The out-group homogeneity effect refers to the idea that people view members of an out-group as less varied than members of their own in-group. This perspective forms the basis for stereotypes, which are generalized beliefs about a group of people.
For instance, one might believe that all employees in a certain profession share the same attitudes or behaviors, overlooking individual differences. This effect can manifest in both minimal group contexts — where the groups are formed arbitrarily and have no prior history — and natural groups that are part and parcel of one’s social identity.
The terms “outgroup homogeneity effect”, “outgroup homogeneity bias”, or “relative outgroup homogeneity” have been explicitly contrasted with “outgroup homogeneity” in general, the latter referring to perceived outgroup variability unrelated to perceptions of the ingroup.
In social psychology, out-group homogeneity is understood as a cognitive bias that simplifies the complexity of social perception. This phenomenon has roots in basic cognitive processes: categorization helps individuals to make sense of social stimuli, but also leads to generalization.
Social psychologists argue that people conserve cognitive resources by assuming homogeneity within out-groups, which is a practical but imperfect strategy. Research has shown that this effect can contribute to intergroup bias, as people tend to view their in-group with greater differentiation and complexity, granting them a richer and more nuanced social identity compared to members of out-groups.
Theories and Models
This bias was discovered to be unrelated to the number of group and non-group members that people knew. One may imagine that people thought members of their own groups were more diverse and unique since they knew them better and hence had more information about ingroups, but this is not the case. Out-group homogeneity bias was discovered between groups such as “men” and “women” who plainly interact often.
This discrepancy has elsewhere been ascribed to differences in how people store or process in-group and out-group information. However, this concept has been questioned in several circumstances where in-groups regard themselves as homogeneous.
Researchers believe that perceiving a group as homogeneous promotes in-group solidarity. Experiments on the topic revealed that in-group homogeneity occurs when people who strongly identify with a group are given with stereotypical information about that group.
Self-categorization theory
According to self-categorization theory, the outgroup homogeneity effect is due to the differences in contexts that exist when perceiving outgroups and ingroups. A perceiver will be exposed to an intergroup setting when dealing with outgroups, hence they will pay attention to differences between the two groups.
As a result, variations between outgroup members are overlooked, giving rise to beliefs of outgroup uniformity. When perceiving ingroup members, the perceiver may encounter either an intergroup or intragroup setting.
In an intergroup scenario, the ingroup is likewise expected to be perceived as relatively homogeneous as the perceiver focuses on the contrasts between “us” and “them” (depersonalization happens). However, in an intragroup environment, the perceiver may be encouraged to focus on differences with the group (between “me” and “others in the group”), resulting in perceptions of comparative ingroup heterogeneity. Perceivers are less motivated to make intra-group outgroup comparisons, resulting in an overall outgroup homogeneity effect.
The self-categorization theory account is backed by findings that in an intergroup environment, both the ingroup and outgroup are viewed as more homogeneous, whereas when judged alone, the ingroup is perceived as comparably heterogeneous.The theory eliminates the need to propose distinct processing processes for ingroups and outgroups, as well as accounting for results of outgroup homogeneity in the minimal group framework.
Social Identity Theory
A separate line of research examined ingroup and outgroup homogeneity via the lens of social identity theory. While complementing the self-categorization theory hypothesis, this body of research focused on specific homogeneity effects related with perceiver intentions.
They derived the prediction from social identity theory that comparative ingroup homogeneity will occasionally emerge as a result of pressures to build a positive and distinct social identity. Members of minority groups, for example, are more prone to emphasize intragroup solidarity by emphasizing ingroup homogeneity.
This is because minority group members are more prone to have their self-esteem threatened as a result of their minority status. This was empirically validated.
It was also proposed that an ingroup homogeneity effect would emerge on ingroup defining parameters for both minority and majority group members. This was also empirically supported.
Recent research has also reaffirmed that the effect of in-group homogeneity on in-group defining dimensions and out-group homogeneity on out-group defining dimensions may occur because people use their ratings of perceived group variability to express the extent to which social groups share specific traits. This current research, like the self-categorization theory account, demonstrates that the effect may arise independently of the motivating issues stated in social identity theory.
Psychological Mechanisms
Memory plays a critical role in the out-group homogeneity bias. Research has shown that individuals have a tendency to store less information about out-group members than in-group members. This leads to a lower recall for the specific attributes of out-group members, and as a result, they are perceived as more similar.
For example, in a 1998 study, when assessing psychologists and social workers, students may remember less characteristic detail about those not from their own area of study, thus perceiving them as a homogenous group.
In-group bias also contributes to perceptions of out-group homogeneity. Individuals are inclined to favor their own group, attributing a wider range of behaviors, traits, and characteristics to fellow in-group members. This bias enhances the distinction between in-group diversity and out-group homogeneity. It’s noteworthy that the underlying cognitive mechanisms of in-group judgments differ from those applied to out-group assessments, leading to a skewed perception of homogeneity in out-groups.
References:
- Castano, E., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (1998). The highs and lows of group homogeneity. Behavioural processes, 42(2-3), 219–238.
- De Cremer, David (2001). Perceptions of group homogeneity as a function of social comparison: The mediating role of group identity. Current Psychology. 20 (2): 138–146. doi: 10.1007/s12144-001-1021-4
- Haslam, Alex; Oakes, Penny; Turner, John; McGarty, Craig (1996). Social identity, self-categorization, and the perceived homogeneity of ingroups and outgroups: The interaction between social motivation and cognition. In Sorrentino, Richard; Higgins, Edward (eds.) Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior. New York: Guilford Press. ISBN 9781572300521
- Judd, Charles M.; Ryan, Carey S.; Park, Bernadette (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
- Linville, Patricia W.; Fischer, Gregory W.; Salovey, Peter (1989). Perceived distributions of the characteristics of in-group and out-group members: Empirical evidence and a computer simulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 57 (2): 165–188. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.165
- McGarty, C. (1999) Categorization in social psychology. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications. ISBN 0-7619-5953-X
- Ostrom, Thomas M.; Carpenter, Sandra L.; Sedikides, Constantine; Li, Fan (1993). Differential processing of in-group and outgroup information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 64 (1): 21–34. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.64.1.21
- Mullen, Brian; Hu, Li-Tze (1989) Perceptions of Ingroup and Outgroup Variability: A Meta-Analytic Integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 10 (3): 233–252. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1003_3
- Rubin, Mark; Badea, Constantina (2007). Why Do People Perceive Ingroup Homogeneity on Ingroup Traits and Outgroup Homogeneity on Outgroup Traits? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 33 (1): 31–42. doi: 10.1177/0146167206293190
- Rubin, M.; Badea, C. (2010). The central tendency of a social group can affect ratings of its intragroup variability in the absence of social identity concerns. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 46 (2): 410–415. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.01.001
- Simon, Bernd (1992). The Perception of Ingroup and Outgroup Homogeneity: Reintroducing the Intergroup Context. European Review of Social Psychology. 3: 1–30. doi:10.1080/14792779243000005
Last Updated on April 5, 2024