Ingroup Favoritism

Ingroup favoritism is a social psychology phenomenon where individuals favor members of their own group over outgroup members. It’s driven by social identity and can lead to implicit bias. It has implications for social division and prejudice but can be mitigated through positive intergroup contact and education.


  • Social Identity Theory: Ingroup favoritism is closely tied to Henri Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory. People derive part of their self-esteem from their group memberships, and they seek to enhance their self-esteem through positive differentiation of their ingroup from outgroups.
  • Implicit Bias: Ingroup favoritism often operates at an implicit or subconscious level. Individuals may not be consciously aware of their bias, making it a challenging phenomenon to address.
  • Group Affiliation: It’s rooted in the human tendency to identify strongly with the groups they belong to, such as nationality, ethnicity, religion, or even sports teams.


  • Group Identification: The stronger a person identifies with their ingroup, the more likely they are to exhibit ingroup favoritism. This identification can be influenced by upbringing, culture, and personal experiences.
  • Social Norms: Societal norms and cultural expectations can reinforce ingroup favoritism. For example, when a culture promotes the superiority of one group over others, it can exacerbate favoritism.
  • Competition: Competition for resources or status between groups can intensify ingroup favoritism. When groups perceive each other as competitors, the tendency to favor one’s own group becomes more pronounced.


  • Social Division: Ingroup favoritism can contribute to social divisions and conflicts. When people strongly favor their ingroup, it can lead to intergroup hostility and prejudice against outgroups.
  • Prejudice: This bias often translates into prejudiced attitudes and discriminatory behaviors. Outgroup members may experience unfair treatment in various aspects of life, including employment, education, and social interactions.


  • Intergroup Contact: Encouraging positive interactions between different groups can help reduce ingroup favoritism. When individuals from different backgrounds collaborate on shared goals, it can lead to increased empathy and reduced bias.
  • Education and Awareness: Educational programs and awareness campaigns can raise consciousness about the harmful effects of ingroup favoritism. By fostering a sense of shared humanity and highlighting the benefits of diversity, these initiatives aim to combat bias.
  • Legislation: Legal measures and policies that promote equal treatment and protect against discrimination can also play a role in reducing ingroup favoritism’s negative consequences.

Case Studies

  • Sports Rivalries: Fans of sports teams often display ingroup favoritism by passionately supporting their own team and sometimes even displaying hostility or bias against rival teams and their fans.
  • Nationalism: Nationalism can lead to ingroup favoritism, where individuals from one country may perceive their nation as superior to others, leading to biases and sometimes even conflicts with people from other nations.
  • Religious Affiliation: People from different religious backgrounds may exhibit ingroup favoritism by favoring members of their own religious group in terms of social interactions, trust, or resource allocation.
  • Workplace Dynamics: Ingroup favoritism can manifest in the workplace, where employees might show preference to colleagues from the same department or team, potentially impacting decisions related to promotions or project assignments.
  • Friendship Circles: In social settings, individuals may exhibit ingroup favoritism by being more inclined to spend time with friends who share similar interests, hobbies, or backgrounds, sometimes leading to exclusion of those who are perceived as outsiders.
  • Online Communities: Online forums and social media platforms can foster ingroup favoritism, as users may display stronger support and camaraderie with members of particular online communities or subreddits.
  • Political Affiliation: In politics, people often exhibit ingroup favoritism by aligning strongly with their chosen political party and showing bias against members of opposing parties.
  • Ethnic and Racial Bias: Ingroup favoritism can be a source of ethnic or racial bias, where individuals may favor their own racial or ethnic group and hold stereotypes or biases against those from different backgrounds.
  • Academic Groups: In academic settings, students or researchers may display ingroup favoritism by forming study groups or research collaborations predominantly within their own departments or disciplines.
  • Neighborhoods: Residents of a neighborhood or community may exhibit ingroup favoritism by forming close-knit social bonds with neighbors who share similar backgrounds or interests.

