The Psychology of Prejudice: Ingroup Love or Outgroup Hate?

Journal of Social Issues, Fall, 1999 by Marilynn B. Brewer

Marilynn B. Brewer [*]

Allport (1954) recognized that attachment to one's in groups does not necessarily require hostility toward outgroups. Yet the prevailing approach to the study of ethnocentrism, in group bias, and prejudice presumes that in group love and outgroup hate are reciprocally related. Findings from both cross-cultural research and laboratory experiments support the alternative view that in group identification is independent of negative attitudes toward outgroups and that much in group bias and intergroup discrimination is motivated by preferential treatment of in group 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 in group formation and identification serve for human beings. This article reviews research and theory on the motivations for maintenance of in group boundaries and the implications of ingroup boundary protection for intergroup relations, conflict, and conflict pre vention.

Although we could not perceive our own in-groups excepting as they contrast to out-groups, still the in-groups are psychologically primary.... Hostility toward out-groups helps strengthen our sense of belonging, but it is not required.... The familiar is preferred. What is alien is regarded as somehow inferior, less "good," but there is not necessarily hostility against it.... Thus, while a certain amount of predilection is inevitable in all in-group memberships, the reciprocal attitude toward out-groups may range widely.

Allport, 1954 (p. 42)

Allport's (1954) chapter on "Ingroup Formation" (from which the above quotation is taken) is one of the less cited sections of his classic book The Nature of Prejudice, but it warrants closer attention as a precursor to later research on ingroup bias and intergroup discrimination. In this chapter, Allport postulated that ingroups are "psychologically primary," in the sense that familiarity, attachment, and preference for one's ingroups come prior to development of attitudes toward specific outgroups. Further, Allport recognized that preferential positivity toward ingroups does not necessarily imply negativity or hostility toward outgroups. Indeed, ingroup love can be compatible with a range of attitudes toward corresponding outgroups, including mild positivity, indifference, disdain, or hatred.

Allport's s insights about the nature of ingroup-outgroup attitudes stand in contrast to the inherited wisdom represented in Sumner's (1906) original treatment of the concepts of ethnocentrism, ingroups, and outgroups. Like Allport, Sumner defined ethnocentrism in terms of positive sentiments toward the ingroup: pride, loyalty, and perceived superiority. However, Sumner also believed that these positive sentiments toward the ingroup were directly correlated with contempt, hatred, and hostility toward outgroups. As he put it:

The relation of comradeship and peace in the we-group and that of hostility and war towards others-groups are correlative to each other. The exigencies of war with outsiders are what make peace inside.... Loyalty to the group, sacrifice for it, hatred and contempt for outsiders, brotherhood within, warlikeness without--all grow together, common products of the same situation. (Sumner, 1906, P. 12)

Despite Allport' s critique of this view of ingroup-outgroup relations, most contemporary research on intergroup relations, prejudice, and discrimination appears to accept, at least implicitly, the idea that ingroup favoritism and outgroup negativity are reciprocally related. Common usage and textbook definitions of "prejudice" equate it with negative attitudes toward specific outgroups. Ingroup bias and outgroup prejudice are studied interchangeably, as if discrimination for ingroups and discrimination against outgroups were two sides of the same coin. In this article, I will reassess the validity of this presumption, arguing that ingroup favoritism and outgroup prejudice are separable phenomena and that the origin of identification and attachment to ingroups is independent of intergroup conflict. I will then consider the conditions under which attachment and loyalty to ingroups may become associated with outgroup hate and the implications of this relationship for prejudice reduction and prevention of confl ict.

The idea that attitudes toward ingroups and corresponding outgroups are negatively reciprocally related can be derived from a number of theoretical assumptions. For Sumner (1906), the proposition derived from his structural-functional theory of the origins of groups in the context of conflict over scarce natural resources. In an environment of scarcity, individuals needed to band together in groups to compete successfully with other groups for survival. Hence, the exigencies of warfare gave rise both to institutions that maintain ingroup loyalty and cohesion and combativeness toward outgroups as "common products of the same situation." In the absence of realistic conflict and scarcity, neither strong ingroup attachment nor outgroup hostility would be expected. Similar ideas were represented later in Sherif's functional theory of intergroup behavior (Sherif, 1966; Sherif & Sherif, 1953), in which ingroups are presumed to be formed from positive interdependence in pursuit of common goals whereas intergroup rel ations are characterized by competition and negative interdependence.