Different outgroup types provoke distinct kinds of threat

Evidence

Although prior relations between two groups can create threats, it is also important to keep in mind that different types of social groups may pose different types of threats. For instance, economically competitive outgroups (e.g., for European Americans this might be Asian Americans) may pose realistic threats related to potential losses of resources (see Maddux, Polifroni, & Galinsky, 2006). Outgroups that carry diseases (e.g., people with AIDS), in contrast, may pose realistic threats related to fear of contamination (Berrenberg, Finlay, Stephan, & Stephan, 2002; Faulkner, Schaller, Park, & Duncan, 2004; Navarrete & Fessler, 2006). Other groups, for example those that are perceived as socially deviant (e.g., cults), may more easily elicit symbolic threats (see also Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005 for a related discussion). — Walter G. Stephan, Oscar Ybarra, Kimberly Rios Morrison, Intergroup Threat Theory, 9

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the reader’s reading on threat signaling and group perception in intergroup psychology; also to evolutionary-safety frameworks from One Square Inch and soundscape threat perception. — connects to: Threats can produce targeted or generalized conservative shifts depending on type — Maureen A. Craig and Jennifer A. Richeson, On the Precipice of a…, 91; Intergroup threat effects are recursive and mutually amplifying between groups. — Walter G. Stephan and Oscar Ybarra and Kimberly Rios Morrison, Intergroup Threat Theory, 538

Related

• Each intergroup threat type predicts its own distinct emotional and behavioral response. (similarity 0.85)
• Perceived outgroup threats damage intergroup relations even without hostility (similarity 0.84)
• Groups are judged more threatening than the individuals composing them (similarity 0.84)
• Perceived threat, not just difference, drives stigma toward varied outgroups (similarity 0.84)
• Groups are perceived as more threatening than individuals, so dissolving category boundaries lowers threat. (similarity 0.84)
• Threat amplifies preexisting intergroup responses rather than creating them (similarity 0.84)
• Group threats act through intergroup emotions to reach outgroup attitudes. (similarity 0.84)
• Four threat types explain 36 percent of variance in outgroup attitudes (similarity 0.83)
• Intergroup threat effects are recursive and mutually amplifying between groups. (similarity 0.83)
• Different threat types trigger distinct emotions that shape reactions (similarity 0.83)
• Uncertain, unfamiliar, low-power settings maximize perceived outgroup threat. (similarity 0.83)
• Distinctiveness threats shift outgroup behavior but barely affect outgroup judgments. (similarity 0.83)
• Different intergroup threats trigger distinct emotions and behavioral responses. (similarity 0.83)
• Common external threats can reduce prejudice among ordinary outgroups (similarity 0.83)
• Meta-analysis across studies quantifies how distinct intergroup threat types relate to outgroup attitudes. (similarity 0.83)