Prejudice serves dual functions of lowering outgroup worth and boosting ingroup entitlement

Evidence

Whereas social categorization can initiate intergroup biases, the type of bias due largely to categorization alone primarily represents a pro-ingroup orientation (i.e., preference for ingroup members, or love-prejudice in Allport’s words, rather than an anti-outgroup orientation, i.e., hateprejudice) usually associated with hostility or aggression. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 555 (#complicates, via linked claim)

The tendency to overgeneralize the typical minimal group findings does not mitigate the central result, but it certainly forestalls more comprehensive understanding. It seems that the in-group = deserving and out-group = unworthy interpretation owes, in part, to the use of research designs that have focused determinately and exclusively on the distribution of positive outcomes to in-group or out-group members in the minimal group paradigm for, indeed, the great majority of minimal group studies have used the allocation of positive rewards as the critical outcome variable, despite warnings about the threats to generalizability that such mindless consistency entails … What happens when in-group members must allocate negative outcomes? Even in the absence of data, it seems reasonable to assume that when outcome valences change, distributional tendencies may be altered as well. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1379 (#complicates, via linked claim)

In general, there is strong and consistent support for the basic hypothesis that, as a consequence of recategorization, the cognitive and motivational processes that initially produced ingroup favoritism can be harnessed to reduce intergroup bias and prejudice toward former outgroup members who now share the common, superordinate group identity (see Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). These findings are consistent with, and extend both conceptually and empirically, Allport’s idea that group memberships vary in inclusiveness and intergroup relations can be improved by shifting from difference at one level (e.g., race) to commonality at another level (e.g., humankind). — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 571 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Implicit racial appeals drive welfare opposition through reduced deservingness perceptions — Rachel Wetts and Robb Willer, Who Is Called by the Dog Whistle?…, 168; Perceived competence in envied outgroups fuels resentment-driven prejudice rather than reducing it. — Susan T. Fiske et al., A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype…, 302; Valuing one being over another invites discrimination against others — Rebecca A. Martusewicz, Jeff Edmundson, and John Lupinacci, EcoJustice Education: Toward Diverse,…, 262 (+13 more)

Broader Connections

• Most ingroup bias overvalues the ingroup rather than devaluing the outgroup #complicates (0.85) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 555
• Ingroup favoritism operates through reward-giving rather than outgroup harm #complicates (0.80) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1379
• Ingroup-favoritism mechanisms can be redirected to reduce outgroup bias #complicates (0.72) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 571