Group-defense reactions can be triggered without any conscious perception of group threat

Evidence

One common consequence shared by all of these cognitive biases is that they make violence against the outgroup more likely and easier to justify. — Walter G. Stephan, Oscar Ybarra, Kimberly Rios Morrison, Intergroup Threat Theory, 380 (#expands, via linked claim)

Group threats may be more likely than individual threats to be related to increases in group cohesion, groupthink, expressions of anger and aggression, reductions in collective guilt (if there was any to begin with), and collective responses to the other group such as strikes, boycotts, and warfare. Individual threats may be more likely than group threats to be related to cognitive biases, fear, helplessness, avoidance, appeasement, ingratiation, decrements in performance, disaffiliation with the ingroup, and identification with the aggressor. For example, in a recent study of Israeli Jews’ attitudes toward Israeli/Palestinian relations, Maoz and McCauley (2005) found that zero-sum perceptions of realistic group threat (i.e., beliefs that more power for the Palestinians signified less power for the Israelis) were associated with negative attitudes toward compromise with the Palestinians, but perceptions of realistic individual threat (i.e., fears that the Palestinians would inflict personal harm on participants and their families) were not. — Walter G. Stephan, Oscar Ybarra, Kimberly Rios Morrison, Intergroup Threat Theory, 23 (#expands, via linked claim)

In some instances, the threat that individuals experience in these ambiguous situations has been associated with a corresponding physiological pattern. For instance, Blascovich, Mendes, Hunter, Lickel, and Kowai-Bell (2001) found that participants who had little prior intergroup contact exhibited more physiological markers of threat in intergroup interactions compared to participants who had more intergroup contact. In a similar vein, Phelps and colleagues (2000) have shown that variability in amygdala activation in White subjects was associated with implicit negative attitudes in reaction to seeing a Black face compared to a White face. Importantly, the region that was activated, the left-superior amygdala, is also known to become activated when viewing faces with fearful expressions, suggesting that negative attitudes toward the out-group are associated with a physiological threat response when encountering members of that out-group (Phelps et al., 2000). — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 277 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Conscious social identity can change while influences stay unconscious — Brandon Randolph-Seng, Darcy A. Reich, and Kenneth G. DeMarree, On the Nonconscious Antecedents of…, 37; Control motivation but not implicit death cognition drives threat-based ingroup defense. — Dmitrij Agroskin and Eva Jonas, Controlling death by defending…, 143; Death-thought accessibility does not mediate mortality salience effects on ingroup defense. — Dmitrij Agroskin and Eva Jonas, Controlling death by defending…, 160 (+6 more)

Related

• Threat-driven cognitive biases facilitate and justify intergroup violence (similarity 0.88)
• Control motivation but not implicit death cognition drives threat-based ingroup defense. (similarity 0.87)
• Implicit out-group bias triggers measurable physiological threat responses (similarity 0.85)
• Perceived threat amplifies both in-group favoritism and out-group hostility (similarity 0.83)
• Threat amplifies attribution biases that exonerate ingroups and damn outgroups (similarity 0.82)
• Perceived ingroup strength converts threats from fear into anger (similarity 0.82)
• Group-level threats and individual-level threats trigger systematically different responses (similarity 0.82)
• Fear adaptively prompts avoidance while anger mobilizes group response (similarity 0.82)
• Different threat types trigger distinct emotions that shape reactions (similarity 0.82)
• Either ingroup or outgroup salience alone may suffice to increase social identification. (similarity 0.81)
• Group members’ responses to threats to group image depend on how strongly they identify (similarity 0.81)
• Threat amplifies preexisting intergroup responses rather than creating them (similarity 0.81)
• Individual threat evokes fear while group threat evokes anger (similarity 0.81)
• Perceived outgroup threats damage intergroup relations even without hostility (similarity 0.81)
• Group anger drives confrontation while fear drives avoidance (similarity 0.81)

Broader Connections

• Threat-driven cognitive biases facilitate and justify intergroup violence #expands (0.80) — Walter G. Stephan, Oscar Ybarra, Kimberly Rios Morrison, Intergroup Threat Theory, 380
• Group-level threats and individual-level threats trigger systematically different responses #expands (0.75) — Walter G. Stephan, Oscar Ybarra, Kimberly Rios Morrison, Intergroup Threat Theory, 23
• Implicit out-group bias triggers measurable physiological threat responses #complicates (0.75) — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 277
• Group members’ responses to threats to group image depend on how strongly they identify #qualifies (0.75) — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 1052