External threat makes groups punish their own deviants harder

Evidence

Intergroup threats may also have consequences for group dynamics. For instance, threats from outgroups may lead to more negative reactions to defectors or deviants within the ingroup, as well as a greater policing of intergroup boundaries (e.g., defining criteria for membership in the group, drawing sharper distinctions between the ingroup and outgroup, and rejecting prospective members who do not fully meet the membership criteria). Indeed, threats to the ingroup’s status (Marques, Abrams, & Serodio, 2001) and core values (Eidelman, Silvia, & Biernat, 2006) have both been found to trigger derogation of deviant ingroup members. — Walter G. Stephan, Oscar Ybarra, Kimberly Rios Morrison, Intergroup Threat Theory, 21

Categorization

• XREF: Builds on the ‘black sheep effect’ and connects to postwar purges and how threatened movements expel heretics. — connects to: Groups internalize external threat as an oath to preserve cohesion after danger recedes — Fredric Jameson, Marxism and Form, 509; Threat-hardened nationalist forces punished accommodation of the out-group. — Neil DeVotta, Sinhalese Buddhist Nationalist…, 128; Groups invoke external enemies to justify the suppression of internal disunity — Manuel Borutta and Jan C. Jansen, Vertriebene and Pieds-Noirs in Postwar…, 649 (+1 more)

Related

• Groups invoke external enemies to justify the suppression of internal disunity (similarity 0.81)
• Common external threats can reduce prejudice among ordinary outgroups (similarity 0.81)
• Groups punish their own deviant members more harshly to protect group reputation. (similarity 0.81)
• Threat can redirect hostility toward unrelated weaker outgroups (similarity 0.80)
• Perceived threat amplifies both in-group favoritism and out-group hostility (similarity 0.80)
• Intergroup threat effects are recursive and mutually amplifying between groups. (similarity 0.80)
• Threat amplifies attribution biases that exonerate ingroups and damn outgroups (similarity 0.79)
• Removing a named external threat intensifies rather than softens dominant-group nationalism. (similarity 0.79)
• Different outgroup types provoke distinct kinds of threat (similarity 0.79)
• Groups are perceived as more threatening than individuals, so dissolving category boundaries lowers threat. (similarity 0.78)
• Groups internalize external threat as an oath to preserve cohesion after danger recedes (similarity 0.78)
• Low cohesion or threat makes groups rigid against minority dissent (similarity 0.78)
• External danger and social isolation drive members toward group conformity. (similarity 0.78)