in-group favoritism

Criterion for an instance

Specify whether the assessment concerns relative preference, unequal behavior or an effect attributable to shared membership, and identify the source adopting that criterion.

1. Does this definition require a favorable judgment, an enacted advantage or evidence that group membership caused the preference? definition
2. Which researcher, framework or decision policy adopts this definition, and where is that commitment documented? provenance

Actor-relative in-group

Record the actor, recipients and evidence of shared membership, including overlapping identities and changes in salience.

1. What evidence shows that the actor regarded these recipients as members of an own-group at the time? provenance
2. Where recipients share one identity but differ on another, which boundary was relevant to the judgment or action? boundary

Advantage-bearing decision

Identify what was evaluated, granted, withheld or excused, and which recipients were actually eligible for consideration.

1. What specific rating, resource, opportunity, assistance or exemption favored in-group recipients? measurement
2. Who was eligible and exposed to the decision, including people excluded before the final comparison? boundary

Separate group effects

Assess insider gains and outsider losses against an explicit baseline, including whether the resource is fixed or expandable.

1. Relative to the baseline, did insiders gain, outsiders lose or both? measurement
2. Does giving insiders more necessarily reduce outsiders' opportunities in this setting, or can support expand? boundary

Measure-to-claim fit

Specify the task or observation, outcome units and limits on interpreting ratings, stated intentions or consequential behavior.

1. Is favoritism operationalized through ratings, allocation choices, trust decisions, selection rates or another observable measure? measurement
2. What supports treating this measure as evidence of the claimed form of favoritism, and what does it leave unmeasured? provenance

Interpretable preference gap

Record the comparison group, eligibility denominators, baseline justification and uncertainty around any estimated advantage.

1. Why is the chosen comparator appropriate given differences in eligibility, need, qualifications and opportunity? measurement
2. How large and uncertain is the preference gap, and does its interpretation change under other defensible baselines? measurement

Alternative explanations

Record how the evidence addresses familiarity, prior interaction, qualifications, need and other differences relevant to the decision.

1. What evidence isolates shared membership from familiarity, prior reciprocity and decision-relevant recipient differences? measurement
2. Which alternative explanations remain unresolved, and how do they limit the attribution to in-group favoritism? boundary

Mechanism evidence

Compare candidate explanations such as identity-related preference, expected reciprocity, perceived trustworthiness or loyalty norms without assigning motives from outcomes alone.

1. Which proposed mechanism has direct supporting evidence beyond the observed preference? provenance
2. What observation or comparison would distinguish the leading explanation from its strongest alternative? measurement

Obligations and justification

Record applicable impartiality requirements, special obligations and contested justifications separately from the descriptive preference finding.

1. What explicit role or allocation rule requires impartial treatment or permits priority for this group? provenance
2. Does the justification explain the particular advantage and its extent, or merely assert loyalty to insiders? boundary

Targeted correction

Specify an authorized response, such as structured criteria or independent review, and assess both membership effects and legitimate decision quality afterward.

1. Which authorized change addresses the evidenced source of unjustified preference in this decision process? action
2. What follow-up comparison would show reduced membership-based advantage while preserving relevant standards and obligations? measurement

Check these first

Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.

1. Which of these check these first hold for the sense of in-group favoritism this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance

Kinds and varieties

Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.

1. Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of in-group favoritism this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance

Real-world use

Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.

1. Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of in-group favoritism this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance

Typical measurements

Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.

1. Which of these typical measurements hold for the sense of in-group favoritism this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance

Failure modes and hazards

Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.

1. Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of in-group favoritism this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance

Regional variation

Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.

1. Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of in-group favoritism this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance

Neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart

Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.

1. Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of in-group favoritism this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance