Realistic threats are more negotiable than symbolic ones because core values resist change
Evidence
Realistic threats would be expected to lead to more pragmatic responses to the outgroup – that is, behaviors designed to cope with the threat. These behaviors might include withdrawal, avoidance, and aggression. Realistic threats are also more likely to lead to negotiation than symbolic threats because most groups strongly resist changing their core values (Azar, 1986). — Walter G. Stephan, Oscar Ybarra, Kimberly Rios Morrison, Intergroup Threat Theory, 482
Categorization
- SEED: The asymmetry — resource conflicts can be bargained; symbolic conflicts cannot because values won’t bend — is a framework for analyzing intractable political and religious conflict, worth its own essay.
Related
- Perceived value differences trigger symbolic threats but not realistic threats (similarity 0.83)
- Symbolic threats favor assimilation while realistic threats favor separatism (similarity 0.83)
- Realistic and symbolic threats are distinct, defined by harm versus meaning-system concerns. (similarity 0.81)
- Symbolic threat targets ingroup values while realistic threat targets power and wellbeing (similarity 0.81)
- Group-level threats and individual-level threats trigger systematically different responses (similarity 0.79)