Stable, stereotyped ethnic groups become the preferred all-purpose scapegoats.

Evidence

Thus, Allport’s critique that it “is not true that a defenseless minority is always chosen” (p. 351) is turned into a much stronger claim in the model presented here – it is precisely the perceived power of a group (not its perceived weakness) that makes it likely to be scapegoated. Earlier views dismissed perceptions of the scapegoat’s power and malevolence as mere projections (of perpetrators’ own megalomania and murderous intentions), but for the genocides listed above, envious stereotypes can be traced to prior historical circumstances (e.g., a middleman role) that conditioned the structural relations between groups. Envious stereotypes are here viewed more as a cause (increasing the likelihood that a group will be blamed for misfortunes) than a consequence of scapegoating. When a history of envious prejudice collides with a precipitous decline in a society’s life conditions, successful minorities are at grave risk. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 1595 (#complicates, via linked claim)

The stereotype content model (see Fiske, ch. 3 this volume) suggests which groups are likely to be scapegoated. This model states that the structural relations between groups – their relative status and type of interdependence (competitive or cooperative) – determine the content of group stereotypes. High status or powerful (e.g., socioeconomically successful) minorities that are viewed as competing with the dominant group are subjected to envious prejudice: they are admired for their success, but also resented for it; stereotyped as highly competent, but as having hostile motives. Because envied minorities are viewed as having the power and intent to harm, they are at risk of being blamed for causing group-level frustrations. Additionally, a sense of relative deprivation (Runciman, 1966) can play into the scapegoating of successful minorities, who may be perceived as being less affected by or even as benefiting from the suffering endured by the ingroup, inflaming resentment and lending plausibility to the belief that the scapegoated group intentionally brought about the ingroup’s misfortunes. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1585 (#complicates, via linked claim)

The stereotype content model (see Fiske, ch. 3 this volume) suggests which groups are likely to be scapegoated. This model states that the structural relations between groups – their relative status and type of interdependence (competitive or cooperative) – determine the content of group stereotypes. High status or powerful (e.g., socioeconomically successful) minorities that are viewed as competing with the dominant group are subjected to envious prejudice: they are admired for their success, but also resented for it; stereotyped as highly competent, but as having hostile motives. Because envied minorities are viewed as having the power and intent to harm, they are at risk of being blamed for causing group-level frustrations. … In contrast, low-status groups – whether paternalized (see Jackman, ch. 6 this volume; Rudman, ch. 7 this volume) or treated with contempt – are stereotyped as incompetent, suggesting less ability and power to cause widespread misfortunes, making them less likely to be chosen as scapegoats. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1585 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Successful competing minorities, not weak out-groups, become primary scapegoats — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1585; Scapegoat targets are pre-chosen by envious stereotyping of powerful outgroups — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1593; Successful, competent minorities competing with the dominant group are the most likely scapegoats. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1585 (+3 more)

Broader Connections

• Perceived power, not weakness, makes minorities likeliest to be scapegoated #complicates (0.85) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 1595
• Successful competing minorities, not weak out-groups, become primary scapegoats #complicates (0.82) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1585
• Successful, competent minorities competing with the dominant group are the most likely scapegoats. #complicates (0.82) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1585