Intergroup bias.

By Miles Hewstone, Mark Rubin, H. Willis. Annual Review of Psychology, 2002

1,822 citations recorded by the source corpus.

This chapter reviews the extensive literature on bias in favor of in-groups at the expense of out-groups. We focus on five issues and identify areas for future research: (a) measurement and conceptual issues (especially in-group favoritism vs. out-group derogation, and explicit vs. implicit measures of bias); (b) modern theories of bias highlighting motivational explanations (social identity, optimal distinctiveness, uncertainty reduction, social dominance, terror management); (c) key moderators of bias, especially those that exacerbate bias (identification, group size, status and power, threat, positive-negative asymmetry, personality and individual differences); (d) reduction of bias (individual vs. intergroup approaches, especially models of social categorization); and (e) the link between intergroup bias and more corrosive forms of social hostility.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8b51fd6e37ab1bc95498db0fd9df7f49ca714a8a

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Interethnic Relations in a Changing Political Context (2005, background): “Studies on intergroup evaluations typically find ingroup favoritism: the ingroup is evaluated more positively than the outgroup (for reviews, see Brewer and Miller 1996; Hewstone et al. 2002).”
Community Interaction and Conflict on the Web (2018, background): “Overtly negative intent of the source post towards the post in the target community may signal outgroup derogation [30], which is a fundamental component of intergroup conflict [73, 75].”
Intergroup Schadenfreude: motivating participation in collective violence (2015, positive): “Identification leads people to prefer — and contribute greater resources to — fellow in-group members relative to everyone else [12].”
Moral identity and the expanding circle of moral regard toward out-groups. (2003, background): “Evidence from prior research suggests that out-group negativity is often reduced by fostering perspective taking (cf. Levy, Freitas, & Salovey, 2002) or improving attitudes toward former out-group members by “recategorizing” them from out- to in-group (Hewstone et al., 2002).”
Stereotype Content: Warmth and Competence Endure (2018, positive): “These extremes of all-good in-groups and all-bad out-groups could follow from decades of intergroup research (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2010; Yzerbyt & Demoulin, 2010) or even individual halo effects (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977).”