Symbolic threat targets ingroup values while realistic threat targets power and wellbeing

Evidence

Intergroup anxiety is thought to stem from the anticipation of negative consequences during contact, such as embarrassment, rejection, discrimination, or misunderstanding, and may therefore be exacerbated by minimal prior contact with the outgroup and large status or numerical differences between the ingroup and the outgroup (Stephan & Stephan, 1985). Anxiety may also result from intergroup threat, either symbolic or realistic, a distinction that is prominent in Stephan and Stephan’s (2000) Integrated Threat Model. Symbolic threat is conceptualized as a threat to the value system, belief system, or worldview of the ingroup, whereas realistic threat is a threat to the political and economic power, or physical well-being, of the ingroup. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 1832

Categorization

• DEFINE: Cleanly defines the symbolic-vs-realistic threat distinction from the Integrated Threat Model.
• XREF: This symbolic-versus-realistic threat split parallels perceived group threat theory (Blalock) and links to moral panic literature about threatened values. — 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; 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; Group esteem threats may combine multiplicatively with realistic threats. — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup…, 140 (+1 more)