Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In statistics, homogeneity and its opposite, heterogeneity, arise in describing the properties of a dataset, or several datasets. They relate to the validity of the often convenient assumption that the statistical properties of any one part of an overall dataset are the same as any other part.
However, in an intragroup context the perceiver may be motivated to attend to differences with the group (between "me" and "others in the group") leading to perceptions of comparative ingroup heterogeneity. As perceivers are less often motivated to perform intra-group outgroup comparison, this leads to an overall outgroup homogeneity effect.
Heterophily is usually not a term found often by itself. Rather it is often used in conjunction with other similar terms that define attraction. Heterophily is often discussed with its opposite, homophily when analyzing how relationships form between people. Heterophily also may be mentioned in areas such as homogamy, exogamy, and endogamy.
Homophily (from Ancient Greek ὁμός (homós) 'same, common' and φιλία (philía) 'friendship, love') is a concept in sociology describing the tendency of individuals to associate and bond with similar others, as in the proverb " birds of a feather flock together ". [1]
Homogeneity and heterogeneity; only ' b ' is homogeneous Homogeneity and heterogeneity are concepts relating to the uniformity of a substance, process or image.A homogeneous feature is uniform in composition or character (i.e., color, shape, size, weight, height, distribution, texture, language, income, disease, temperature, radioactivity, architectural design, etc.); one that is heterogeneous ...
A medical condition is termed heterogeneous, or a heterogeneous disease, if it has several etiologies (root causes); as opposed to homogeneous conditions, which have the same root cause for all patients in a given group. Examples of heterogeneous conditions are hepatitis and diabetes. Heterogeneity is not unusual, as medical conditions are ...
In evolutionary psychology, in-group favoritism is seen as an evolved mechanism selected for the advantages of coalition affiliation. [25] It has been argued that characteristics such as gender and ethnicity are inflexible or even essential features of such systems.
Muncer argued that Rushton and Irwing's meta-analysis was unreliable due to heterogeneous correlations between the Big Five factors analysed. Furthermore, the extent of such heterogeneity is strong evidence against the existence of such a general factor.