Minimal group experiments and theory
Tajfel et al. (1971) showed that even in groups formed by trivial criteria such as painting preference, participants gave more points to their own group and chose allocations that maximized intergroup difference over joint gain. To explain this minimal group paradigm, Tajfel and Turner (1979) argued that people seek a positive social identity through intergroup comparison. Brewer (1979) concluded that the bias mostly reflects enhancing the ingroup rather than derogating the outgroup.
Conditions that strengthen favoritism
Mullen et al.'s (1992) meta-analysis showed that favoritism is larger when group categories are salient, when the comparison dimension is relevant, and when the ingroup has high status. Low-status groups, however, tend to show favoritism on dimensions unrelated to status, connecting with the pursuit of positive distinctiveness. Hewstone et al. (2002) summarized that favoritism appears in allocation, evaluation and attribution, and varies with factors such as group size and identity threat.
Ingroup love and cooperation
Brewer (1999) argued that ingroup love does not automatically become outgroup hate; it turns into hostility when conditions such as competition, threat or moral superiority are added. Balliet et al.'s (2014) meta-analysis of cooperation games found that people cooperate more with ingroup than outgroup members, especially when reciprocity is expected. Ingroup favoritism is used to explain discrimination in hiring, lending and political judgment, showing that discrimination can arise without active hostility.
FAQ
- What is ingroup favoritism in simple terms?
- It is the tendency to see "our side" more positively, trust it more and look after it more than other sides.
- Is it the same as disliking outgroups?
- Not necessarily. Favoritism usually means favoring one's own side; hostility emerges when conditions like competition or threat are added.
Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26
References
- Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149–178. Minimal group experiments showing favoritism from trivial categorization.
- Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole. Classic social identity explanation of favoritism.
- Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 307–324. Review showing bias is mainly ingroup enhancement.
- Mullen, B., Brown, R., & Smith, C. (1992). Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status: An integration. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22(2), 103–122. Meta-analysis of moderators of ingroup bias.
- Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love and outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429–444. Ingroup love is distinct from outgroup hate.
- Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 575–604. Broad review of intergroup bias.
- Balliet, D., Wu, J., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2014). Ingroup favoritism in cooperation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1556–1581. Meta-analysis of ingroup favoritism in cooperation.