Meta-analysis across studies quantifies how distinct intergroup threat types relate to outgroup attitudes.

Evidence

Overall, our qualitative review reveals that intergroup threats affect outgroup attitudes. Although early research on intergroup threat was somewhat disparate and different conceptions of threat were seen as competitive, recently researchers have begun integrating the different types of threat into more comprehensive conceptual models (Neuberg & Cottrell, 2002; W. G. Stephan & Stephan, 1996). The purpose of the second part of our review is to examine the relationships between the different types of intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes across the literature by conducting a quantitative meta-analysis. Such an analysis provides a measure of the magnitude of effect sizes across a large number of studies and we expect that the different types of threat will show significant and unique relationships with outgroup attitudes. — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup Attitudes, 72

Categorization

• ADDENDUM: Supports ‘On Sacrifice’ infrastructure? No — but directly serves the reading purpose as the methodological backbone for the MOC’s threat-perception claims.
• XREF: connects to: Four threat types explain 36 percent of variance in outgroup attitudes — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup…, 105; Negative stereotypes both accompany intergroup threats and independently predict outgroup attitudes — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup…, 127; Different intergroup threats trigger distinct emotions and behavioral responses. — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup…, 66 (+6 more)

Broader Connections

• Four threat types explain 36 percent of variance in outgroup attitudes #expands (0.92) — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup Attitudes, 105
• Group status moderates threat-attitude relationships #qualifies (0.88) — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup Attitudes, 152
• Threat effects on attitudes are stronger for low-status than high-status outgroups #qualifies (0.85) — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup Attitudes, 129
• Different intergroup threats trigger distinct emotions and behavioral responses. #expands (0.82) — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup Attitudes, 66
• Intergroup threat and negative outgroup attitudes relate bidirectionally, not one-way. #complicates (0.80) — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup Attitudes, 136
• Different outgroup types provoke distinct kinds of threat #qualifies (0.79) — Walter G. Stephan, Oscar Ybarra, Kimberly Rios Morrison, Intergroup Threat Theory, 9
• Negative stereotypes both accompany intergroup threats and independently predict outgroup attitudes #expands (0.78) — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup Attitudes, 127
• Outgroup prevalence reduces distrust-based prejudice even as it raises fear-based prejudice #qualifies (0.77)
• Intergroup threat susceptibility is predictable from personality and background traits #qualifies (0.75) — Walter G. Stephan, Oscar Ybarra, Kimberly Rios Morrison, Intergroup Threat Theory, 330