Key Highlights

  • Social Bias: Ingroup favoritism refers to the tendency of individuals to favor members of their own group, community, or category over outsiders or members of other groups.
  • Psychological Basis: It is rooted in psychology, where people feel a stronger sense of belonging, trust, and affinity with those they perceive as part of their “ingroup.”
  • Group Identification: Individuals often identify with various groups, such as nationality, religion, ethnicity, sports teams, or even online communities, and tend to favor members of these groups.
  • Us vs. Them Mentality: Ingroup favoritism can lead to an “us vs. them” mentality, where people show preferential treatment to their own group while displaying bias or discrimination toward outgroups.
  • Social Cohesion: It can enhance social cohesion within a group, fostering a sense of unity, cooperation, and solidarity among its members.
  • Potential for Bias: While ingroup favoritism promotes group cohesion, it can also lead to biases, discrimination, and conflicts when taken to extremes.
  • Impact on Decision-Making: Ingroup favoritism can influence decision-making in various contexts, from social interactions and resource allocation to hiring and political choices.
  • Real-World Consequences: It has real-world implications, affecting areas such as sports rivalries, nationalism, workplace dynamics, and intergroup relations.
  • Awareness and Mitigation: Understanding ingroup favoritism is essential for promoting diversity, inclusion, and reducing biases. Efforts to mitigate its negative effects often involve promoting intergroup contact and empathy.
  • Nuanced Phenomenon: Ingroup favoritism is a complex and nuanced phenomenon that can vary based on individual differences, cultural norms, and specific group dynamics.

Connected Thinking Frameworks

Convergent vs. Divergent Thinking

Convergent thinking occurs when the solution to a problem can be found by applying established rules and logical reasoning. Whereas divergent thinking is an unstructured problem-solving method where participants are encouraged to develop many innovative ideas or solutions to a given problem. Where convergent thinking might work for larger, mature organizations where divergent thinking is more suited for startups and innovative companies.

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking involves analyzing observations, facts, evidence, and arguments to form a judgment about what someone reads, hears, says, or writes.


The concept of cognitive biases was introduced and popularized by the work of Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman in 1972. Biases are seen as systematic errors and flaws that make humans deviate from the standards of rationality, thus making us inept at making good decisions under uncertainty.

Second-Order Thinking

Second-order thinking is a means of assessing the implications of our decisions by considering future consequences. Second-order thinking is a mental model that considers all future possibilities. It encourages individuals to think outside of the box so that they can prepare for every and eventuality. It also discourages the tendency for individuals to default to the most obvious choice.

Lateral Thinking

Lateral thinking is a business strategy that involves approaching a problem from a different direction. The strategy attempts to remove traditionally formulaic and routine approaches to problem-solving by advocating creative thinking, therefore finding unconventional ways to solve a known problem. This sort of non-linear approach to problem-solving, can at times, create a big impact.

Bounded Rationality

Bounded rationality is a concept attributed to Herbert Simon, an economist and political scientist interested in decision-making and how we make decisions in the real world. In fact, he believed that rather than optimizing (which was the mainstream view in the past decades) humans follow what he called satisficing.

Dunning-Kruger Effect

The Dunning-Kruger effect describes a cognitive bias where people with low ability in a task overestimate their ability to perform that task well. Consumers or businesses that do not possess the requisite knowledge make bad decisions. What’s more, knowledge gaps prevent the person or business from seeing their mistakes.

Occam’s Razor

Occam’s Razor states that one should not increase (beyond reason) the number of entities required to explain anything. All things being equal, the simplest solution is often the best one. The principle is attributed to 14th-century English theologian William of Ockham.

Lindy Effect

The Lindy Effect is a theory about the ageing of non-perishable things, like technology or ideas. Popularized by author Nicholas Nassim Taleb, the Lindy Effect states that non-perishable things like technology age – linearly – in reverse. Therefore, the older an idea or a technology, the same will be its life expectancy.


Antifragility was first coined as a term by author, and options trader Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Antifragility is a characteristic of systems that thrive as a result of stressors, volatility, and randomness. Therefore, Antifragile is the opposite of fragile. Where a fragile thing breaks up to volatility; a robust thing resists volatility. An antifragile thing gets stronger from volatility (provided the level of stressors and randomness doesn’t pass a certain threshold).

Systems Thinking

Systems thinking is a holistic means of investigating the factors and interactions that could contribute to a potential outcome. It is about thinking non-linearly, and understanding the second-order consequences of actions and input into the system.

