Anticipatory loss of group standing drives outgroup discrimination

Evidence

For example, social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) predicts that people are motivated to maintain a positive social identity, and do so by comparing the status of groups with which they identify to that of other groups. When they feel that their own group’s higher status relative to other groups is unstable or slipping, they experience group status threat, that is, worry that their own group’s status, influence, and position in the hierarchy is under threat. Group status threat, in turn, predicts increased discrimination against outgroups (Branscombe & Wann, 1994). — Brenda Major and Alison Blodorn and Gregory Major Blascovich, The threat of increasing diversity, 14

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines the focal construct — group status threat as worry that the ingroup’s hierarchical position is slipping — which is core to the reader’s threatened-privilege research.
• QUESTION: The rubric distinguishes status threat felt because status is ‘unstable or slipping.’ Worth checking whether the mechanism requires threat to be perceived as already underway, versus merely anticipated — directly relevant to ‘anticipatory status threat’ framing.
• XREF: connects to: Mere categorization into a group triggers differentiation and discrimination; Groups respond to perceived competition through outgroup derogation, ingroup enhancement, and status-quo-preserving discrimination — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 1509; Mere division into groups triggers intergroup discrimination even without conflict or self-interest (+3 more)

Related

• Threat dynamics among status-equal groups remain unexamined. (similarity 0.85)
• Mere minimal group categorization alone triggers discrimination against outgroups (similarity 0.85)
• Threat from similar outgroups drives more bias than threat from dissimilar ones. (similarity 0.84)
• Groups are perceived as more threatening than individuals, so dissolving category boundaries lowers threat. (similarity 0.84)
• Groups respond to perceived competition through outgroup derogation, ingroup enhancement, and status-quo-preserving discrimination (similarity 0.83)
• Even explicitly random group assignment produces discrimination stronger than interpersonal similarity (similarity 0.83)
• Recategorizing outgroup members as ingroup members diminishes perceived threat. (similarity 0.82)
• Out-group derogation can arise from categorization alone, without any competition or threat (similarity 0.82)
• Equal-status group threat effects remain unexplored (similarity 0.82)
• Threat effects on attitudes are stronger for low-status than high-status outgroups (similarity 0.82)
• Perceived illegitimacy of advantage triggers dominant-group hostility (similarity 0.82)
• Ingroup favoritism operates independently of outgroup hatred (similarity 0.82)
• Equality gains by subordinate groups trigger perceived threat in dominant groups (similarity 0.82)
• Recategorization into a common identity can backfire and increase subgroup bias via distinctiveness loss. (similarity 0.82)
• Mere arbitrary classification into categories produces in-group bias (similarity 0.82)

Broader Connections

• Mere minimal group categorization alone triggers discrimination against outgroups #expands (0.82) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 430
• Groups respond to perceived competition through outgroup derogation, ingroup enhancement, and status-quo-preserving discrimination #expands (0.80) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 1509
• Mere division into groups triggers intergroup discrimination even without conflict or self-interest #expands (0.80)
• Mere categorization into a group triggers differentiation and discrimination #expands (0.78)
• Even arbitrary group divisions trigger in-group bias and out-group derogation that harm cooperation #expands (0.78)
• Even explicitly random group assignment produces discrimination stronger than interpersonal similarity #expands (0.76) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2707