Intergroup discrimination arises from ingroup favoritism, not outgroup hostility.

Evidence

Brewer (1999) argued that outgroups do not typically elicit strong negative evaluation but merely fail to elicit positive evaluation. In her view, much intergroup discrimination arises not from hostility toward outgroup members, but from identification with one’s ingroup, which fosters preferential treatment of ingroup members (Mummendey et al. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 182

Brewer (1999) argued that outgroups do not typically elicit strong negative evaluation but merely fail to elicit positive evaluation. In her view, much intergroup discrimination arises not from hostility toward outgroup members, but from identification with one’s ingroup, which fosters preferential treatment of ingroup members (Mummendey et al., 1992; see also in this volume ch. 4 by Brown & Zagefka and ch. 5 by Gaertner & Dovidio). — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 182

Brewer (1999) argued that outgroups do not typically elicit strong negative evaluation but merely fail to elicit positive evaluation. In her view, much intergroup discrimination arises not from hostility toward outgroup members, but from identification with one’s ingroup, which fosters preferential treatment of ingroup members (Mummendey et al., 1992; see also in this volume ch. 4 by Brown & Zagefka and ch. 5 by Gaertner & Dovidio). — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 182

Challenges to Allport’s antipathy definition of prejudice also emerged from work on intergroup relations. Brewer (1999) argued that outgroups do not typically elicit strong negative evaluation but merely fail to elicit positive evaluation. In her view, much intergroup discrimination arises not from hostility toward outgroup members, but from identification with one’s ingroup, which fosters preferential treatment of ingroup members (Mummendey et al., 1992; see also in this volume ch. 4 by Brown & Zagefka and ch. 5 by Gaertner & Dovidio). Jackman (ch. 6 this volume) goes further, arguing that paternalism, which disguises dominance with an overlay of affection toward subordinates, is the preferred mode by which dominants maintain their advantages and undermine subordinates’ resistance. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 182

Categorization

• XREF: Parallels Milgrom’s argument that cooperation emerges from ingroup identification/reputation mechanisms rather than explicit enforcement.
• ADDENDUM: Contact-theory cluster: minimal-group favoritism results qualified Allport’s hostility premise as the core driver of discrimination.
• QUESTION: If much discrimination is ingroup preference rather than outgroup antipathy, does intergroup contact even have the same theoretically expected effect?
• corroborated: 9 independent passages support this claim — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 182; , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 182