Allport held ingroup favoritism only weakly predicts outgroup hostility, unlike SIT

Evidence

Social Identity Theory places intergroup comparisons with relevant reference groups center stage, positing that they are the main means by which positive distinctiveness and positive ingroup identity are achieved. In contrast, Allport emphasizes the primacy of the ingroup, and argues that that ingroups are not necessarily defined in relation or opposition to outgroups. Similarly, as we have just seen, findings from the “minimal group paradigm” have led Social Identity Theory researchers to emphasize that any kind of social categorization – even if very trivial – may suffice to sow the seeds of prejudice. Conversely, Allport surmised that there are many constraints and limiting conditions, which means that these seeds do not always germinate: “while a certain amount of predilection is inevitable in all in-group memberships, the reciprocal attitude toward out-groups may range widely” (1954/1979, p. 42). — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 436

Categorization

• XREF: Directly relevant to the bias-generalization assumption that the vault’s contact-theory claims rest on; ingroup favoritism need not translate to outgroup derogation. — connects to: Beliefs about race map onto SIT social change versus social mobility belief systems. — Anna X. Huang, Jacqueline M. Chen, and Juliane Degner, Being One or the Other, Both or…, 85
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 436