known as "ingroups" or "outgroups." Ingroup is a sociological term used to describe a group that people identify with and feel some form of attachment to. In many instances, the attachment is based on opposition toward the "outgroup," a group of individuals toward which members of an ingroup harbor a sense of opposition, resistance, and even hatred. Outgroups are required for ingroups to exist (Stark, 2006).

The fact that an outgroup exists enhances the loyalty that ingroup members have for each other and brings more attention to the characteristics that differentiate the ingroup from the outgroup. In fact, the mere existence of an outgroup plays a significant role in unifying an ingroup, despite the diversity of the ingroup i.e. cultural, religious, or political differences (Stark, 2006).

Because ingroups and outgroups typically live segregated lives, the "us versus them" mentality becomes a significant part of ingroups and tends to drive the level of loyalty one has for their group. Little interaction occurs between these groups, resulting in each knowing very little about the other. Misrepresentations, misunderstandings, and mistrust between the two groups are enhanced because there is little or no first-hand interaction experience. In addition, stereotypes are developed and groups view one another within the framework of those stereotypes (Stark, 2006).

Group Symbols

Differences in preferred symbols, objects, or gestures often have a tendency to cause clashes among ingroups and outgroups. Some groups' objects have the potential to cause great concern for other groups. In some cases, a group's symbols, objects, or gestures threaten another group so much so that it causes the group to try to eliminate the other group's objects. Destroying the objects becomes synonymous with destroying the group (Stark, 2006). Though symbols tend to cause clashes between ingroups and outgroups, they are not the sole source of the conflict. The meaning behind the symbol when it comes to dealing with diverse groups plays a greater role in the group's conflict. For example, in Israel, prior to the 1993 Peace Accord, displaying the Palestinian flag was illegal. For this reason, the flag became the central symbol of a number of conflicts between the Palestinians and the Israelis (Stark, 2006).

Intergroup Conflict

Conflict between ingroups and outgroups is a common reality in an increasingly diverse society (Wenzel, Mummendey & Waldzus, 2007). Theory has played an important role in explaining the conflict that occurs between diverse groups. For example, Allport's Intergroup Contact Theory (Allport, 1954) explains the process by which diverse groups (ingroups and outgroups) interact with one another. The theory posits that a specific type of setting must be created to encourage groups to develop positive rather than conflictive interactive relations. The setting should consist of four conditions:

• Cooperation between groups,

• Equal status,

• Common goals, and

• Support from authority figures in the program or institution in which the interaction takes place.

Less bias and a greater possibility for cross-group interactions have resulted when these conditions have been met, including a reduction in prejudices (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew & Troop, 2000). Allport (1954) suggests that ingroups are "psychologically primary," meaning that familiarity, preference, and attachment for one's ingroups are established before the development of attitudes toward specific outgroups.

Other theorists have tried to better understand what motivates people to join one group over another. Mullin & Hogg (1999) suggest that an individuals' self-concept influences the decision. How group membership defines the self and how social-cognitive processes based on group membership definitions create intergroup differences, stereotypes, and ethnocentrism all play a role in affecting one's self-concept and decision-making.

Key among the research is the Social Identity Theory (Moreland, Hogg & Hains, 1994). The Social Identity Theory has traditionally highlighted the motivating force of a person's desire to have a positive self-concept through membership in groups that share the same values. Based on shared beliefs, characteristics, or experiences, social identity is used to categorize people into groups, help them identify with certain groups, and compare the groups one belongs to (ingroups) with other groups (outgoups), typically thinking more highly of one's ingroup than the outgroups (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).

Social identity refers to social groupings and the way we view ourselves and others. Related to personal identity (the pieces of identity that derive from various personality traits and interpersonal relationships), social identity comprises pieces of a person's identity that result from belonging to a specific group (Hannum, 2007). The Social Identity Theory posits that motivated drives influence group members to create a distinctiveness for their ingroup from the outgroup. Key to this theory is the idea that the social groups one becomes a member of inform that individual's evaluation of him or herself (Tajfel & Turner, 1986).

Self-esteem

One piece of this evaluation is self-esteem. The literature indicates that having a high level of self-esteem is key for an individual's success. Self-esteem can be described as a positive or negative orientation toward oneself, and an overall evaluation of one's value or worth. Having high self-esteem indicates positive self-regard versus egotism, as some theorists have suggested (Rosenberg, 1989). Indicators of self-esteem include

• "Showing self-respect and respect for others,"

• Initiating "actions towards achievement of goals,"

• Taking "reasonable risks," demonstrating "assertive behaviors," and

• Functioning "without need for constant reassurance from others" (Miller, 2003, p. 18).

