Ingroup biases: favouritism and derogation

Ingroup biases mean favouritism towards groups of people who are similar to you ("ingroup") over others ("outgroups"). Because of this tendency, it is also named as "ingroup favouritism". I believe the second one, ingroup favouritism is more accurate, because there is a negative bias towards ingroups, called ingroup derogation.

Ingroup derogation means having a critical view towards ingroups relative to view towards outgroups. Studies done in the west concluded that ingroup derogation was common in ethnic minority groups, but this is a very western perspective, generalising what's found in the west must be true in the other parts of the world. Because "ethnic minority groups" vary by the context. For example, an ethnic group of white is a minority group in Japan. But there is no study to support white people's ingroup demogation in Japan, nor have I seen that when I lived there.

More accurate findings were from a study which targeted cultural characteristics. Christine Ma-Kellams et al.'s study evaluated ingroup biases in individualistic culture and collectivistic culture, and found that ingroup derogation was more salient in collectivistic culture.

This makes sense in a way, because what is important to collectivistic culture is how others see them. Of course it is important to many people in both collectivistic culture and individualisic culture, but the degree is often larger in collectivistic culture. In order to do well with others, i.e., outgroups, their group (ingroup) need to restrain themselves to fit better, hence criticism can be used as a way to self-correct.

This poses a question about global research, where someone assesses their own group (e.g., healthcare practice). Assessors in individualistic culture may assess their practice positively (ingroup favouritism), whereas those in collectivisituc culture may do so negatively (ingroup derogation). Even the level of whatever they are assessing about their practice is the same, healthcare services in individualistic culture may get a better score than those in collectivistic culture. Moreover, if the researchers are from a similar individualistic country, they probably would not doubt the scores, and interpreted that way.

Indeed, some researchers may say add a qualitative study to reduce this bias, but the analytic interpretation of interview data will be done by the researchers from individualistic ingroups, then this bias countermeasure can back fire.

Cross-cultural differences can exist in many parts of research and practice. Perhaps, first we need to pay close attention to detect them, in order to reduce them.