Realistic and symbolic threats reliably predict prejudice across studies

Evidence

In total, this procedure resulted in 414 messages being coded for the presence or absence of the same categories as in Study 1. Where applicable, threats were coded as realistic or symbolic to better understand the nature of the threats that concern Stormfront members. These specific threats were of interest because they have been consistently linked to prejudice, both theoretically (e.g., Campbell, 1965; LeVine & Campbell, 1965; Rokeach, Smith, & Evans, 1960; Sherif, 1966; Stephan & Stephan, 2000) and empirically (e.g., Esses, Jackson, & Armstrong, 1998; Sherif et al., 1961; Struch & Schwartz, 1989). — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1046

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: 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; Experimentally measured discrimination against Muslims tracks emotional threat, not expected behavior — Erik Bleich, What Is Islamophobia and How Much Is…, 53; Symbolic threat outperformed realistic threat in predicting mayoral vote choice — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup…, 34 (+2 more)