Distinctiveness threat may precede and amplify symbolic and realistic threats

Evidence

It is unclear, however, exactly how distinctiveness threat would fit with the other threat types. Possibly, it operates at the same level as realistic and symbolic threat, however, it could potentially act as an antecedent to those threats. For example, when the ingroup’s distinctiveness is threatened by another group it could lead to efforts to emphasize group differentiation in a number of ways, including value differences or differences in material resources. Thus, distinctiveness threat could initiate a number of reactions, some of which may increase symbolic or realistic threat. — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup Attitudes, 140

Categorization

• XREF: Central to the reader’s MOC thread: distinctiveness threat acting causally upstream of other threats is the closest empirical analogue to boundary-blurring ‘internal enemy’ prompting identity assertion (value/material differentiation). — connects to: Negative stereotypes both accompany intergroup threats and independently predict outgroup attitudes — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup…, 127; Ingroup identification strength moderates whether group-level or individual-level threats drive attitudes. — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup…, 151
• QUESTION: If distinctiveness threat initiates value-and-resource differentiation, is the resulting ‘enemy’ construction a downstream rationalization of an already-asserted identity — relevant to whether the membrane is constitutive or merely a resource?

Related

• Group-based identity forces precede realistic and symbolic threat perception (similarity 0.88)
• Groups very similar to the ingroup provoke more intergroup bias than dissimilar ones do. (similarity 0.86)
• Threat from similar outgroups drives more bias than threat from dissimilar ones. (similarity 0.85)
• Perceived value differences trigger symbolic threats but not realistic threats (similarity 0.84)
• Distinctiveness threats shift outgroup behavior but barely affect outgroup judgments. (similarity 0.83)
• Recategorizing outgroup members as ingroup members diminishes perceived threat. (similarity 0.83)
• Distinctiveness threat shifts behavior more than judgment, though its effect size is tiny. (similarity 0.83)
• Threat to distinctiveness drives more complex identity structures, but evidence is sparse (similarity 0.83)
• Similarity of an outgroup raises bias only among highly identified ingroup members. (similarity 0.82)
• Threats can increase ingroup identification, not merely follow from it (similarity 0.82)
• Realistic and symbolic threats are distinct, defined by harm versus meaning-system concerns. (similarity 0.81)
• Stereotypes and identification precede threats, whose attitude effects run through emotions. (similarity 0.81)
• Perceived threat to group distinctiveness reduces social identity complexity (similarity 0.81)
• Symbolic threat targets ingroup values while realistic threat targets power and wellbeing (similarity 0.81)
• Group threats act through intergroup emotions to reach outgroup attitudes. (similarity 0.80)