Group threats divide into resource-based and integrity-based categories

Evidence

Neuberg and Cottrell (2002) divided intergroup threats into two broad categories: threats to group-level resources and threats to group integrity. The resource threats include threats toward group safety, group possessions, and economic security. These threats parallel realistic threats. The integrity threats include threats to group values, morality, competence, and reciprocity relations. These threats share commonality with symbolic and social identity threats. — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup Attitudes, 67

Categorization

• DEFINE: Useful framework mapping threat categories (resources vs. integrity) onto parallel threat-literalisms like realistic and symbolic.
• XREF: connects to: Different threat types trigger distinct emotions that shape reactions — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup…, 66; Usurpation of one’s own resources is more aversive than lacking resources initially — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup…, 129; Group-based identity forces precede realistic and symbolic threat perception — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup…, 149 (+3 more)

Related

• Group-based identity forces precede realistic and symbolic threat perception (similarity 0.85)
• Each intergroup threat type predicts its own distinct emotional and behavioral response. (similarity 0.84)
• Usurpation of one’s own resources is more aversive than lacking resources initially (similarity 0.83)
• Realistic and symbolic threats are distinct, defined by harm versus meaning-system concerns. (similarity 0.83)
• Intergroup threat arises when one group’s actions challenge another group’s goal attainment or well-being. (similarity 0.82)
• Different outgroup types provoke distinct kinds of threat (similarity 0.82)
• Group threats act through intergroup emotions to reach outgroup attitudes. (similarity 0.82)
• Symbolic threat targets ingroup values while realistic threat targets power and wellbeing (similarity 0.82)
• Groups are judged more threatening than the individuals composing them (similarity 0.82)
• Different intergroup threats evoke different emotions, not a single unified response. (similarity 0.81)
• Meta-analysis across studies quantifies how distinct intergroup threat types relate to outgroup attitudes. (similarity 0.81)
• Group-level and individual-level threats are experienced independently by the same person. (similarity 0.81)
• Symbolic threat and material conflict feed each other to sustain group boundaries (similarity 0.81)
• Threat amplifies preexisting intergroup responses rather than creating them (similarity 0.81)
• Changing how people categorize others can reduce intergroup threat. (similarity 0.81)