Self-esteem is a popular and widely researched topic, particularly in psychology (Mecca, Smelser & Vasconcellos, 1989). A major reason for its popularity is its pervasive impact on various facets of human behavior including achievement, performance, motivation, and competition (Baumeister, 1993; Bednar, Wells, 1989; Campbell, 1990; Wells & Marwell, 1976; Wylie, 1974, 1979). Mirowsky and Ross (1989) and Rosenberg (1989) note that self-esteem results from others' opinions and evaluations of one as a person of worth. Perceived self-worth comes from social attachments to close friends, family members, parents and teachers and is a function of appraisals of these constituents (Rosenberg, 1979; 1989).

Individuals with low self-esteem seem to know less about themselves than those with high self-esteem (Baumgardner, 1990; Campbell, 1990). Their views about themselves change from day to day, and they have fewer definite beliefs about what they are like and who they are as people than those with higher self-esteem (Baumeister, 1993). Developmentally, people with low self-esteem lack one of the most important pieces of their coping identity during their younger years.

Self-esteem theory discusses how individuals discover their core characteristics from the interactions they have with their peers. Comfort level with one’s gender, sexual orientation, preferred ways to dress, and favorite things to do are all a part of the establishing this level of comfort with the self. Individuals make preliminary choices and commitments about the people and groups they identify with, the roles they can play, and the lifestyles they want, and they get feedback from others that may either confirm their self-image or transform it (Reisser, 1995).

Because the self-esteem of an individual typically comes from the interactions within group membership (Crocker & Luhtanen, 1990), gaining a positive self-evaluation depends on the ability to make a distinction between the qualities of the ingroup and any relevant outgroups (Mlicki & Ellmers, 1996; Brown & Abrams, 1986; Tajfel, 1982; Turner, Brown, & Tajfel, 1979). More importantly, to gain a positive self-esteem from ingroup membership, the distinctiveness of the ingroups compared to the outgroups must be glaring, as ingroup members place high value in distinctiveness and will go to great lengths to protect it. In fact, when ingroup distinctiveness is compromised, ingroup favoritism is used against the outgroup to retain positive distinctiveness (Mlicki & Ellmers, 1996; Brown & Abrams, 1986; Tajfel, 1982; Turner, Brown, & Tajfel, 1979).

Ingroup Bias

Ingroup bias is another factor which affects the beliefs that members of ingroups value. Ingroup bias is the tendency to favor one's own group over the outgroup, including devaluing the outgroup in some cases (Bettencourt, Dorr, Charlton, & Hume, 2001; Brewer, 1979; Hewstone, Rubin, & Willis, 2002; Tajfel, 1982). It involves ingroup-favoring and outgroup-derogating and discrimination (Scheepers, Spears, Doosje & Manstead, 2006).

Identity Function

There are two primary functions of ingroup bias that are seen as motivational processes: identity function and instrumental function. The identity function involves a positive social identity and the way in which identity can be created and expressed (Scheepers, spears, Doosje & Manstead, 2006). In essence, it consists of two sub-functions: identity creation and identity expression, which play a significant role in enhancing self-concept (Baumeister, 1998). Identity creation, in regard to ingroup bias, is key because it helps to increase group distinctiveness (Jetten et al., 1996; Jetten, Spears, & Postmes, 2004). This can be important in terms of group action or social change (Spears et. al, 2004). Through identity expression, one's social identity is confirmed and validated, and the positive value of one's group is celebrated collectively (Leonardelli & Brewer, 2001; Leach, Snider & Iyer, 2001). In general, identity creation tells the individual/self what one's group is about, and identity expression explains to others what the group is about (Scheepers, Spears, Doosje & Manstead, 2006).

Instrumental Function

The instrumental function of ingroup bias refers to the facilitation of various goals or the way in which ingroup bias helps groups meet various material goals, including personal and group goals. If one were to consider the facilitation of intergroup competition and of social change as the goals in question, the focus would center on how ingroup bias can motivate ingroup members, enhance unity and team spirit, and influence members to compete with outgroups (Scheepers, Spears, Doosje & Manstead, 2006). Both functions of ingroup bias, however, are important to the motivation process.

