User:Augustca/sandbox

The out-group homogeneity effect is one's perception of out-group members as more similar to one another than are in-group members, e.g. "they are alike; we are diverse". The term "out-group homogeneity effect", or "relative out-group homogeneity" has been explicitly contrasted with "out-group homogeneity" in general, the latter referring to perceived out-group variability unrelated to perceptions of the in-group.

The out-group homogeneity effect is part of a broader field of research that examines perceived group variability. This area includes in-group homogeneity effects as well as out-group homogeneity effects, and it also deals with perceived group variability effects that are not linked to in-group/out-group membership, such as effects that are related to the power, status, and size of groups.

The out-group homogeneity effect has been found using a wide variety of different social groups, from political and racial groups to age and gender groups.

The implications of this effect on stereotyping have been noted. Perceivers tend to have impressions about the diversity or variability of group members around those central tendencies or typical attributes of those group members. Thus, out-group stereotypicality judgments are overestimated, supporting the view that out-group stereotypes are overgeneralizations.

The out-group homogeneity effect is sometimes referred to as "out-group homogeneity bias". Such nomenclature hints at a broader meta-theoretical debate that is present in the field of social psychology. This debate centres on the validity of heightened perceptions of in-group and out-group homogeneity, where some researchers view the homogeneity effect as an example of cognitive bias and error, while other researchers view the effect as an example of normal and often adaptive social perception.

History
Out-Group Homogeneity effects have been observed since the early 1980’s. One of the first studies attempted in 1981, asked members of university clubs to rate members of their own club on several personality traits. They then repeated this exercise asking about members of other clubs; the results showed that participants consistently rated their own group members as less similar than the members of members of other groups. One explanation, studied in 1989, is that group members have more information about in-group members than out-group members. Because members of a group know and interact with each other more often than with members of other groups, they are more aware of differences amongst each other. Members of the out-group are subsequently more likely to be seen in a more generic, homogenous fashion. A longitudinal study performed out of the same research lab, eventually found that over time, members of a university course saw each other as more and more dissimilar. More recently (in the 1990’s) research examining small group formation looked to reexamine the out-group homogeneity effect. According to the familiarity hypothesis (Linville, Fischer, &Salovey 1989) it was expected that participants would see members of their own group as more variable in personality and other groups as more similar. What the research found was that participants exhibited the opposite effect. Another study, performed during a twenty-six day period, found that perceptions of the groups became more homogenous over time. A number of studies have shown evidence for an in-group homogeneity effect. Two important factors to determining which type of homogeneity will affect a group are the size of the in-group relative to the out-group, and the centrality of the judgmental dimensions of the group’s identity (how group members perceive their group in relation to the rest of society). Minority groups consistently display in-group homogeneity effects while majority and similar size groups tend to show out-group homogeneity.

Definition
The out-group homogeneity effect is a Social Psychology term used to define the way people see different groups (such as race, gender, religion, etc.) and perceive members of other groups as more similar to each other than the members within a perceiver's own defined group. For out-groups, a perceiver will experience an intergroup context and therefore attend to differences between the two groups. Consequently, less attention is paid to differences between out-group members and this leads to perceptions of out-group homogeneity.

Empirical support
Out-Group Homogeneity effect experiments, involving randomly assigning participants to be a part a group, yield results that show relative perception of within-group heterogeneity and homogeneity in the opposite group. In a study of this effect, tests were given to participants prior to group assignment to get initial opinions of other participants. After group assignment, members who were assigned to be a part of the same group rated their own group to be more dissimilar in certain personality traits and members who not assigned as part of their own group as more similar in certain negative personality traits. Another example of this phenomenon comes from a study where researchers asked 90 sorority members to judge the degree of within-group similarity for their own and 2 other groups. It was found that every participant judged their own sorority members to be more dissimilar than the members of the other groups. In an experiment, researchers revealed that people of other races do seem to look more alike than members of one's own race. When white students were shown faces of a few white and a few black individuals, they later more accurately recognized white faces they had seen and often falsely recognized black faces not seen before. The opposite results were found when subjects consisted of black individuals.

