Minimal ingroup identification is necessary for intergroup favoritism.

Evidence

From these thumbnail sketches, three points are apparent. First, Tajfel and Turner (1986), like Allport before them, place the concept of social identification at the center of their analysis of intergroup relations. Although neither theory posits identification to be the exclusive determinant of biased intergroup attitudes – for example, both accept that real conflicts are also important causes of prejudice – an assumption common to both is that some minimal level of ingroup identification is necessary for such favoritism. A second commonality is that ingroups can vary in their psychological significance for their members, either across individuals or across situations. This is most explicit in Brewer’s model which strongly echoes Allport’s emphasis on variations in group importance with differences in size and inclusiveness. In other words, these theories consider identity to be contextually specific. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 434 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

In the basic paradigm the subjects (both children and adults have acted as subjects in the various studies) are randomly classified as members of two nonoverlapping groups— ostensibly on the basis of some trivial performance criterion. They then make “decisions,” awarding amounts of money to pairs of other subjects (excluding self) in specially designed booklets. The recipients are anonymous, except for their individual code numbers and their group membership (for example, member number 51 of the X group and member number 33 of the Y group). The subjects, who know their own group membership, award the amounts individually and anonymously. The re-sponse format of the booklets does not force the subjects to act in terms of group membership. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2704 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Societal tasks should be handled by the smallest capable group — Laura Albareda and Alejo Jose G. Sison, Commons Organizing: Embedding Common…, 88; Mere arbitrary group membership, with no interaction, triggers in-group favoritism — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2704; Ingroup identification is necessary but not sufficient for outgroup hatred — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 2283 (+5 more)

Broader Connections

• Both Allport and Social Identity Theory require minimal ingroup identification for bias #corroborates (0.95) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 434
• Mere arbitrary group membership, with no interaction, triggers in-group favoritism #corroborates (0.92) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2704