Ingroup identification is necessary but not sufficient for outgroup hatred

Evidence

Allport also neglected the role of identification with an ingroup, and instead considered emotions as experienced by an isolated individual toward other individuals or groups. In current thinking, people have “selves” at several levels (individual, collective, possibly relational) and any or all of these selves can be activated in specific contexts, arousing emotions. In a comment that may anticipate this idea, Allport noted that hatred never arises without love, meaning love for the values or other objects that are threatened by the hated other (see Brown & Zagefka, ch. 4 this volume). This love may be equivalent to ingroup identification, which attaches value and emotional salience to the ingroup, and is therefore a necessary although not sufficient cause for hate and other negative reactions to the outgroup (Brewer, 2001). — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2283

Categorization

• QUESTION: Allport’s line ‘hatred never arises without love’ — this is a striking inversion worth tracing how love for what one identifies with feeds hate for what threatens it. Is this essentially the mechanism of attachment and threat? How well does it survive contact with pathological hate that seems genuinely loveless?
• XREF: Echoes Brewer’s optimal distinctiveness theory and the ingroup-love/outgroup-hate asymmetry already in the literature. — connects to: High group identification alone need not produce ingroup bias or discrimination — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt: International…, 862; the MOC “The Enemy-Making Machine: How Ourselves, the True, and Every Other Are Built from War”; the MOC “The Enemy-Making Machine: Ours, True, and the Identity That Defends Both”
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 2283