Outgroups are not typically salient when people think about their ingroup

Evidence

Experimental work confirmed these findings. In one study, classes of university students were randomly subdivided into groups. In these groups, they completed two tasks, and were given (false) feedback on their performance/score on one of the tasks. They were then given the opportunity to compare their outcome with one other outcome (e.g., another group’s scores, temporal comparison). Generally, participants were more interested in temporal comparison options than in the various intergroup options. Further, ingroup identification was positively correlated with interest in temporal comparison, but was unrelated to intergroup comparison interest. Similar results were obtained with university employees when comparing their institution to others (Brown & Zagefka, 2003). Although these preliminary results should certainly be followed up, they nonetheless support Allport’s original hypothesis: Outgroups often do not seem to be salient and prominent in people’s minds when they think about their ingroup. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 453

Categorization

• XREF: Cuts against naive versions of social identity theory that presume outgroup comparison always drives ingroup evaluation; connects to the vault’s prejudice/categorization claims. — connects to: Groups only compare themselves with relevant out-groups, not all available ones. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology: Key Readings, 2721; Identification with one’s group is strongest when both ingroup and outgroup are made salient — Brandon Randolph-Seng, Darcy A. Reich, and Kenneth G. DeMarree, On the Nonconscious Antecedents of…, 23; Outgroup salience boosts conscious ingroup identification when the ingroup is already salient. — Brandon Randolph-Seng, Darcy A. Reich, and Kenneth G. DeMarree, On the Nonconscious Antecedents of…, 47
• corroborated: 3 independent passages support this claim — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 453