Symbolic threats drive dehumanization and the most vicious cruelty

Evidence

At a more general level, it is not difficult to envision situations in which a threat from an outgroup throws the ingroup into disarray, greatly reducing its capacity to function effectively. Overall, the nature of the cognitive, emotional and behavioral responses to threat may depend on whether the perceived threats are symbolic or realistic in nature. Symbolic threats would seem to be more likely than realistic threats to lead to dehumanization, delegitimation, moral exclusion of the outgroup, and reduced empathy for the outgroup. In addition, symbolic threats should be particularly likely to result in increased conformity to the ingroup’s norms and values (see Jetten et al., 2002; Vaes & Wicklund, 2002). It is also possible that symbolic threats lead to the most vicious behavioral responses to outgroups such as genocide, torture, and mutilation. — Walter G. Stephan, Oscar Ybarra, Kimberly Rios Morrison, Intergroup Threat Theory, 22

Categorization

• DEEPTHINKING: A chilling, consequential asymmetry: threats to identity/values — not tangible resources — are what escalate to genocide, torture, and mutilation. This reframes the moral psychology of mass atrocity.
• XREF: connects to: Hedda’s cruelty enacts a protest against the good that has become bad; 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

Related

• 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 0.80)
• Hedda’s cruelty enacts a protest against the good that has become bad (similarity 0.79)
• Perceived value differences trigger symbolic threats but not realistic threats (similarity 0.78)