Ingroup favoritism operates independently of outgroup hatred

Evidence

Contemporary work on group identification and its implications has also explored the idea that outgroup derogation and ingroup favoritism are conceptually and empirically distinguishable (see Brown & Zagefka, ch. 4 this volume). For example, Brewer (1999, 2001) has proposed that ingroup love does not necessarily entail outgroup hatred, and that intergroup discrimination can indicate preferential treatment of the ingroup, rather than direct hostility toward outgroups. In line with this suggestion, research on discrimination in the minimal group paradigm (in which group memberships are created in the laboratory using criteria as minimal as an alleged shared preference for different styles of art or random assignment) used to test the premises of Social Identity Theory has found that people are generally more willing to discriminate by providing more rewards or positive outcomes to the ingroup than to outgroups, versus providing more costs or negative outcomes to outgroups than to the ingroup (Buhl, 1999; Mummendey & Otten, 1998). Notably, individuals who are highly identified with the ingroup are especially likely to discriminate for positive outcomes, but ingroup identification does not necessarily relate to discrimination for negative outcomes (Hodson, Dovidio, & Esses, 2003). — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 1496

However, at the outset it is of theoretical and practical importance to distinguish between ingroup bias (the ingroup being evaluated more positively than the outgroup) and negative intergroup attitudes (where the outgroup is evaluated negatively or disliked). We will come back to this distinction shortly, after discussing some of the work that came out of the Social Identity Theory tradition in which the focus is typically on ingroup bias (rather than outgroup derogation). — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 440

Contemporary work on group identification and its implications has also explored the idea that outgroup derogation and ingroup favoritism are conceptually and empirically distinguishable (see Brown & Zagefka, ch. 4 this volume). For example, Brewer (1999, 2001) has proposed that ingroup love does not necessarily entail outgroup hatred, and that intergroup discrimination can indicate preferential treatment of the ingroup, rather than direct hostility toward outgroups. In line with this suggestion, research on discrimination in the minimal group paradigm (in which group memberships are created in the laboratory using criteria as minimal as an alleged shared preference for different styles of art or random assignment) used to test the premises of Social Identity Theory has found that people are generally more willing to discriminate by providing more rewards or positive outcomes to the ingroup than to outgroups, versus providing more costs or negative outcomes to outgroups than to the ingroup (Buhl, 1999; Mummendey & Otten, 1998). Notably, individuals who are highly identified with the ingroup are especially likely to discriminate for positive outcomes, but ingroup identification does not necessarily relate to discrimination for negative outcomes (Hodson, Dovidio, & Esses, 2003). — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1496

Categorization

• DEEPTHINKING: This overturns the reflexive assumption that loving one’s group means hating others — a genuinely non-obvious empirical finding with wide implications for understanding discrimination.
• SEED: Article angle: ‘Loving your own group does not mean hating others’ — the empirical case that ingroup bias and outgroup derogation are separable, against the intuition that they’re two sides of one coin.
• XREF: Parallel to my trust materials where over-constraining vs. under-constraining agents are separate axes, and to the idea that positive silence (ingroup) and hostile noise (outgroup) are distinct phenomena. — connects to: Merely categorizing people into us and them generates in-group favoritism and out-group devaluation; Leaders gain support by favoring ingroup members over even-handedness — Stephen Reicher, S. Alexander Haslam, and Nick Hopkins, Social identity and the dynamics of…, 49; the MOC “The Enemy-Making Machine: Ours, True, and the Identity That Defends Both”
• corroborated: 3 independent passages support this claim — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 1496; John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 440; , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1496