Scapegoating targets resented minorities perceived as powerful, not vulnerable ones.

Evidence

Thus parts A–E of the current model answer many of Allport’s critiques of earlier scapegoat theory (corresponding to Allport’s numbered critiques): (1) Why does frustration not always lead to intergroup aggression? Because only widely shared (not individual) frustrations are likely to lead to scapegoating. (2) Why is aggression ever “displaced”? Aggression may be better characterized as misplaced as a result of prior cultural stereotypes that characterize an outgroup as having the ability and intent to cause harm to the ingroup. (3) Why would human nature include an inherently maladaptive displacement tendency? It does not; a generally adaptive attribution process, due to limited cognitive capacity, imperfect knowledge, and motivational and cultural biases, results in misplaced blame. (4) Which groups are likely to be scapegoated? Successful but resented minorities. (5) Are groups always chosen for their perceived vulnerability? No, precisely the opposite – groups are scapegoated because they are (often falsely) perceived to be powerful and malevolent. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1599

Categorization

• XREF: Inverts the classic scapegoat-vulnerability claim threading through the vault’s prejudice-psychology holdings; connects to Allport’s own original scapegoat chapter being reassessed.
• QUESTION: This reversal (strong-but-resented targets over vulnerable ones) is a candidate claim worth stress-testing against later chapters on victim-blaming and minority ‘power’ stereotypes.