The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status: An integration
Abstract
This paper reports the results of a meta‐analytic integration of the results of 137 tests of the ingroup bias hypothesis. Overall, the ingroup bias effect was highly significant and of moderate magnitude. Several theoretically informative determinants of the ingroup bias effect were established. This ingroup bias effect was significantly stronger when the ingroup was made salient (by virtue of proportionate size and by virtue of reality of the group categorization). A significant interaction between the reality of the group categorization and the relative status of the ingroup revealed a slight decrease in the ingroup bias effect as a function of status in real groups, and a significant increase in the ingroup bias effect as a function of status in artificial groups. Finally, an interaction between item relevance and ingroup status was observed, such that higher status groups exhibited more ingroup bias on more relevant attributes, whereas lower status groups exhibited more ingroup bias on less relevant attributes. Discussion considers the implications of these results for current theory and future research involving the ingroup bias effect.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Social psychology of intergroup relations
Tajfel, H. (1982) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.33.020182.000245 · Cited by 7,949
Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research
Rosenthal, R. (1991) · doi:10.4135/9781412984997 · Cited by 4,635
Categorical and contextual bases of person memory and stereotyping.
Taylor, S. E., Fiske, S. T., Etcoff, N. L., & Ruderman, A. J. (1978) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.36.7.778 · Cited by 1,028
Cited by
Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.102.1.4 · Cited by 6,682
Pettigrew, T. F. (1998) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65 · Cited by 6,001
The Psychology of Prejudice: Ingroup Love and Outgroup Hate?
Brewer, M. B. (1999) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00126 · Cited by 3,494
Power, approach, and inhibition.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.110.2.265 · Cited by 3,427
Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x · Cited by 2,883
Metadata
- Authors
- Mullen, B., Brown, R., & Smith, C.
- Venue
- European Journal of Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1992-03
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 103-122
- ISSN
- 0046-2772 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-0992
- OpenAlex
- W2021211227
- Cited by
- 1,294
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 75.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status: An integration. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/ejsp.2420220202
- The paper
- Mullen, B., Brown, R., & Smith, C. (1992). Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status: An integration. European Journal of Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420220202
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.