Talk:In-group favoritism

Wikipedia open wikipedia design.


Shouldn't this be merged with Nepotism? Robertsteadman 13:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No, because nepotism is more of a generally-recognized syndrome in social life; ingroup bias is more of a sociopsychological concept. But they do mean pretty much the same thing in practical terms, and the pages should reflect that. R. 11 June 2006

Nepotism can be the result of ingroup bias, but it is not a synonym.

I agree with the comment directly above my own. While it would be helpful to use nepotism as an example of practical implications of ingroup bias, they are not the same thing.

"a syndrome" ? You mean that nepotism is a medical condition?

KevinFrom (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggested name change: “Ingroup favouritism”[edit]

Hi all. I have a concern that this article is becoming a somewhat bloated smattering of various intergroup phenomena, many of which are covered elsewhere in other dedicated articles (e.g. prejudice, Out-group homogeneity, and dehumanization). My hope is that the proposed name change, along with some removal of content that is already covered elsewhere, will give the article some much needed focus. I made some edits in this direction but it has become apparent that greater consensus is needed before any further attempts are made. Hence this post.

The suggested name change is of course only one possible treatment. Another option would be to move things in the opposite direction. That is, we could move the focus away from ingroup favouritism (although I think a new article would be then needed to fill the subsequent void) and make this more of a general account of intergroup processes. A move in this direction might lead to things like a merge with the crowd psychology and ingroups and outgroups articles.

Anyway, I am keen to hear what others think and I look forward to your comments (perhaps everyone feels that the current level of focus is fine and that the redundancies are trivial). Cheers Andrew (talk) 07:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Bias seems by far to be more common favoritism in the academic literature so I think the current title is appropriate. While there may be too much coverage of other topics in this article I think that simply deleting entire sections is inappropriate if they do contain some material about the bias. More selective removal is appropriate in my opinion. I do think that merging the ingroup-outgroup articles into one article is interesting. That would include Ingroups and outgroups, In-group–out-group bias, and Out-group homogeneity. Not sure if minimal group paradigm which is a research methodology is necessarily about ingroups-outgroups. Realistic conflict theory seems to involve more than ingroup-outgroups like resource competition. Crowd psychology is not necessarily about the ingroup-outgroup distinction so it should not be merged. So I think I would only support a merger of the first three articles mentioned. Academica Orientalis (talk) 11:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Academica Orientalis. I think we have ended up with two related issues. The first is the article structure relating to a variety of inter-group phenomenon. On this I think that distinct articles for each phenomenon is warranted (e.g. Out-group homogeneity, Group polarization, and ingroup favouritism/bias). I think one large article would struggle to do justice to the relevant research. An anchoring article that briefly summarizes these related effects may still be warranted though. I think there is merit in co-opting the ingroups and outgroups article for this purpose.
This leads us to the naming issue. If we agree that this article should be limited to content specifically to ingroup favouritism/bias (and it seems like we do), then is a rename meritous? I feel that it is, despite the fact that, as you rightly point out, "ingroup bias" is the more common term. I have two reasons. The first is that “bias” has negative connotations and that, as some researchers have pointed out, such nomenclature is indicative of a tendency for other researchers to consider in-group favouring behaviour to be intrinsically invalid. While I think a less value laden term should be desired, I do accept that this subtle debate is less relevant to Wikipedia than my second reason. This is that I believe that “ingroup favouritism” is the more descriptive term. In other words, I believe that ingroup favouritism better conveys what the phenomenon is to a lay person. Further, I suspect that the ambiguity in “ingroup bias” leads people to erroneusly believe that ingroup bais refers the full roster of intergroup phenomenon. It would make sense to me then to adopt "ingroup favouritism" for the title, while still of course acknowledging the other terminology. Others thoughts? Cheers Andrew (talk) 06:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I think "Ingroup favouritism" or the more common "Ingroup favoritism" are fine for the reasons you give and do not object to changing the title (if the article is not merged). If you do not want to merge the articles I suggested I will not press this issue although this could reduced redundant material regarding ingroups-outgroups. (The group polarization article does not seem to be primarily about the ingroup-outgroup distinction). Academica Orientalis (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Academica Orientalis. Given that the change seems reasonable to you, and others appear to be quiet on the matter, I will make the change to “ingroup favoritism” (I believe the US spelling has precedence in this article). We can always go back if others don’t like it. I will also start taking out some of the material that I think is a bit off topic and distracting. I will do this slowly so people have a chance to object. Thanks for you input and I will catch you around the wiki. Andrew (talk) 08:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Content Move – Trust in strangers[edit]

