Valuing one’s in-group does not inevitably produce out-group discrimination

Evidence

This kind of thoughtful, careful appraisal may not be entirely consistent with quotidian behavior, but it does occur—at least sometimes—and certainly deserves study in any serious discussion of intergroup interaction. … Mummendey’s aggravation model might even be seen as a lead-in to the proposition that although we do, indeed, tend to value those with whom we share a common group identity, this tendency does not inevitably lead to discrimination against our out-groups, a position consistent with Brewer’s (1999a) convincing argument. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1382

Mummendey’s aggravation model might even be seen as a lead-in to the proposition that although we do, indeed, tend to value those with whom we share a common group identity, this tendency does not inevitably lead to discrimination against our out-groups, a position consistent with Brewer’s (1999a) convincing argument. … Both Brewer (1991, 1993) and Mummendey (Mummendey, 1995; Mummendey & Otten, 1998) have argued for a more nuanced view of the process by which social identities are formed and operate in determining intragroup and intergroup dynamics, with Brewer & Weber (1994) arguing that the distinctive in-group identity that is characteristic of minority group members is likely to facilitate “unit formation” and “reduced differentiation” among (fellow minority) group members, whereas majority group members appear more likely to engage in interpersonal comparison with in-group members, which may result in contrast effects. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1383

Categorization

• XREF: Brewer’s argument that in-group favoritism and out-group derogation are separable; echoes the distinction in discrimination literature between bias and hostility. — connects to: In-group boundaries within collectivism are permeable only by birth, not achievement — Leonard S. Newman and Ralph Erber (eds.), Understanding Genocide: The Social…, 1025; Valuing one being over another invites discrimination against others — Rebecca A. Martusewicz, Jeff Edmundson, and John Lupinacci, EcoJustice Education: Toward Diverse,…, 262
• ADDENDUM: The minority ‘unit formation’ vs majority ‘contrast effects’ asymmetry could sharpen the moral-panic framing of who projects onto whom in the immodesty article’s sumptuary conflicts.
• corroborated: 3 independent passages support this claim — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1382; Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1383