Each intergroup threat type predicts its own distinct emotional and behavioral response.

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

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Group threats divide into resource-based and integrity-based categories — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup…, 67; Group threats act through intergroup emotions to reach outgroup attitudes. — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup…, 149; Distinctiveness threats shift outgroup behavior but barely affect outgroup judgments.

Related

• Distinctiveness threats shift outgroup behavior but barely affect outgroup judgments. (similarity 0.93)
• Group threats act through intergroup emotions to reach outgroup attitudes. (similarity 0.92)
• Different threat types trigger distinct emotions that shape reactions (similarity 0.91)
• Different intergroup threats trigger distinct emotions and behavioral responses. (similarity 0.91)
• Different intergroup threats evoke different emotions, not a single unified response. (similarity 0.89)
• Different threat types may yield different behavioral responses beyond attitudes. (similarity 0.87)
• Stereotypes and identification precede threats, whose attitude effects run through emotions. (similarity 0.86)
• Evolution tuned humans to feel distinct emotions for distinct intergroup threats (similarity 0.85)
• Different outgroup types provoke distinct kinds of threat (similarity 0.85)
• Meta-analysis across studies quantifies how distinct intergroup threat types relate to outgroup attitudes. (similarity 0.85)
• Threat amplifies preexisting intergroup responses rather than creating them (similarity 0.85)
• Intergroup threat and negative outgroup attitudes relate bidirectionally, not one-way. (similarity 0.85)
• Evolutionary logic explains why group members identify with ingroups and react emotionally to threats (similarity 0.85)
• Group threats divide into resource-based and integrity-based categories (similarity 0.84)
• Perceived outgroup threats damage intergroup relations even without hostility (similarity 0.84)