Different threat types trigger distinct emotions that shape reactions

Evidence

Whereas other intergroup threat theories focus mainly on the causes of threat, Neuberg and Cottrell’s model elaborates on our reactions to threat. They theorized that for adaptive reasons, different intergroup threats lead to different emotional responses, which then lead to different attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. Although different threats are expected to result in specific emotions, Neuberg and Cottrell suggested that anger will also accompany the majority of intergroup threats. — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup Attitudes, 66

The primary advantage of Neuberg and Cottrell’s (2002) model is that it focuses on a series of behavioral outcomes that differ depending on the type of threat. For example, threats to the ingroup’s economic security (e.g., immigrant groups “stealing” jobs) are predicted to lead to anger and fear, which in turn are expected to promote an aggressive response to maintain economic security. — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup Attitudes, 68

Categorization

• XREF: The differentiated-threat-to-differentiated-emotion structure parallels how the MOC’s threat-perception apparatus might require granular, not blanket, threat measures. — connects to: Perceived outgroup threats damage intergroup relations even without hostility — Walter G. Stephan, Oscar Ybarra, Kimberly Rios Morrison, Intergroup Threat Theory, 38; Individual threat evokes fear while group threat evokes anger — Walter G. Stephan, Oscar Ybarra, Kimberly Rios Morrison, Intergroup Threat Theory, 19; Group-level threats and individual-level threats trigger systematically different responses — Walter G. Stephan, Oscar Ybarra, Kimberly Rios Morrison, Intergroup Threat Theory, 23 (+11 more)
• ADDENDUM: The economic-security-to-anger/aggression pathway is a clean mechanism for the MOC’s threat-perception claims, showing threat alone predicts distinct action tendencies.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup…, 66; Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup…, 68
• recurring: this claim recurs 4 times within its source

Related

• Each intergroup threat type predicts its own distinct emotional and behavioral response. (similarity 0.91)
• Different intergroup threats trigger distinct emotions and behavioral responses. (similarity 0.91)
• Group threats act through intergroup emotions to reach outgroup attitudes. (similarity 0.88)
• Distinctiveness threats shift outgroup behavior but barely affect outgroup judgments. (similarity 0.87)
• Different intergroup threats evoke different emotions, not a single unified response. (similarity 0.86)
• Threat amplifies preexisting intergroup responses rather than creating them (similarity 0.86)
• Evolution tuned humans to feel distinct emotions for distinct intergroup threats (similarity 0.85)
• Different threat types may yield different behavioral responses beyond attitudes. (similarity 0.85)
• Perceived outgroup threats damage intergroup relations even without hostility (similarity 0.85)
• Individual threat evokes fear while group threat evokes anger (similarity 0.84)
• Evolutionary logic explains why group members identify with ingroups and react emotionally to threats (similarity 0.84)
• Perceived ingroup strength converts threats from fear into anger (similarity 0.83)
• Stereotypes and identification precede threats, whose attitude effects run through emotions. (similarity 0.83)
• Group anger drives confrontation while fear drives avoidance (similarity 0.83)
• Different outgroup types provoke distinct kinds of threat (similarity 0.83)

Broader Connections

• Individual threat evokes fear while group threat evokes anger #exemplifies (0.95) — Walter G. Stephan, Oscar Ybarra, Kimberly Rios Morrison, Intergroup Threat Theory, 19
• Group-level threats and individual-level threats trigger systematically different responses #expands (0.90) — Walter G. Stephan, Oscar Ybarra, Kimberly Rios Morrison, Intergroup Threat Theory, 23
• Group anger drives confrontation while fear drives avoidance #exemplifies (0.88) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 339
• Different negative emotions drive distinct types of prejudice and responses #expands (0.85) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 120
• Distinct intergroup emotions have separate causes and behavioral effects #expands (0.85) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2282
• Perceived ingroup strength converts threats from fear into anger #qualifies (0.80) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2270
• Threat amplifies preexisting intergroup responses rather than creating them #complicates (0.80) — Walter G. Stephan, Oscar Ybarra, Kimberly Rios Morrison, Intergroup Threat Theory, 23
• Group-defense reactions can be triggered without any conscious perception of group threat #qualifies (0.75)
• Emotional identification with a group, not mere membership, drives group-based fear and anger #qualifies (0.75) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2267
• Group identity itself can directly trigger emotional reactions #expands (0.70) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2261