Threat amplifies the ultimate attribution error in intergroup perception.

Evidence

For example, threat may increase the occurrence of the ultimate attribution error (Pettigrew, 1979; Stephan, 1977), in which negative acts of the outgroup (and positive ingroup acts) are explained in terms of member characteristics, whereas positive outgroup acts (and negative ingroup acts) are attributed to the situation. — Walter G. Stephan, Oscar Ybarra, Kimberly Rios Morrison, Intergroup Threat Theory, 17

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines the ultimate attribution error as a threat-amplified cognitive bias.
• XREF: Connects to Pettigrew’s classic attribution work in intergroup relations. — connects to: Control motivation but not implicit death cognition drives threat-based ingroup defense. — Dmitrij Agroskin and Eva Jonas, Controlling death by defending…, 143; Negative stereotypes both accompany intergroup threats and independently predict outgroup attitudes — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup…, 127; Equality gains by subordinate groups trigger perceived threat in dominant groups — David Theo Goldberg, The Threat of Race: Reflections on…, 151

Related

• Threat amplifies attribution biases that exonerate ingroups and damn outgroups (similarity 0.91)
• Threat-driven cognitive biases facilitate and justify intergroup violence (similarity 0.84)
• Intergroup threat arises when one group’s actions challenge another group’s goal attainment or well-being. (similarity 0.84)
• Cross-group friendship and empathy reduce the threat behind intergroup bias. (similarity 0.83)
• Threat biases memory, stereotype disconfirmation, and perceived outgroup size. (similarity 0.83)
• Perceived threat amplifies both in-group favoritism and out-group hostility (similarity 0.83)
• Group threats act through intergroup emotions to reach outgroup attitudes. (similarity 0.83)
• Intergroup threat and negative outgroup attitudes relate bidirectionally, not one-way. (similarity 0.82)
• Threat amplifies preexisting intergroup responses rather than creating them (similarity 0.82)
• Negative stereotypes cause threat rather than being a distinct threat type themselves. (similarity 0.82)
• No quantitative synthesis of the intergroup-threat literature existed before this meta-analysis. (similarity 0.81)
• Perceived outgroup threats damage intergroup relations even without hostility (similarity 0.81)
• Threats can increase ingroup identification, not merely follow from it (similarity 0.81)
• Recategorizing outgroup members as ingroup members diminishes perceived threat. (similarity 0.81)
• Similarity of an outgroup raises bias only among highly identified ingroup members. (similarity 0.81)