Group-based identity forces precede realistic and symbolic threat perception

Evidence

In the proposed model presented in Figure 1, stereotypes, ingroup identification, and distinctiveness threats are antecedents to realistic, symbolic, and group esteem threats. Furthermore, the relations between these threats with outgroup attitudes and intergroup behaviors are mediated by intergroup emotions. — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup Attitudes, 149

Categorization

• XREF: This proposed causal ordering — distinctiveness threat feeding realistic/symbolic threat which is mediated by intergroup emotion — is directly relevant to the MOC thread asking whether the anxiety of boundary-blurring correlates with how much an identity depends on its exclusions. — 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
• recurring: this claim recurs 2 times within its source

Related

• Group threats act through intergroup emotions to reach outgroup attitudes. (similarity 0.90)
• Stereotypes and identification precede threats, whose attitude effects run through emotions. (similarity 0.89)
• Distinctiveness threat may precede and amplify symbolic and realistic threats (similarity 0.88)
• Threats can increase ingroup identification, not merely follow from it (similarity 0.86)
• Recategorizing outgroup members as ingroup members diminishes perceived threat. (similarity 0.86)
• Symbolic threat targets ingroup values while realistic threat targets power and wellbeing (similarity 0.85)
• Threat from similar outgroups drives more bias than threat from dissimilar ones. (similarity 0.85)
• Group esteem threats may combine multiplicatively with realistic threats. (similarity 0.85)
• Group threats divide into resource-based and integrity-based categories (similarity 0.85)
• Different intergroup threats trigger distinct emotions and behavioral responses. (similarity 0.84)
• Group esteem threat research omits stereotype and identification measures (similarity 0.84)
• Groups very similar to the ingroup provoke more intergroup bias than dissimilar ones do. (similarity 0.84)
• Negative stereotypes both accompany intergroup threats and independently predict outgroup attitudes (similarity 0.84)
• Cross-group friendship and empathy reduce the threat behind intergroup bias. (similarity 0.84)
• Similarity of an outgroup raises bias only among highly identified ingroup members. (similarity 0.84)