Group threats act through intergroup emotions to reach outgroup attitudes.

Evidence

Future research could also examine more integrative models that include multiple sources of threat. 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. This model represents one possible modification to models such as the ITT, however, there are certainly other models that could be tested and compared. Models similar to Neuberg and Cottrell’s (2002) could also be constructed to examine if there are different emotional and behavioral outcomes for the different types of threat. — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup Attitudes, 149

Categorization

• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup…, 149
• XREF: connects to: Mixed-effects meta-analytic models trade precision for fewer false positives — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup…, 79; Cross-group friendship and empathy reduce the threat behind intergroup bias. — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup…, 165; Different threat types trigger distinct emotions that shape reactions — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup…, 66 (+3 more)

Related

• Each intergroup threat type predicts its own distinct emotional and behavioral response. (similarity 0.92)
• Stereotypes and identification precede threats, whose attitude effects run through emotions. (similarity 0.90)
• Different intergroup threats trigger distinct emotions and behavioral responses. (similarity 0.90)
• Group-based identity forces precede realistic and symbolic threat perception (similarity 0.90)
• Distinctiveness threats shift outgroup behavior but barely affect outgroup judgments. (similarity 0.88)
• Different threat types trigger distinct emotions that shape reactions (similarity 0.88)
• Cross-group friendship and empathy reduce the threat behind intergroup bias. (similarity 0.88)
• Four threat types explain 36 percent of variance in outgroup attitudes (similarity 0.88)
• Different intergroup threats evoke different emotions, not a single unified response. (similarity 0.87)
• Intergroup threat and negative outgroup attitudes relate bidirectionally, not one-way. (similarity 0.87)
• Perceived outgroup threats damage intergroup relations even without hostility (similarity 0.87)
• Meta-analysis across studies quantifies how distinct intergroup threat types relate to outgroup attitudes. (similarity 0.87)
• No quantitative synthesis of the intergroup-threat literature existed before this meta-analysis. (similarity 0.86)
• Group esteem threats may combine multiplicatively with realistic threats. (similarity 0.86)
• Intergroup threat arises when one group’s actions challenge another group’s goal attainment or well-being. (similarity 0.86)