People compare with their ingroup over time more than with outgroups

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. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 453

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: Challenges the intuitive assumption that groups define themselves against outgroups; connects to social identity theory debates about whether ingroup comparison needs an outgroup reference.
• corroborated: 4 independent passages support this claim — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 453; , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 453