Group-level threats and individual-level threats trigger systematically different responses

Evidence

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

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to earlier chapters distinguishing realistic vs. symbolic threat; also to research on zero-sum reasoning in conflict contexts. — connects to: Group-status threat is the proposed causal mediator of shift-induced conservatism. — Maureen A. Craig and Jennifer A. Richeson, On the Precipice of a…, 22; Threats can produce targeted or generalized conservative shifts depending on type — Maureen A. Craig and Jennifer A. Richeson, On the Precipice of a…, 91; Realistic and symbolic threats are distinct, defined by harm versus meaning-system concerns. — Walter G. Stephan and Oscar Ybarra and Kimberly Rios Morrison, Intergroup Threat Theory, 32 (+6 more)

Related

• Group-defense reactions can be triggered without any conscious perception of group threat (similarity 0.82)
• Realistic and symbolic threats are distinct, defined by harm versus meaning-system concerns. (similarity 0.81)
• Threats can produce targeted or generalized conservative shifts depending on type (similarity 0.80)
• Group-level and individual-level threats are experienced independently by the same person. (similarity 0.80)
• Threat amplifies preexisting intergroup responses rather than creating them (similarity 0.80)
• Individual threat evokes fear while group threat evokes anger (similarity 0.79)
• Different threat types trigger distinct emotions that shape reactions (similarity 0.79)
• Groups are judged more threatening than the individuals composing them (similarity 0.79)
• Realistic threats are more negotiable than symbolic ones because core values resist change (similarity 0.79)
• Different threat types may yield different behavioral responses beyond attitudes. (similarity 0.79)
• Groups are perceived as more threatening than individuals, so dissolving category boundaries lowers threat. (similarity 0.78)
• Different intergroup threats trigger distinct emotions and behavioral responses. (similarity 0.78)
• Perceived ingroup strength converts threats from fear into anger (similarity 0.78)
• Perceived group threat tracks real-world politics more than psychological insecurity (similarity 0.78)
• Perceived value differences trigger symbolic threats but not realistic threats (similarity 0.78)