Envied high-status groups are blamed for their position via perceived control over success.

Evidence

High-status, competitive groups that are seen as competent but not warm should elicit envy and jealousy (along with a grudging admiration for their perceived skills), a response we call envious prejudice. High status represents a positive outcome, and competence implies control over it, so these groups are seen as responsible for their position. The lack of warmth imputed to these groups corresponds to perceived competition and hostile intent. When people’s own controllable, positive outcomes deprive others, those others feel envy. That is, when one person lacks another’s superior outcome but wishes the other lacked it, envy results (Parrott & Smith, 1993). Upward contrastive (i.e., competitive) social comparisons elicit envy and resentment along with subjective feelings of injustice and inferiority (R. — Susan T. Fiske et al., A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype…, 258

Categorization

• XREF: This is the exact mechanism bridging to the powerful-minority scapegoating literature: perceived control makes an envied outgroup culpable, hence a legitimate target. — connects to: Perceived competence in envied outgroups fuels resentment-driven prejudice rather than reducing it. — Susan T. Fiske et al., A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype…, 302; Perceived status drives competence judgments while perceived competition strips warmth from envied outgroups — Susan T. Fiske et al., A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype…, 42; Successful minorities viewed as competitors are admired but resented and blamed (+3 more)
• QUESTION: The passage notes anger ‘could also be directed downward, toward groups parasitical on one’s own position’ — for the scapegoating bridge, how does downward anger versus upward envy assign blame differently when the envied outgroup is seen as controlling its outcomes?

Related

• Envied outgroups provoke prejudice precisely because competence implies control over competitive threat. (similarity 0.90)
• Envied successful minorities are prime scapegoat targets, not the weakest groups. (similarity 0.87)
• Perceived status drives competence judgments while perceived competition strips warmth from envied outgroups (similarity 0.84)
• Only low-status groups evoke pure low-low derogation, not envied high-status groups. (similarity 0.84)
• Successful, competent minorities competing with the dominant group are the most likely scapegoats. (similarity 0.84)
• Successful competing minorities, not weak out-groups, become primary scapegoats (similarity 0.83)
• Stereotypes do not sour-grape away envied outgroup competence but justify their high status. (similarity 0.82)
• Perceived group power and competition, not negative traits, determine stereotyping and scapegoating (similarity 0.82)
• Perceived competence in envied outgroups fuels resentment-driven prejudice rather than reducing it. (similarity 0.82)
• High-status groups could plausibly be stereotyped as undeserving rather than competent (similarity 0.81)
• Envied out-groups draw low-warmth stereotypes that rationalize their exclusion (similarity 0.80)
• Envy inherently acknowledges the envied group’s good qualities as a source of distress. (similarity 0.80)
• Groups are scapegoated for perceived power, not weakness (similarity 0.79)
• One’s own social position predicts which prejudice type one will exhibit. (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Successful, competent minorities competing with the dominant group are the most likely scapegoats. #corroborates (0.90) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1585
• Successful minorities viewed as competitors are admired but resented and blamed #corroborates (0.85)
• Groups are scapegoated for perceived power, not weakness #corroborates (0.85) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 1609
• People accept responsibility for their status only when they believe effort shapes outcomes #expands (0.75) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2155