Evolutionary logic explains why group members identify with ingroups and react emotionally to threats

Evidence

Neuberg and Cottrell (2002) developed a biocultural model of intergroup threat and the resulting discrete emotions. They emphasize the group context in which humans evolved, and hypothesize that people are tuned by evolution to respond emotionally to group-level as well as individuallevel threats. This model distinguishes different types of threats; for example, directed at the ingroup’s resources versus the group’s integrity, which may elicit systematically different emotions. Neuberg and Cottrell (2002, see p. 272) hypothesize a wide range of emotions that could be experienced in group contexts, including anger, fear, disgust, sadness, and pity. Their approach is generally consistent with Intergroup Emotions Theory, while also offering a further evolutionary analyses of functionality that explains why people tend to psychologically identify with ingroups as well as to respond emotionally to group-level threats. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2275

Categorization

Category: Definitional Content

• DEFINE: Introduces Neuberg and Cottrell’s biocultural model of intergroup threat and its taxonomy of discrete emotions.

Related

• Evolution tuned humans to feel distinct emotions for distinct intergroup threats (similarity 0.96)
• Different intergroup threats trigger distinct emotions and behavioral responses. (similarity 0.86)
• Group threats act through intergroup emotions to reach outgroup attitudes. (similarity 0.84)
• Different intergroup threats evoke different emotions, not a single unified response. (similarity 0.84)
• Different threat types trigger distinct emotions that shape reactions (similarity 0.83)
• Each intergroup threat type predicts its own distinct emotional and behavioral response. (similarity 0.83)
• Group threats divide into resource-based and integrity-based categories (similarity 0.81)
• Group identity itself can directly trigger emotional reactions (similarity 0.80)
• Threatened groups deny outgroups distinctively human emotions (similarity 0.79)
• Fear adaptively prompts avoidance while anger mobilizes group response (similarity 0.79)
• Emotions can belong to groups rather than only to individuals (similarity 0.79)
• Symbolic threat targets ingroup values while realistic threat targets power and wellbeing (similarity 0.79)
• Stereotypes and identification precede threats, whose attitude effects run through emotions. (similarity 0.79)
• Distinctiveness threats shift outgroup behavior but barely affect outgroup judgments. (similarity 0.78)