The Psychology of Prejudice: Ingroup Love or Outgroup Hate?

Although structural and functional approaches to the study of intergroup relations waned with the rise of social identity theory (Tajfel, 1981; Tajfel & Turner, 1986), the assumption of negative reciprocity between ingroup and outgroup attitudes was retained at the psychological level. The same bipolar assumption was also applied to judgments of similarity-dissimilarity such that increasing perceived similarity within groups is associated with increasing dissimilarity between groups. Overlaid on the ingroup-outgroup distinction, these assumptions lead to a sort of zero-sum perspective in which attachment and positive affect toward an ingroup is achieved through distance and negative affect toward corresponding outgroups.

There may be many situations in which either the structural or psychological conditions for reciprocal activation of ingroup positivity and outgroup negativity may hold. However, there are both empirical and theoretical grounds for challenging the assumption that such reciprocity is inevitable or even common. Whenever the structure of resources or opportunities really is a zero-sum situation, any preferential treatment of ingroup members will be achieved at the detriment of outgroup members, but this does not mean that attitudes are similarly zero-sum. Discrimination can be motivated solely by ingroup preference, in the absence of any negative affect or hostile intent toward outgroups. [1]

Indeed, results from both laboratory experiments and field studies indicate that variations in ingroup positivity and social identification do not systematically correlate with degree of bias or negativity toward outgroups (Brewer, 1979; Hinkle & Brown, 1990; Kosterman & Feshbach, 1989). For example, in a study of the reciprocal attitudes among 30 ethnic groups in East Africa, Brewer and Campbell (1976) found that almost all of the groups exhibited systematic differential positive evaluation of the ingroup over all outgroups on dimensions such as trustworthiness, obedience, friendliness, and honesty. However, the correlation between degree of positive ingroup regard and social distance toward outgroups was essentially .00 across the 30 groups (Brewer & Campbell, 1976, P. 85). Further, the positive ingroup biases exhibited in the allocation of positive resources in the minimal intergroup situation (Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971) are essentially eliminated when allocation decisions involve the distrib ution of negative outcomes or costs (e.g., Mummendey et al., 1992), suggesting that individuals are willing to differentially benefit the ingroup compared to outgroups but are reluctant to harm outgroups more directly. Outside of the laboratory, measures of patriotism or ingroup pride prove to be conceptually and empirically distinct from aggression against outgroups (Feshbach, 1994; Struch & Schwartz, 1989).

Recognizing that ingroup attitudes and internal relationships may be independent of attitudes and behavior toward outgroups leads to a new approach to research on intergroup relations. If we take Allport's insight about the primacy of ingroup orientations seriously, we must first come to a better understanding of how and why ingroups are formed and why individuals exhibit ingroup loyalty, identification, and attachment in the first place. The second question is why and under what conditions the formation and maintenance of ingroups and ingroup loyalty leads to negative relationships with outgroups.