Hi all, I would like to propose a move of the trust in strangers section to the Trust (social sciences) page. There are two reasons why I think this would be meritous. Firstly, I think this topic extends beyond the scope of this page. For example, while social identity based trust may be related to an ingroup favouritism effect, it is also studied in relation to reciprocity expectations. Secondly, I feel the content is unnecessarily hidden away here. Why not report this research directly on the trust page? It seems highly relevant to me.

On that last point, I do accept that others may disagree with me and feel that this content too niche for that trust article. In which case other possible destinations for this content may be the ingroups and outgroups page or the social identity approach page. This would also satisfactorily address my first concern.

What do others think? Cheers Andrew (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi all. I have followed through with this move. People can check out the outcome here if they like. Cheers Andrew (talk) 06:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Content Move – Common ingroup identity model[edit]

Hi again, I would also like to propose a move of the common ingroup identity model section to its own page. This is because there is a vast quantity of research pertaining to the common ingroup identity moded and in my mind only a concerted article can do justice to this content. On top of this, the common ingroup identity model is directly related to a variety of topics (e.g. prejudice, discrimination, racism, and intergroup conflict). It thus does not make sense for the common ingroup identity model to be only indirectly accessed through the ingroup favouritism page.

Again though, what do others think? Cheers Andrew (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi all. I have followed through with this move. People can check out the new page here if they like. Cheers Andrew (talk) 06:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Merger Proposal: Group-serving bias[edit]

Hi all. I would like to propose a merge of this article and the group-serving bias article. Specifically, the merging of the group serving bias article into this article. This seems like an obvious move to me as the topics appear identical. It would also treat the quality concerns over at that second article. Does anyone have any thoughts or objections? Cheers Andrew (talk) 09:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I agree with you. Though I am only minorly versed in the subject. --Spannerjam (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Tentatively, this seems sensible. Thanks for suggesting. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

One year later going ahead with this merge. Cheers Andrew (talk) 01:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

First sentence of lead[edit]

"Preferencing" isn't a word, is it? Should it be "favoring"? MartinPoulter (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

"Preferencing" is a word. From the OED: preference, v. 1. trans. orig. and chiefly U.S. To give preferential treatment or consideration to; to prefer. Attestations:
  1. 1904 N.Y. Times 1 Oct. 9/3 The fact that a legal principle has there been applied to which we should have preferenced another ought be regarded as of slight concern.
  2. 1979 Managem. Sci. 25 33 HQ's centralized reviewing process includes not only ‘screening’ against Corporate constraints, but also ‘preferencing’ those proposals that are expected to yield more than the other.
  3. 2001 Australian (Brisbane) 28 Mar. 12/4 We are now being told that if Labor had not lent him a photocopier, Nigel Freemarijuana would have preferenced the Liberals.
However, if you'd like to change it I have no objections. "Favoring" is as good.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for teaching me something new! So it is strictly correct, but a US-sounding word that seems strange to these (British) ears. I'll replace with "favoring" (still US English, but less jarring to Brits). MartinPoulter (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Versus out-group negativity[edit]

This isn't a satisfactory title - its meaning isn't clear without reference to something else. Could someone fix it?Notreallydavid (talk) 12:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Editing: Carnegie Mellon University on In-Group Favoritism[edit]

Hello! My two partners and I are students at Carnegie Mellon University taking a class on organizational communication. For this class, we are to select a Wikipedia topic and edit that page. My group and I chose this article on In-group favoritism to improve. Here are the topics we would like to primarily focus on:

If anyone has any questions or concerns regarding these additions, please message me directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rchlkm (talkcontribs) 23:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I am another member of the course on organizational communication, and I have some short peer review advice to give you. First, while the article is complete by covering on the important points surrounding the topic, I found it rather thin, and believe that there is more information to be provided.