Vertical Thinking

Vertical thinking, on the other hand, is a problem-solving approach that favors a selective, analytical, structured, and sequential mindset. The focus of vertical thinking is to arrive at a reasoned, defined solution.

Maslow’s Hammer

Maslow’s Hammer, otherwise known as the law of the instrument or the Einstellung effect, is a cognitive bias causing an over-reliance on a familiar tool. This can be expressed as the tendency to overuse a known tool (perhaps a hammer) to solve issues that might require a different tool. This problem is persistent in the business world where perhaps known tools or frameworks might be used in the wrong context (like business plans used as planning tools instead of only investors’ pitches).

Peter Principle

The Peter Principle was first described by Canadian sociologist Lawrence J. Peter in his 1969 book The Peter Principle. The Peter Principle states that people are continually promoted within an organization until they reach their level of incompetence.

Straw Man Fallacy

The straw man fallacy describes an argument that misrepresents an opponent’s stance to make rebuttal more convenient. The straw man fallacy is a type of informal logical fallacy, defined as a flaw in the structure of an argument that renders it invalid.

Streisand Effect

The Streisand Effect is a paradoxical phenomenon where the act of suppressing information to reduce visibility causes it to become more visible. In 2003, Streisand attempted to suppress aerial photographs of her Californian home by suing photographer Kenneth Adelman for an invasion of privacy. Adelman, who Streisand assumed was paparazzi, was instead taking photographs to document and study coastal erosion. In her quest for more privacy, Streisand’s efforts had the opposite effect.


As highlighted by German psychologist Gerd Gigerenzer in the paper “Heuristic Decision Making,” the term heuristic is of Greek origin, meaning “serving to find out or discover.” More precisely, a heuristic is a fast and accurate way to make decisions in the real world, which is driven by uncertainty.

Recognition Heuristic

The recognition heuristic is a psychological model of judgment and decision making. It is part of a suite of simple and economical heuristics proposed by psychologists Daniel Goldstein and Gerd Gigerenzer. The recognition heuristic argues that inferences are made about an object based on whether it is recognized or not.

Representativeness Heuristic

The representativeness heuristic was first described by psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. The representativeness heuristic judges the probability of an event according to the degree to which that event resembles a broader class. When queried, most will choose the first option because the description of John matches the stereotype we may hold for an archaeologist.

Take-The-Best Heuristic

The take-the-best heuristic is a decision-making shortcut that helps an individual choose between several alternatives. The take-the-best (TTB) heuristic decides between two or more alternatives based on a single good attribute, otherwise known as a cue. In the process, less desirable attributes are ignored.

Bundling Bias

The bundling bias is a cognitive bias in e-commerce where a consumer tends not to use all of the products bought as a group, or bundle. Bundling occurs when individual products or services are sold together as a bundle. Common examples are tickets and experiences. The bundling bias dictates that consumers are less likely to use each item in the bundle. This means that the value of the bundle and indeed the value of each item in the bundle is decreased.

Barnum Effect

The Barnum Effect is a cognitive bias where individuals believe that generic information – which applies to most people – is specifically tailored for themselves.

First-Principles Thinking

First-principles thinking – sometimes called reasoning from first principles – is used to reverse-engineer complex problems and encourage creativity. It involves breaking down problems into basic elements and reassembling them from the ground up. Elon Musk is among the strongest proponents of this way of thinking.

Ladder Of Inference

The ladder of inference is a conscious or subconscious thinking process where an individual moves from a fact to a decision or action. The ladder of inference was created by academic Chris Argyris to illustrate how people form and then use mental models to make decisions.

Goodhart’s Law

Goodhart’s Law is named after British monetary policy theorist and economist Charles Goodhart. Speaking at a conference in Sydney in 1975, Goodhart said that “any observed statistical regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is placed upon it for control purposes.” Goodhart’s Law states that when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.

Six Thinking Hats Model

The Six Thinking Hats model was created by psychologist Edward de Bono in 1986, who noted that personality type was a key driver of how people approached problem-solving. For example, optimists view situations differently from pessimists. Analytical individuals may generate ideas that a more emotional person would not, and vice versa.