Explanations
This bias was found to be unrelated to the number of group and non-group members individuals knew. One might think that people thought members of their own groups were more varied and different simply because they knew them better and thus have more information about in-groups, but this is actually not the case. The out-group homogeneity bias was found between groups such as "men" and "women" who obviously interact frequently

Elsewhere, this difference is attributed to differences in how people store or process in-group versus out-group information. However, this concept has been challenged due to some cases in which in-groups view themselves as homogeneous. Researchers have postulated that such an effect is present when viewing a group as homogeneous helps to promote in-group solidarity. Experiments on the topic found that in-group homogeneity is displayed when people who highly identify with a group are presented with stereotypical information about that group.

Self-Categorization
Main Article: Self-categorization theory

Self-categorization theory attributes the out-group homogeneity effect to the differing contexts that are present when perceiving out-groups and in-groups. When perceiving in-group members a perceiver may experience either an intergroup context or an intragroup context. In an intergroup context the in-group would also be predicted to be seen as comparatively homogeneous as the perceiver attends to the differences between “us” and “them” (in other words, depersonalization occurs). However, in an intragroup context the perceiver may be motivated to attend to differences with the group (between “me” and “others in the group”) leading to perceptions of comparative in-group heterogeneity. As perceivers are less often motivated to perform intra-group out-group comparison, this leads to an overall out-group homogeneity effect.

The self-categorization theory account is supported by evidence showing that in an intergroup context both the in-group and out-group will be perceived as more homogenous, while when judged in isolation the in-group will be perceived as comparatively heterogeneous. The self-categorization theory account eliminates the need to posit differing processing mechanisms for in-groups and outroups, as well as accounting for findings of out-group homogeneity in the minimal group paradigm.

Social Psychologist John Turner argued that individuals hold many different personal and social identities. He also proposed that these identities are cognitively organized in a categorical hierarchy. This hierarchy is made up of three levels: the interpersonal level which is the lowest level and contains all personal identities, the intergroup level which contains all social identities, and the highest level which is the interspecies level and is the level which contains the self as a human being. Self-Categorization theory stresses that each rank in the hierarchy is equally real; people are members of social groups, have personal identities and a Self, all simultaneously. Categories in social interaction can be “activated” in different contexts. This principle states that the category which is activated is on a hierarchical level that maximizes between-category differences and minimizes within-category differences. For example, in a situation containing a group of people from Ontario, Canada and people from British Columbia, Canada and a different group of people from Mexico, members of the first group will most likely categorize themselves as Canadians, rather than individuals from different provinces.

Social Identity
Main Article: Social identity theory

Another body of research looked at in-group and out-group homogeneity from the perspective of social identity theory. The basis of this theory is that people identify their own social group and accept it as part of their self-concept. Once an in-group has been established, one begins to perceive different out-groups and differentiate between their own and other groups. While complementary to the self-categorization theory account, this body of research was concerned more with specific homogeneity effects associated with the motivations of perceivers. They derived from social identity theory the prediction that comparative in-group homogeneity will at times arise due to demands to establish a positive and distinct social identity. For example, members of minority groups would be particularly likely to accentuate intragroup solidity through the emphasis of in-group homogeneity. This is because minority group members, due to their minority status, are likely to experience threat to their self-esteem.

Within the same tradition it was also hypothesised that an in-group homogeneity effect would emerge on in-group defining dimensions for both minority and majority group members. Recent research also has reaffirmed that this 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 possess specific characteristics. Like the self-categorization theory account, this recent research also suggests that the effect may occur independent of the motivational concerns described in social identity theory.

At an experimental level, it has been identified that members of meaningless assigned groups with no correlation between groups immediately begin to associate positively within their in-group and negatively with the out-group. The in-group dynamic seems to be based, in large part, upon the collective self-esteem of the individuals in the in-group. This pursuit for an in-group to be positively associated within members means that people begin to adopt the “we” rather than the “I”, they want to see “us” as different from, and better than, “them” in order to feel good about who they are and what they do. Whether or not differentiation results in negative treatment of the outgroup depends on what is valued within a group’s belief system. A charitable group might just as easily prove its distinctiveness by being more generous to the other as an ethnocentric group might prove its distinctiveness by denying resource to the other.

Resources
A Mendeley collection of over 70 research papers that deal with perceived group variability, in-group homogeneity, and out-group homogeneity.