The article lead me very smoothly through the different sections, and into the different subsections without any serious issue. It is well structured and well written making it clear and easy to understand.

Finally, I know your two major edits were to include information from the two sources you mention above, but consider finding more and updating the article some more. The more sources it has the higher in quality the article is. Tvondavi (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm another peer reviewer from the same class! Most of my feedback is similar to Thomas's: the article covers what seem to be the main points of in-group favoritism. There is a "citation needed" in the article, meaning someone reading the article believed that statement needed some background or justification. Covering that is probably the main thing I would recommend fixing in this article. Another slight problem with this article is that it seems to be too short - perhaps adding a couple of more sections to the article would make it more complete and informative.Pavan.gollapalli (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Biological basis[edit]

Fascinating stuff. More please.--Penbat (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Further changes that can be made[edit]

While I will try my best to continue to update this article, and respond to comments left on this article's talk page (as well as my talk page), I will no longer be working on it as part of the class assignment mentioned above.

There are certain points that I had planned to write about, but was unable to complete. If someone else would be interested in taking up this work, I shall leave the sources I was referring to as well as a brief description of the work I had planned based on these sources:

1. This is a meta-analysis of research into the determinants of the extent or magnitude of the in-group bias effect, specifically salience, relevance, and status as determinants of this effect. This could be added under the Explanations section, perhaps under a ‘determinants’ subsection.

2. This is a meta-analysis on the relation between ingroup bias and self-esteem. I was planning on using this to expand upon the ‘self-esteem’ subsection, as I felt using a comprehensive source referring to the outcomes of multiple studies would be more appropriate than citing the outcomes of individual studies.


This is a study into the evolutionary forces behind ingroup favoritism, and how the introduction of an arbitrary symbolic marker can serve to stimulate the formation of cultural groups and leads to favoritism within said groups. I thought this could be used as the starting point on a section on the ‘cultural and environmental basis; in that the presence of these arbitrary markers can serve as the basis for distinct cultural groups, and the presence of strong incentives to bias interactions towards others with the same marker (a factor of the social environment) lead to subjects showing strong in-group favoritism .

As mentioned above, we had plans to expand upon the relation between social identity theory (SIT), referring to the Michael Hobbs review article, and in-group bias.

Furthermore, a few of the peer review comments of my fellow classmates have suggested that academic studies on real-life examples of such groups, such as nationalist groups, be included. Svayamm (talk) 05:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a student at LSE and similarly to yourself I've chosen this topic to work on as part of my assignment, I'm particularly interested in the evolutionary basis and will try and pick up from where you left off. Zikai417 (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on In-group favoritism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Robert Merton - "Self Fulfilling Prophecy" and "Matthew Effect"[edit]

I found this article on in-group favoritism by chance. It made me wonder if there should be some mention of Robert Merton's Self fulfilling prophecy (1948) and Matthew Effect (1968) concepts in the Main Article. Personally, I think that they apply.

If a "leader" predicts that someone will be highly successful, the leader then helps to promote that someone in order to show the world how good he or she (the leader) is at identifying talent and as yet unrecognized successful people. Furthermore, those within the successful "group" get richer and support each other (promotions, recommendations, publications, research grants, etc.) so that the rich get richer: "For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away." -- Matthew, 25:29. AdderUser (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

This page is based on a Wikipedia article written by contributors (read/edit).
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.