Negational identities produce both out-group derogation and in-group favoritism

Evidence

As discussed, chronic perceived threat may play a role. Another possible answer comes from research on negational identities—identities defined by what one is not (e.g., not a Republican) rather than what one is (e.g., a Democrat; Zhong, Galinsky, & Unzueta, 2008a; Zhong, Phillips, Leonardelli, & Galinsky, 2008b). It may be the case that white supremacists are prone to negational identification, defining themselves partially in terms of who they are not (not black, Jewish, Asian, etc.). Negational identification leads to a distinct pattern of intergroup bias. In a minimal group study (Zhong et al., 2008b, study 2), participants who were given a negational identity (“you do not belong to the Type M group”) displayed higher levels of out-group derogation but not in-group favoritism than participants given an affirmational identity (“you belong to the Type M group”). Affirmational identity resulted in in-group favoritism but not out-group derogation, whereas negational identity resulted in both in-group favoritism and out-group derogation. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1112

In contrast to research on mainstream groups, out-group negativity increased as in-group positivity increased. Positivity toward whites predicted negativity toward minorities even when controlling for other variables and irrespective of whether threat was present or absent. Positivity toward whites moreover significantly predicted racial slurs in the absence of threat. Reciprocal relationships involving other types of in-group positivity (toward racially aware whites) and out-group negativity (toward race traitors and liberals) were not observed. It appears that in-group favoritism is indeed linked to out-group derogation for Stormfront members, but only when the groups are race based. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1104

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines negational vs affirmational identity and ties them to distinct bias patterns.
• XREF: Connects to the reader’s interest in out-group dynamics, tribalism, and identity; parallels threats-based accounts and Brewer’s in-group favoritism work. — connects to: Merely categorizing people into us and them generates in-group favoritism and out-group devaluation; German group identity was defined by being least like outgroups — Leonard S. Newman and Ralph Erber (eds.), Understanding Genocide: The Social…, 913; Different outgroups are either disrespected, envied, liked, or disliked — Susan T. Fiske et al., A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype…, 4 (+8 more)
• QUESTION: Worth chasing: does negational identity explain other extreme-group behaviors beyond white supremacy, e.g. anti-vax or political opposition movements?
• corroborated: 3 independent passages support this claim — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1112; Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1104