Mandela Effect

The Mandela effect is a phenomenon where a large group of people remembers an event differently from how it occurred. The Mandela effect was first described in relation to Fiona Broome, who believed that former South African President Nelson Mandela died in prison during the 1980s. While Mandela was released from prison in 1990 and died 23 years later, Broome remembered news coverage of his death in prison and even a speech from his widow. Of course, neither event occurred in reality. But Broome was later to discover that she was not the only one with the same recollection of events.

Crowding-Out Effect

The crowding-out effect occurs when public sector spending reduces spending in the private sector.

Bandwagon Effect

The bandwagon effect tells us that the more a belief or idea has been adopted by more people within a group, the more the individual adoption of that idea might increase within the same group. This is the psychological effect that leads to herd mentality. What in marketing can be associated with social proof.

Moore’s Law

Moore’s law states that the number of transistors on a microchip doubles approximately every two years. This observation was made by Intel co-founder Gordon Moore in 1965 and it become a guiding principle for the semiconductor industry and has had far-reaching implications for technology as a whole.

Disruptive Innovation

Disruptive innovation as a term was first described by Clayton M. Christensen, an American academic and business consultant whom The Economist called “the most influential management thinker of his time.” Disruptive innovation describes the process by which a product or service takes hold at the bottom of a market and eventually displaces established competitors, products, firms, or alliances.

Value Migration

Value migration was first described by author Adrian Slywotzky in his 1996 book Value Migration – How to Think Several Moves Ahead of the Competition. Value migration is the transferal of value-creating forces from outdated business models to something better able to satisfy consumer demands.

Bye-Now Effect

The bye-now effect describes the tendency for consumers to think of the word “buy” when they read the word “bye”. In a study that tracked diners at a name-your-own-price restaurant, each diner was asked to read one of two phrases before ordering their meal. The first phrase, “so long”, resulted in diners paying an average of $32 per meal. But when diners recited the phrase “bye bye” before ordering, the average price per meal rose to $45.


Groupthink occurs when well-intentioned individuals make non-optimal or irrational decisions based on a belief that dissent is impossible or on a motivation to conform. Groupthink occurs when members of a group reach a consensus without critical reasoning or evaluation of the alternatives and their consequences.


A stereotype is a fixed and over-generalized belief about a particular group or class of people. These beliefs are based on the false assumption that certain characteristics are common to every individual residing in that group. Many stereotypes have a long and sometimes controversial history and are a direct consequence of various political, social, or economic events. Stereotyping is the process of making assumptions about a person or group of people based on various attributes, including gender, race, religion, or physical traits.

Murphy’s Law

Murphy’s Law states that if anything can go wrong, it will go wrong. Murphy’s Law was named after aerospace engineer Edward A. Murphy. During his time working at Edwards Air Force Base in 1949, Murphy cursed a technician who had improperly wired an electrical component and said, “If there is any way to do it wrong, he’ll find it.”

Law of Unintended Consequences

The law of unintended consequences was first mentioned by British philosopher John Locke when writing to parliament about the unintended effects of interest rate rises. However, it was popularized in 1936 by American sociologist Robert K. Merton who looked at unexpected, unanticipated, and unintended consequences and their impact on society.

Fundamental Attribution Error

Fundamental attribution error is a bias people display when judging the behavior of others. The tendency is to over-emphasize personal characteristics and under-emphasize environmental and situational factors.

Outcome Bias

Outcome bias describes a tendency to evaluate a decision based on its outcome and not on the process by which the decision was reached. In other words, the quality of a decision is only determined once the outcome is known. Outcome bias occurs when a decision is based on the outcome of previous events without regard for how those events developed.

Hindsight Bias

Hindsight bias is the tendency for people to perceive past events as more predictable than they actually were. The result of a presidential election, for example, seems more obvious when the winner is announced. The same can also be said for the avid sports fan who predicted the correct outcome of a match regardless of whether their team won or lost. Hindsight bias, therefore, is the tendency for an individual to convince themselves that they accurately predicted an event before it happened.

Read Next: BiasesBounded RationalityMandela EffectDunning-Kruger EffectLindy EffectCrowding Out EffectBandwagon Effect.

Main Guides:

About The Author

Scroll to Top