Further Insights

The Power of Politics

Out of ingroup favoritism come feelings of moral superiority, fear and distrust of outgroups, and social comparison. These factors can cause conflict between groups, even if there is no real conflict over specific material resources or power. However, if groups are political in nature, purposeful manipulation by group leaders can intensify the distrust groups feel toward one another, for the sole reason of maintaining political power. When trust is ingroup-based, outgroup precaution enhances. It becomes easier to fear control by individuals outside of one's group, and ingroup cohesion and loyalty is increased because of the perceived threat from the outgroup (Brewer, 1999).

Moral Authority

Overall, members of ingroups and outgroups choose to belong to their respective groups because of how they believe they will be treated once they are a member. For example, ingroup members know they can expect to be better treated by other ingroup members than by outgroup members. The universal understanding or belief among group members is that one's own group is more peaceful, trustworthy, friendly, and honest than other groups. Because a preference for the familiar over the unfamiliar reinforces this reality, as ingroups grow and depersonalize the rules and customs that help sustain ingroup loyalty and cooperation become more like moral authority (Brewer, 1999).

Perceived Threat Among Groups

Relative to Realistic Conflict Theory of intergroup relations (LeVine & Campbell, 1972: Sherif & Sherif, 1953), the mutual relationship between ingroup cohesion and outgroup hostility may only deal with situations in which groups compete over physical resources or political power. The thinking that an outgroup constitutes a threat to an ingroup seems to be directly related to fear and hostility. For example, a study found that among Black Africans in South Africa there is a significant interrelationship between ingroup identification and negative attitudes toward Afrikaners. There was no correlation however, between ingroup identification and attitudes when English White people were involved, or toward White people in general. From this finding, researchers suggest that two different types of prejudice come into play in attitudes toward race among Black South Africans. One type is rooted in perceived conflict and results in a reciprocal relationship between ingroup identification and outgroup hostility. Secondly, ingroup attitudes and outgroup prejudice tend to be independent when intergroup attitudes are not based on conflict(Duckitt & Mphuthing 1998).

Viewpoints

Sumner's View on Ingroup Bias

William Graham Sumner's views (1906) on the nature of ingroup-outgroup bias contrasts to some extent with Allport's insights about the idea. Sumner did however, define ethnocentrism in positive terms toward ingroup pride, loyalty, and perceived superiority, but he also believed that these attitudes, though positive in nature, were directly correlated with contempt, hatred, and hostility directed toward outgroups. This thinking was derived from Sumner's version of structural-functional theory, which understands ingroups and outgroups to originate from conflicts over scarce natural resources. Generally, when scarcity exists in environments, individuals are prone to band together in diverse groups to compete against other groups for survival.

Allport's View on Ingroup Bias

In contrast to Sumner's view, Gordon Allport (1954) posits that a preference for the ingroup may not always be accompanied by hostility toward outgroups. Despite his critique of this view of ingroup-outgroup interactions, much research on intergroup relations, prejudice, and discrimination embraces the idea that ingroup favoritism and outgroup are negativity are equally related.

Terms & Concepts

Allport's Intergroup Contact Theory: Gordon Allport's Intergroup Contact Theory posits that a specific type of setting must be created to encourage diverse groups to develop positive interactive relations. This setting should consist of four conditions: cooperation between groups, equal status, common goals, and support from authority figures in the program or institution in which the interaction takes place.

Culture: Culture refers to socially driven ways of thinking, believing, feeling, and acting within a group of individuals, that are passed on from generation to generation.

Distinctiveness: A distinguishing trait, serving to identify.

Diversity: Diversity is the wide range of differences among people, communities, and families based on cultural and ethnic backgrounds, physical abilities, and academic abilities.

Ingroup Bias: Ingroup bias is the tendency to favor one's own group over the outgroup, including devaluing the outgroup in some cases. It refers to ingroup-favoring and outgroup-derogating and discrimination.

Ingroup: Ingroup is a sociological term used to describe a group that people identify with and feel some form of attachment to. In many instances, the attachment is based on opposition toward outgroups.

Intergroup: Being or occurring between two or more social groups.

Intergroup Relationships: Intergroup relationships are relationships between groups of people who relate to one another based on race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, ability, and socio-economic status.

