CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,031Social and Intergroup PsychologyDeath Anxiety and Social ExclusionSocial Power and Status Dynamics

Intergroup Bias

Open access
Hewstone, Miles, Rubin, Mark, Willis, Hazel·2002·Annual Review of Psychology
DOI 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135109
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

▪ Abstract This chapter reviews the extensive literature on bias in favor of in-groups at the expense of out-groups. We focus on five issues and identify areas for future research: (a) measurement and conceptual issues (especially in-group favoritism vs. out-group derogation, and explicit vs. implicit measures of bias); (b) modern theories of bias highlighting motivational explanations (social identity, optimal distinctiveness, uncertainty reduction, social dominance, terror management); (c) key moderators of bias, especially those that exacerbate bias (identification, group size, status and power, threat, positive-negative asymmetry, personality and individual differences); (d) reduction of bias (individual vs. intergroup approaches, especially models of social categorization); and (e) the link between intergroup bias and more corrosive forms of social hostility.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135109

Cites

189 of 189 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Ingroup members favor other ingroup members over outgroup members in evaluations and the distribution of resources.

    “ingroup members favor other ingroup members over outgroup members in evaluations and the distribution of resources (for reviews, see Brown, 2000; Hewstone et al., 2002).”

    From A Social Identity Analysis of Climate Change and Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors: Insights and Opportunities (2016) · cites this paper as Hewstone et al., 2002

  • Whether people perceive another as a partner on the same team (i.e., as part of the same group, the ingroup) or as a member of a different group (outgroup) has profound implications on their reactions to the other.

    “Whether people perceive another as a partner on the “same team” (i.e., as part of the same group, the “ingroup”) or as a member of a different groups (“outgroup”) has profound implications on their reactions to the other.42,98–101”

    From Reducing Racial Bias Among Health Care Providers: Lessons from Social-Cognitive Psychology (2007) · cites this paper as [101]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Annual Review of Psychology
Publisher
Annual Reviews
Published
2002-02
Volume
53
Issue
1
Pages
575-604
ISSN
  • 0066-4308 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-2085
DOI
10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135109
OpenAlex
W4213263068
Semantic Scholar
8b51fd6e37ab1bc95498db0fd9df7f49ca714a8a
Cited by
2,031
References
189
Citations by year
2026: 96 · 2025: 130 · 2024: 129 · 2023: 117 · 2022: 133 · 2021: 130 · 2020: 128 · 2019: 108 · 2018: 154 · 2017: 100 · 2016: 113 · 2015: 101 · 2014: 79 · 2013: 71 · 2012: 66
FWCI
16.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Annual Review of Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
  • Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
Keywords
intergroup bias, in-group favoritism, outgroup derogation, social identity, optimal distinctiveness, uncertainty reduction, social dominance, terror management, group identification, group size, power and status, threats, positive-negative asymmetry, bias mitigation, social categorization
MeSH terms
Conflict, Psychological, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Prejudice, Psychological Theory, Social Dominance, Social Identification, Social Perception, Stereotyping

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