Allport held ingroup positivity need not require outgroup opposition

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). — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 436

Categorization

• XREF: Echoes the repeated finding in my silence/noise materials and trust work that perception of threat, not mere difference, drives conflict — here applied to group identity.