Outgroup: Outgroup refers to a group of individuals toward which members of an ingroup harbor a sense of opposition, resistance, and even hatred. Outgroups are required for ingroups to exist.

Personal Identity: The pieces of identity that derive from various personality traits and interpersonal relationships.

Psychologically Primary: Psychologically Primary means that familiarity, preference, and attachment for one's ingroups is established before the development of attitudes toward specific outgroups.

Realistic Conflict Theory: Realistic Conflict Theory posits that limited resources will lead to conflict between groups, resulting in discrimination and the creation of stereotypes within society.

Self-Esteem: Self-esteem is the collection of beliefs or feelings we have about ourselves, or the self-perceptions we harbor.

Social Identity: Social identity refers to social groupings and the way we view ourselves and others. It comprises pieces of a person's identity that result from belonging to a specific group.

Social Identity Theory: Social Identity Theory has traditionally highlighted the motivating force of a person's desire to have a positive self-concept through membership in groups that share the same values. Based on shared beliefs, characteristics, or experiences, social identity is used to categorize people into groups, help them identify with certain groups, and compare the groups one belongs to (ingroups) with other groups (outgoups), typically thinking more highly of one's ingroup than the outgroups.

Social Interaction: Social interaction occurs when at least two individuals converse and respond to one another, and affect one another's behavior and thought process by using language and symbolic gestures.

Structural-Functional Theory: The Structural-Functional Theory explains the origins of groups in regards to conflict over scarce natural resources. Structural Functional theorists posit that all group members serve specific functions for the survival of the group.

Bibliography

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

Baumeister, R. F. (1993). Understanding the inner nature of low self-esteem: Uncertain, fragile, protective and conflicted. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Self-esteem: The puzzle of low self-regard. (pp. 201–218). New York: Plenum Press.

Baumeister, R. F. (1998). The self. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 680 –740). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Baumgardner, A. H. (1990). To know oneself is to like oneself: Self-certainty and self- affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58 , 1062–1072. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=22569237&site=ehost-live

Bednar, R. L., Wells, M. G., & Peterson, S. R. (1989). Self-esteem: Paradoxes and innovations in clinical theory and practice. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Bettencourt, B. A., Dorr, N., Charlton, K., & Hume, D. (2001). Status differences and intergroup bias: A meta-analytic examination of the effects of status stability, status legitimacy and group permeability. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 520–542.

Brewer, M. B. (1979). Ingroup bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitivemotivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307–324.

Brewer, M. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database, SocINDEX. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=2627447&site=ehost-live

Brown, R. J., & Abrams, D. (1986). The effects of intergroup similarity and goal interdependence on intergroup attitudes and task performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 78–92.

Campbell, J. D. (1990). Self-esteem and clarity of the self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59 , 538–549. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=9103042315&site=ehost-live

Crocker, J., & Luhtanen, R. (1990). Collective self esteem and ingroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 60–67.

Deschamps, J.-C., & Brown, R. (1983). Superordinate goals and intergroup conflict. British Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 189–195.

Duckitt, J., & Mphuthing, T. (1998). Group identification and intergroup attitudes: A longitudinal analysis in South Africa. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 , 80–85. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=194180&site=ehost-live

Goffman, E. (1997). The Goffman Reader. Lemert C. & Branaman A. (ed.). Malden, Mass.

Hannum, K. (2007). Social identity: Knowing yourself, leading others. Greensboro: CCL Press.

Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 575–604.

Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1996). Intergroup norms and intergroup discrimination: Distinctive self-categorisation and social identity effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 , 1222 –1233. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=9712074107&site=ehost-live

Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (2004). Intergroup distinctiveness and differentiation: A meta-analytic integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86 , 862–879. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=13233661&site=ehost-live

Leach, C. W., Snider, S., & Iyer, A. (2001). ''Poisoning the consciences of the fortunate'': The experience of relative advantage and support for social equality. In I. Walker & H. J. Smith (Eds.), Relative deprivation: Specification, development, and integration (pp. 136–163). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Leonardelli, G. J., & Brewer, M. B. (2001). Minority and majority discrimination: When and why. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 468–485.

LeVine, R. A., & Campbell, D. T. (1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes and group behavior. New York: Wiley.

Mecca, A. M., Smelser, N. J., & Vasconcellos, J. (Eds.). (1989). The social importance of self-esteem. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Miller, T. K. (2003). The book of professional standards in higher education. Washington, DC: Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education.

