Ingroup attachment does not necessarily produce outgroup hostility

Evidence

Contrary to earlier wisdom (e.g. Sumner, 1906), Allport suggested that, while the presence of another group, especially in conflictual situations, can increase ingroup cohesion, such cohesion need not lead to prejudice and outgroup hostilities (p. 42). In fact, he proposed that ingroup attachment and preference are psychologically more primary motives and that outgroup hostility usually stems from other sources, an argument that has been resurrected in recent years (Brewer, 1999). — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 427

Let us conclude this section by returning to the distinction between negative intergroup attitudes and ingroup bias. Consistent with the “positive distinctiveness” postulate of Social Identity Theory, most of the research reviewed above focused on “bias” as a dependent variable, which only demands that the ingroup be seen or treated better than the outgroup. However, such measures may only speak indirectly to those manifestations of prejudice which involve some explicit derogation of or hostility toward an outgroup. As Brewer (1979) pointed out some years ago, most ingroup bias phenomena involve a relative overevaluation of the ingroup (or its products) and not a devaluation of the outgroup (and its products). Allport himself also underlined the importance of this distinction: “what is alien is regarded as somehow inferior, less “good,” but there is not necessarily hostility against it” (1954/1979, p. 42). — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 445

Categorization

• DEFINE: Clarifies the distinction between ingroup preference (psychologically primary) and outgroup hostility (derived from other sources) — a key conceptual fork later developed in Social Identity Theory.
• ADDENDUM: Directly corroborates the Allport reassessment thread by supplying Allport’s own distinction between ingroup bias (relative overevaluation) and outgroup derogation — evidence that prejudice research conflates two separable phenomena.
• XREF: Connects to Social Identity Theory’s positive distinctiveness postulate and Tajfel/Turner, echoing the minimal group paradigm work already in the vault. — connects to: Perceived illegitimacy and instability of status drives intergroup hostility — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt: International…, 807; the MOC “The Enemy-Making Machine: Ours, True, and the Identity That Defends Both”
• corroborated: 8 independent passages support this claim — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 427; , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 445