Allport argued ethnic slurs causally precede exclusion and violence toward groups.

Evidence

However, beyond reflecting social differentiation, antilocutions can also directly reflect prejudice. As Allport (1954/1979) observed, these are “emotionally toned labels” (p. 181), and, as a consequence, the use of antilocutions represents an expression of prejudice. According to Allport, “intense hostility is reflected in the antilocution of name-calling” (p. 49). Moreover, Allport proposed that the use of antilocutions towards a target outgroup precipitates subsequent exclusion of that target outgroup. Allport stated, “It seems a safe generalization to say that an ethnic label arouses a stereotype which in turn leads to rejective behavior” (p. 316). The use of antilocutions towards a target outgroup can also subsequently facilitate violence towards that group. For instance, Allport wrote, “Although most barking [antilocution] does not lead to biting, yet there is never a bite without previous barking” (p. 57). — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1262

Categorization

• XREF: The label-arouses-stereotype-leads-to-rejection sequence and ‘never a bite without previous barking’ bear directly on the vault’s decades-of-action continuum claims about prejudice escalation.
• QUESTION: If antilocution precipitates exclusion and violence, does mere speech-hate equal suppressed violence in Allport’s scheme — worth checking how modern researchers test the barking-to-biting causal path.