The Psychology of Prejudice: Ingroup Love and Outgroup Hate?

TLDR

Allport noted that attachment to ingroups need not entail hostility toward outgroups, yet prevailing theories assume a reciprocal link between ingroup love and outgroup hate, although cross‑cultural and laboratory evidence shows ingroup identification can be independent of negative outgroup attitudes and that discrimination often stems from preferential treatment rather than direct hostility. The article aims to review research and theory on motivations for maintaining ingroup boundaries and their implications for intergroup relations, conflict, and conflict prevention. The review examines how ingroup boundary maintenance influences intergroup relations, conflict, and conflict prevention. Cross‑cultural and laboratory studies show that ingroup identification is independent of negative outgroup attitudes, and that discrimination is largely driven by preferential treatment of ingroup members rather than direct hostility.

Abstract

Allport (1954) recognized that attachment to one's ingroups does not necessarily require hostility toward outgroups. Yet the prevailing approach to the study of ethnocentrism, ingroup bias, and prejudice presumes that ingroup love and outgroup hate are reciprocally related. Findings from both cross‐cultural research and laboratory experiments support the alternative view that ingroup identification is independent of negative attitudes toward outgroups and that much ingroup bias and intergroup discrimination is motivated by preferential treatment of ingroup members rather than direct hostility toward outgroup members. Thus to understand the roots of prejudice and discrimination requires first of all a better understanding of the functions that ingroup formation and identification serve for human beings. This article reviews research and theory on the motivations for maintenance of ingroup boundaries and the implications of ingroup boundary protection for intergroup relations, conflict, and conflict prevention.