Successful minorities viewed as competitors are admired but resented and blamed
Evidence
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 (
#corroborates, 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 (
#expands, via linked claim)
Categorization
- corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim
- XREF: connects to: Envied high-status groups are blamed for their position via perceived control over success. — Susan T. Fiske et al., A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype…, 258; Successful competing minorities, not weak out-groups, become primary scapegoats — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1585; Perceived power, not weakness, makes minorities likeliest to be scapegoated — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 1595 (+5 more)
Broader Connections
- Successful, competent minorities competing with the dominant group are the most likely scapegoats.
#corroborates(0.95) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1585 - Successful competing minorities, not weak out-groups, become primary scapegoats
#expands(0.93) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1585