The developmental origin of intergroup threat perception remains unstudied.

Evidence

Other issues that could be examined include the etiology and development of intergroup threat. Are certain perceptions of intergroup threat learned and ingrained at an early age? To our knowledge, there has been no longitudinal study of children to determine the developmental course of intergroup threat perceptions. — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup Attitudes, 159

Are certain perceptions of intergroup threat learned and ingrained at an early age? To our knowledge, there has been no longitudinal study of children to determine the developmental course of intergroup threat perceptions. Also, there may be individual differences that influence the likelihood of perceiving a threat from another group. For example, individuals high in Social Dominance Orientation (SDO; Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994) react especially strongly to certain types of threats (Quist & Resendez, 2002). Other personality characteristics (e.g., authoritarianism) may also moderate the relationship between intergroup threats and outgroup attitudes. — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup Attitudes, 159

Categorization

• QUESTION: The reader’s stated research purpose is precisely a longitudinal test of threat-vs-stereotype direction; this flags that developmental and temporal longitudinal work is also missing.
• SEED: A longitudinal design tracking stereotype endorsement alongside felt threat across a sudden community shock addresses the meta-analysis’s open directionality question.
• XREF: SDO/authoritarianism moderators parallel dual-process models of prejudice; feeds the MOC on individual-difference moderators.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup…, 159
• recurring: this claim recurs 2 times within its source

Related

• Intergroup threat and negative outgroup attitudes relate bidirectionally, not one-way. (similarity 0.83)
• Group threats act through intergroup emotions to reach outgroup attitudes. (similarity 0.83)
• Stereotypes and identification precede threats, whose attitude effects run through emotions. (similarity 0.83)
• No quantitative synthesis of the intergroup-threat literature existed before this meta-analysis. (similarity 0.83)
• Negative stereotypes both accompany intergroup threats and independently predict outgroup attitudes (similarity 0.82)
• Meta-analysis across studies quantifies how distinct intergroup threat types relate to outgroup attitudes. (similarity 0.82)
• Different intergroup threats trigger distinct emotions and behavioral responses. (similarity 0.81)
• Negative stereotypes cause threat rather than being a distinct threat type themselves. (similarity 0.81)
• Equal-status group threat effects remain unexplored (similarity 0.81)
• Group-based identity forces precede realistic and symbolic threat perception (similarity 0.81)
• Perceived outgroup threats damage intergroup relations even without hostility (similarity 0.81)
• Four threat types explain 36 percent of variance in outgroup attitudes (similarity 0.80)
• Uncertain, unfamiliar, low-power settings maximize perceived outgroup threat. (similarity 0.80)
• Threat dynamics among status-equal groups remain unexamined. (similarity 0.80)
• Groups are judged more threatening than the individuals composing them (similarity 0.80)