Perceived group power and competition, not negative traits, determine stereotyping and scapegoating

Evidence

Structural relations between groups – relative status and interdependence (competitive or cooperative) – determines the content of group stereotypes. Powerful or successful minorities are said to be subject to envious prejudice (these groups are stereotyped as highly competent, said to harbor hostile motives and have more ability and power). In this category one would include ‘respected-but-disliked’ groups such as Asians or Asian-Americans, or Jews, which are the targets of envious prejudice and ambivalent stereotyping. Low-status groups are stereotyped as incompetent (less ability and power) (see, for instance, pitying or paternalistic stereotyping/prejudice towards older people and traditional women). According to Glick ( 2005 ), it is ‘precisely the perceived power of a group … that makes it likely to be scapegoated’ (p. 254). Glick also argues that the ‘choice of scapegoat’ is primarily infl uenced by ‘prior envious stereotyping … of groups that are viewed as having the power and intent to cause widespread harm’ (ibid., p. 253). — Cristian Tileagă, The Nature of Prejudice, 196

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the Milgrom and institution readings: group reputation and perceived power shaping social/economc outcomes parallels how trust and status functioned in the Champagne fairs and diamond bourse. — connects to: Small derogatory perceived differences suffice to justify group advantage — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology: Key Readings, 3418; Perceived status drives competence judgments while perceived competition strips warmth from envied outgroups — Susan T. Fiske et al., A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype…, 42
• ADDENDUM: The scapegoating-what-is-powerful mechanic parallels ‘On Sacrifice’ — both concern how groups legitimize harm against a marked target.
• SHARE: Worth sharing with anyone studying status hierarchies: the counterintuitive finding that respected-but-disliked groups attract the most scapegoating.

Related

• Groups are scapegoated for perceived power, not weakness (similarity 0.85)
• Envied successful minorities are prime scapegoat targets, not the weakest groups. (similarity 0.84)
• Group status and competition determine which stereotype each outgroup receives (similarity 0.83)
• Successful competing minorities, not weak out-groups, become primary scapegoats (similarity 0.83)
• Successful, competent minorities competing with the dominant group are the most likely scapegoats. (similarity 0.83)
• Only low-status groups evoke pure low-low derogation, not envied high-status groups. (similarity 0.83)
• Envied high-status groups are blamed for their position via perceived control over success. (similarity 0.82)
• Stereotypes do not sour-grape away envied outgroup competence but justify their high status. (similarity 0.82)
• Perceived power, not weakness, makes minorities likeliest to be scapegoated (similarity 0.82)
• Perceived competence in envied outgroups fuels resentment-driven prejudice rather than reducing it. (similarity 0.81)
• Perceived status drives competence judgments while perceived competition strips warmth from envied outgroups (similarity 0.81)
• Perceived high status and power directly produce perceived outgroup competence. (similarity 0.80)
• Scapegoats are chosen for perceived power, not vulnerability. (similarity 0.79)
• Envied outgroups provoke prejudice precisely because competence implies control over competitive threat. (similarity 0.79)
• High-status groups could plausibly be stereotyped as undeserving rather than competent (similarity 0.78)