Ingroup favoritism usually lacks explicit hostility toward outgroups

Evidence

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). — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 445 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

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 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim
• XREF: connects to: Merely categorizing people into us and them generates in-group favoritism and out-group devaluation; Different outgroups are either disrespected, envied, liked, or disliked — Susan T. Fiske et al., A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype…, 4; Sumner saw outgroup hostility as a natural product of ingroup superiority (+14 more)

Broader Connections

• Ingroup preference need not translate into any particular attitude toward outgroups #corroborates (0.95) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 445
• Ingroup favoritism operates independently of outgroup hatred #corroborates (0.93) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 1496