Distinctiveness threats shift outgroup behavior but barely affect outgroup judgments.

Evidence

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. On the other hand, threats to the image of the ingroup’s competence (e.g., perception of Asians being intellectually superior to Whites) are expected to lead to envy and anger followed by behaviors that diminishes the outgroup’s accomplishments or bolsters the ingroup’s abilities. — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup Attitudes, 68 (#qualifies-own, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Each intergroup threat type predicts its own distinct emotional and behavioral response. — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup…, 68

Related

• Each intergroup threat type predicts its own distinct emotional and behavioral response. (similarity 0.93)
• Group threats act through intergroup emotions to reach outgroup attitudes. (similarity 0.88)
• Different threat types trigger distinct emotions that shape reactions (similarity 0.87)
• Distinctiveness threat shifts behavior more than judgment, though its effect size is tiny. (similarity 0.87)
• Different intergroup threats trigger distinct emotions and behavioral responses. (similarity 0.86)
• Different threat types may yield different behavioral responses beyond attitudes. (similarity 0.83)
• Intergroup threat and negative outgroup attitudes relate bidirectionally, not one-way. (similarity 0.83)
• Equal-status group threat effects remain unexplored (similarity 0.83)
• Different outgroup types provoke distinct kinds of threat (similarity 0.83)
• Distinctiveness threat may precede and amplify symbolic and realistic threats (similarity 0.83)
• Perceived outgroup threats damage intergroup relations even without hostility (similarity 0.83)
• Different intergroup threats evoke different emotions, not a single unified response. (similarity 0.83)
• Group-based identity forces precede realistic and symbolic threat perception (similarity 0.82)
• Meta-analysis across studies quantifies how distinct intergroup threat types relate to outgroup attitudes. (similarity 0.82)
• Four threat types explain 36 percent of variance in outgroup attitudes (similarity 0.82)