Skip to main content
note
This page was translated from the German original, partly by machine. Some passages may read awkwardly or contain inaccuracies. When in doubt, please read the original.

Ingroup Favoritism

In short

We favor "us" over "the others."

"Blood is thicker than water." "He's one of us."

Definition​

In-group favoritism is the tendency to systematically favor members of one's own group ("in-group") over members of another ("out-group") — in evaluations, decisions, trust and the allocation of resources.

Membership alone — often already with minimal groups (random assignment) — is enough to produce noticeable favoritism.

DE: Eigengruppenbevorzugung (Ingroup-Bias)

Ingroup favoritism is closely connected to several other biases and social-psychological mechanisms:

  • Outgroup derogation: Outsiders are judged more harshly or disadvantaged.
  • Stereotyping: Simplifies attributions to groups; favors positive clichés for the ingroup.
  • Halo effect: Positive traits of one's own group color individual evaluations.
  • Fundamental attribution error: Successes of the ingroup are explained internally (ability), mistakes of the outgroup externally (circumstances).
  • Groupthink: Conformity pressure within the ingroup reduces criticism and alternatives.
  • Conformity (Asch experiment): Adapting to group judgments, even against better insight.

Examples​

Job Applications and Promotions​

Superiors evaluate candidates from their "own school/department/network" more favorably, extend more benefit of the doubt, and interpret mistakes more leniently.

Sports Fans and Referee Decisions​

Fans see identical scenes differently depending on team allegiance; referees are perceived as "against us," and decisions in favor of the ingroup are considered "fair."

Customer Service and Regulars​

Regular customers ("they belong to us") receive faster, friendlier help; new or "foreign" customer groups are treated more strictly.

Politics and Identity​

Arguments from one's own political camp are evaluated more generously; the same arguments from "the other side" are considered "propaganda."

The Minimal Group Paradigm (Tajfel)​

Even random groupings (e.g. a preference for painting A vs. B) lead people to reward their own group members preferentially — without any real history or conflict.

Effects​

  • Unfair decisions: opportunities, grades, and resources are distributed in a distorted way.
  • Discrimination and polarization: widens the divide between groups; enemy images arise.
  • Loss of quality: objective criteria are displaced; worse decisions.
  • Blindness to mistakes: ingroup failings are downplayed, outgroup mistakes overemphasized.

Counter-Strategies​

  • Clear, objective criteria: check decisions against predefined standards.
  • Anonymized procedures: hide names/affiliations (blind auditions, blind reviews).
  • Diversity in decision bodies: more perspectives lower ingroup bias.
  • Role reversal / perspective taking: systematically evaluate from the outgroup's point of view.
  • Checks & audits: analyze decision data for patterns of favoritism/disadvantage.

Sources​

  • Wikipedia: Ingroup bias
  • Tajfel, H. (1970/1971). Experiments on the minimal group paradigm.
  • Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). Social Identity Theory.
  • Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love vs. outgroup hate.