Awareness of an out-group alone suffices to trigger intergroup competition

Evidence

The aim of differentiation is to maintain or achieve superiority over an out-group on some dimensions. Any such act, therefore, is essentially competitive. Fully reciprocal competition between groups requires a situation of mutual comparison and differentiation on a shared value dimension. In these conditions, intergroup competition, which may be unrelated to the objective goal relations between the groups, can be predicted to occur. Turner (1975b) has distinguished between social and instrumental or “realistic” competition. The former is motivated by self-evaluation and takes place through social comparison, whereas the latter is based on “realistic” self-interest and represents embryonic conflict. Incompatible group goals are necessary for realistic competition, but mutual intergroup comparisons are necessary, and often sufficient, for social competition. The latter point is consistent with the data from the minimal group experiments that mere awareness of an out-group is sufficient to stimulate in-group favoritism, and the observations (Doise & Weinberger, 1973; Ferguson & Kelley, 1964; Rabbie & Wilkens, 1971) that the possibility of social comparison generates “spontaneous” intergroup competition. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2723

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the minimal group experiments literature and to the broader social identity theory themes running through this book. — connects to: Intergroup contact most strongly and reliably predicts willingness to mix with the outgroup — Miles Hewstone and Ed Cairns and Alberto Voci and Juergen Hamberger and Ulrike Niens, Intergroup Contact, Forgiveness, and…, 43