OUTGROUP HOMOGENEITY EFFECT

The individuals understand the social world trough categorization. Generally, it refers to the cognitive process of using characteristics or attributes to cluster individuals into social classes or groups. Social categorization helps individuals make sense of their and others’ position in society and adds to identity when the characteristics of the self are identified as belonging to a group (ingroup) or not belonging to a group (outgroup).  

Social categorization is inaccurate and marked by biases and distortions. Moreover, ingroups and outgroups are perceived differently. There is a tendency to judge the individuals categorized in a given group as similar, and individuals categorized into different groups as distinct (accentuation). The outgroup homogeneity effect results from this process of asymmetrical accentuation of similarities and differences among group members, referring to the tendency to accentuate the similarities of the outgroup members to each other more than the similarities of the ingroup members to each other. That is, there is a tendency to see ingroup members as relatively more differentiated than outgroup members. This implies that outgroup members’ perceptions are based on category information (stereotyping), whereas the perceptions of ingroup members are based on individual attribute information (individuation). Differences in the attention invested in the process of perception of individual attributes, greater knowledge of ingroup occurrences and variety, and feelings of gratification derived from ingroup identification can explain the differences in ingroup/outgroup categorization. Moreover, dependence and power dynamics influence group categorization.  

In any given social hierarchy, there are people who have both high power and status and other individuals who have neither. Social hierarchy can be understood as the unequal distribution of power and status among individuals. According to Fragale et al. (2011), status is defined “as the extent to which an individual is respected, admired, and highly regarded by others” (p. 767). Ingroups with a low status (subordinates) are judged as more homogeneous than outgroups with higher status (dominants) given that, owing to insecure social identity, subordinate group members need to feel unified and strong in the face of the outgroup, as proposed by the Social Identity Theory. Thus, subordinate groups look for and promote homogeneity among their members. Conversely, dominant group members perceive the ingroup as more heterogeneous owing to more personological explanations, and the outgroup (subordinate) as more homogenous, forming stereotypical views, which can be due to a lack of invested attention in the process of perception of individual attributes. The accentuated perception of dissimilarity between the ingroup and outgroup and similarity within each group can lead to intergroup conflict. 

American Psychological Association. “Categorization.” Dictionary of Psychology. Retrieved November 19, 2024, from https://dictionary.apa.org/categorization 

Oakes, Penelope. “The Root of All Evil in Intergroup Relations? Unearthing the Categorization Process.” In The Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Intergroup Processes, edited by R. Brown and S. L. Gaertner, 3-22. 2nd ed. Blackwell Publishers, 2003.  

Brewer, M. B. “In-group Bias in the Minimal Intergroup Situation: A Cognitive-Motivational Analysis.” Psychological Bulletin 86, no. 2 (1979): 307-324. 

Brewer, M. B. “Optimal Distinctiveness, Social Identity, and the Self.” In Handbook of Self and Identity, edited by M. Leary and J. Tangney, 480–491. New York: The Guilford Press, 2003. 

Devos, T., L. Comby, and J-C Deschamps. “Asymmetries in Judgements of Ingroup and Outgroup Variability.” In European Review of Social Psychology, edited by W. Stroebe and M. Hewstone, vol. 7, 95-144. New York: Wiley, 1996. 

Fielding, K. S., and M. A. Hogg. “Social Identity, Self-Categorizations, and Leadership: A Field Study of Small Interactive Groups.” Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 1, no. 1 (1997): 39-51. 

Fisk, S. T., and E. Dépret. “Control, Interdependence and Power: Understanding Social Cognition in Its Social Context.” European Review of Social Psychology  7, no. 1 (1996): 1-38. 

Fiske, S. “Controlling Other People: The Impact of Power on Stereotyping.” American Psychologist 48, no. 6 (1993): 621-628. 

Fragale, A. R., J. R. Overbeck, and M. A. Neale. “Resources Versus Respect: Social Judgments Based on Targets’ Power and Status Positions.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 47, no. 4 (2011): 767-775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.006. 

Judd, C. M., and B. Park. “Outgroup Homogeneity: Judgments of Variability at the Individual and Group Levels.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54, no. 5 (1988): 778-788. 

Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. “Group Status and Perceptions of Homogeneity.” In European Review of Social Psychology, edited by W. Stroebe and M. Hewstone, vol. 9, 31-74. New York: Wiley, 1998. 

Marques, J. M., E. M. Robalo, and S. A. Rocha. “Ingroup Bias and the ‘Black Sheep Effect’: Assessing the Impact of Social Identification and Perceived Variability on Group Judgments.” European Journal of Social Psychology 22, no. 3 (1992): 331-352. 

Simon, B. “The Perception of Ingroup and Outgroup Homogeneity: Reintroducing the Intergroup Context.” In European Review of Social Psychology, edited by W. Stroebe and M. Hewstone, vol. 3, 1-30. Chichester: Wiley, 1992. 

Turner, J. C. “Social Comparison and Social Identity: Some Prospects for Intergroup Behavior.” European Journal of Social Psychology 5, no. 1 (1975): 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420050102.    

Turner, J. C. “Social Categorization and the Self-Concept: A Social Cognitive Theory of Group Behavior.” In Advances in Group Processes: Theory and Research, edited by E. J. Lawler, vol. 2. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1985. 

Turner, J. C., M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher, and M. S. Wetherell. Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. New York: Basil Blackwell, 1987.