Ingroup favoritism stems from projecting self-traits onto the ingroup, not distinctiveness striving.

Evidence

The self, ingroup, and outgroup overlap to varying degrees, depending on self-categorization. People define their ingroups by a process of self-anchoring, viewing the group as similar to the self. Consequently, self-evaluations predict ingroup evaluations, especially for people have a strong need for cognitive structure (Otten & Bar-Tal, 2002). This kind of self-anchoring plausibly underlies ingroup favoritism. Self-ratings predict ingroup favoritism better than does the positivity of the trait, suggesting that generalization from self to ingroup (i.e., self-anchoring), rather than a striving for positive ingroup distinctiveness, might underlie ingroup favoritism (Otten & Wentura, 2001). — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 340

Categorization

• XREF: Directly challenges the classic social identity theory account (positive distinctiveness) of ingroup favoritism — relevant to prior vault claims about prejudice’s motivational roots.
• QUESTION: Worth chasing: does self-anchoring instead of distinctiveness-seeking change how contact interventions should be designed?
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 340