Ingroup and outgroup

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The contrasting terms ingroup ( Engl. Ingroup ) and outgroup (Engl. Outgroup ) be used in the social sciences to distinguish groups that you feel belong and with which one identifies, and groups to which this is not true (see. Group cohesion ).

In his Tajfels Minimal Group Research, the social researcher Henri Tajfel shows that arbitrary distinguishing features can lead to prejudices , stereotypes and discrimination against an outgroup within minutes . Werner Herkner points out that the degree of prejudice formation against other people correlates with one's own self-satisfaction . The feeling of self-worth can be increased if positive characteristics of the ingroup are overemphasized, negative ones are downplayed and foreign groups are also designated and devalued as such. Belonging to the ingroup leads to a “ we-feeling ”, i.e. familiarity, sympathy and willingness to cooperate among the individual group members. Through the strong feeling of togetherness, loyalty and group identity, the group also distinguishes itself from “others”. From the perspective of systems theory are the identity of the particular social system differentiations for "environmental" functional, otherwise, for example, face a dilemma of identity .

De-individualization

The strategy of maximum devaluation of other groups leads to the de-individualization of "normal" people. The appreciation of members of one's own group by means of the exaggerated designation "master people" and the depreciation of members of the other group as "subhumans", for example at the time of National Socialism , legitimized the destruction from the perspective of the group of perpetrators (group psychologically on a moral level) ( Murder ) of the members of the "other" group.

Outgroup homogeneity

The perception, or rather: the assertion that the members of the outgroup are more similar to one another than is actually the case ("We are individuals; the others are all the same."), Is referred to as outgroup homogeneity.

Studies

In the experiment by Quattrone and Jones (1980), students at Princeton and Rutgers Universities were shown a video showing a student expressing a preference for classical music or rock music. The subject was either told that the student was at the same university as they were or at the other university. The subject should now estimate how many fellow students have the same taste in music as this student. If the test subject believed that the student was a member of the outgroup (i.e. at the other university), this estimate was significantly higher than that of the ingroup. This result (“You know one person, you know them all”) has been reproduced in many studies in the USA, Europe and Australia.

Explanatory approaches

There are various possible explanations for this effect. One approach is that we simply spend less time with outgroups or their individual members and thus cannot arrive at a differentiated picture. But that seems to be a rather inadequate explanation. Rather, it is assumed that we divide our own group into subgroups, i.e. know and name many different groups within our own. This is not the case with outgroups. However, it is also quite possible and by no means negative to perceive one's own group as homogeneous with regard to certain characteristics (e.g. intelligence).

Othering and Discrimination

The idea that strangers are fundamentally different from their own group because they belong to the outgroup (othering) and that this outgroup is unequal leads to a legitimation of the supposedly natural dominance of the ingroup and to disadvantage or discrimination of the outgroup.

Intergroup relationship

In order to understand groups, it is important to look at how they relate to other groups from which they (consciously) separate themselves. Our perception is strongly influenced by comparing our own group with another group. The attribute that is ascribed to one's own group is also applied retrospectively to the members of the group. If the case now occurs that one can no longer ascribe a certain attribute to one's own group because it obviously fits another group better, the assessment within the group regarding this argument also changes and it becomes less important. One invokes other attributes in the following. Another important finding on this topic is that a group member is not always aware that he is a member of a certain group, but that this knowledge / awareness must sometimes first be made salient . This most often happens when we meet other groups. If such a case occurs, thoughts, feelings and behavior are changed against the background of our now conscious membership.

See also

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Gerd Mietzel: Ways in Psychology. Stuttgart 2005, p. 478.
  2. ^ Stephan Duschk, Günther Ortmann, Jörg Sydow: Border management in company networks In: Strategy and structuring. Strategic management of companies, networks and corporations (Ed. Ortmann, Sydow). Wiesbaden 2011, p. 199.
  3. ↑ Kühl 1998.
  4. ↑ Cf. Gerd Mietzel: Paths to Psychology. Stuttgart 2005, p. 480.
  5. ↑ GA Quattrone, EE Jones: The perception of variability within ingroups and outgroups: Implications for the law of small numbers . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, pp. 141-152.
  6. ^ E. Aronson , TD Wilson, RM Akert: Social Psychology . Pearson study. 6th edition 2008. ISBN 978-3-8273-7359-5 , p. 432.
  7. ↑ Klaus Jonas: (Ed.): Social Psychology 6th Edition. Berlin / Heidelberg 1990, ISBN 978-3-642-41090-1
  8. ^ Andreas Zick : Sociopsychological Discrimination Research . In: Albert Scherr, Aladin El-Mafaalani, Gökçen Yüksel (ed.): Handbook Discrimination . Springer VS, Wiesbaden 2017, p. 61–63 ( springer.com [PDF]).