1990
DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.2420200606
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effects of ingroup and outgroup homogeneity on ingroup favouritism, stereotyping and overestimation of relative ingroup size

Abstract: An experiment (n = 61) investigated the effects of ingroup and outgroup homogeneity on ingroup favouritism, stereotyping and the overestimation of relative ingroup size. As predicted, outgroup homogeneity was conducive to ingroup favouritism. Ingroup homogeneity, however, failed to influence ingroup favouritism. Also unexpectedly, asymmetry in group homogeneity — irrespective of whether the ingroup or the outgroup was the more homogeneous group — led to pronounced stereotyping of both groups and to the overest… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

1990
1990
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…People more readily ascribe stereotypical traits to groups they view as homogenous compared to groups they view as heterogeneous (Simon, Mlicki, Johnston, & Caetano, 1990). Outgroups are typically seen as being more homogenous than ingroups (Quattrone & Jones, 1980).…”
Section: Attitude Transfer May Be Stronger Between Outgroup Members Than Ingroup Membersmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…People more readily ascribe stereotypical traits to groups they view as homogenous compared to groups they view as heterogeneous (Simon, Mlicki, Johnston, & Caetano, 1990). Outgroups are typically seen as being more homogenous than ingroups (Quattrone & Jones, 1980).…”
Section: Attitude Transfer May Be Stronger Between Outgroup Members Than Ingroup Membersmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These findings may indicate that a way to conceptualize the group entitativity can moderate the relationship between entitativity and prejudice. In particular, the conceptualization of the group entitativity as the essence‐based (but not as the agency‐based) could increase the perception of out‐group homogeneity that in turn could increase the prejudice towards out‐group (Judd, Park, Yzerbyt, Gordijn, & Muller, ; Simon et al ., ). On the other hand, conceptualization the group entitativity as intensity of group members’ interaction and sharing of group goal (agency‐based entitativity) could lead to attribution of malicious intentions for out‐group and thus increase the prejudice.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Simon and Pettigrew (1990) deWne relative ingroup homogeneity as the accentuation of perceived ingroup homogeneity relative to outgroup homogeneity, and they propose that perception of greater relative ingroup homogeneity is a means of enhancing positive group identity. Consistent with this theorizing, research shows that greater perceptions of relative ingroup homogeneity are associated with higher levels of ingroup bias (Simon, Mlicki, Johnston, & Caetano, 1990; see also Rubin, Hewstone, & Voci, 2001). Presumably, situations that reduce the salience of the majority identity may increase perceptions of relative ingroup homogeneity, which are otherwise low.…”
Section: Proposed Mediatorsmentioning
confidence: 79%