Mlicki, P. P., & Ellemers, N. (1996). Being different or being better? National stereotypes and identifications of Polish and Dutch students. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, , 97–114. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=14160253&site=ehost-live

Mirowsky, J. & Ross, C. E. (1989). Social causes of psychological distress. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Moreland, R. L., Hogg, M. A., & Hains, S. C. (1994). Back to the future: Social psychological research on groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 527–555.

Mullen, B., Brown, R., & Smith, C. (1992). Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status: An integration. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, , 103–122. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=12120214&site=ehost-live

Mullin & Hogg (1999) Motivations for Group Membership: The Role of Subjective Importance and Uncertainty Reduction. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 21 , 91–102. Retrieved March 12, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=3344499&site=ehost-live

Mummendey, A., & Sebreiber, H. (1983). Better or just different? Positive social identity by discrimination against or by differentiation from outgroups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13, , 389–397. Retrieved March 12, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=12125064&site=ehost-live

Mummendey, A., & Simon, B. (1989). Better or different? III: The impact of importance of comparison dimension and relative ingroup size upon intergroup discrimination. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 1–16.

Mummendey, A., & Wenzel, M. (1999). Social discrimination and tolerance in intergroup relations: Reactions to intergroup difference. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 158–174.

Pettigrew, T. & Troop, L. (2000). Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Recent meta-analytic findings. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 93–114). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rosenberg, M. (1989). The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Society and the adolescent self-image. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press. Retrieved March 27, 2008, from University of Maryland, http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/Research/rosenberg.htm

Scheepers, D., Spears, R. Doosje, B. & Manstead, A. S. R. (2006). The social functions of ingroup bias: Creating, confirming, or changing social reality. European Review of Social Psychology, 17, 359–396. Retrieved March 12, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=24905877&site=ehost-live

Sechrist, G. B., & Young, A. F. (2011). The influence of social consensus information on intergroup attitudes: The moderating effects of ingroup identification. Journal of Social Psychology, 151, 674–695. Retrieved October 30, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=66356870

Smith, H. J., Spears, R., & Oyen, M. (1994). "People like us": The influence of personal deprivation and group membership salience on justice evaluations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 277–299.

Spears, R., Scheepers, D., Jetten, J., Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Postmes, T. (2004). Entitativity, distinctiveness and social identity: Getting and using social structure. In V. Yzerbyt, C. M. Judd, & O. Corneille (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity and essentialism (pp. 293–316). New York: Psychology Press. .. FT.-Stark, R. (2006). Sociology: A global perspective (4h ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Sumner, W. G. (1906). Folkways. New York: Ginn.

Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1–39.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Turner, J. C., Brown, R. J., & Tajfel, H. (1979). Social comparison and group interest in ingroup favoritism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 9, 187–204.

Vaes, J., Leyens, J., Paola Paladino, M., & Pires Miranda, M. (2012). We are human, they are not: Driving forces behind outgroup dehumanisation and the humanisation of the ingroup. European Review of Social Psychology, 23, 64–106. Retrieved October 30, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=87342341

Vanneman, R. D., & Pettigrew, T. F. (1972). Race and relative deprivation in the urban United States. Race, 13, 461–486.

Viki, G., Abrams, D., & Winchester, L. (2013). Ingroup identification and evaluations of confessions from ingroup and outgroup members. Social Psychology (18649335), 44, 256–263. Retrieved October 30, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=90076349

Wells, L. E. & Marwell, G. (1976). Self-esteem. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Wenzel, M. Mummendey, A. & Waldzus, S. (2007). Superordinate identities and intergroup conflict: The ingroup projection model, European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 331–372. Retrieved March 12, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=28698883&site=ehost-live

Wylie, R. (1974). The self-concept (Vol. 1). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Wylie, R. (1979). The self-concept (Vol. 2). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Ingroups and Outgroups

On this Page

Subject Terms

Ingroups and Outgroups

Ingroups & Outgroups

Overview

Group Symbols

Intergroup Conflict

Self-esteem

Ingroup Bias

Identity Function

Instrumental Function

Further Insights

The Power of Politics

Moral Authority

Perceived Threat Among Groups

Viewpoints

Sumner's View on Ingroup Bias

Allport's View on Ingroup Bias

Terms & Concepts

Bibliography

Suggested Reading