Threats can produce targeted or generalized conservative shifts depending on type

Evidence

Nevertheless, some previous research also suggests that political attitudes most related to a given threat are affected more strongly than other attitudes. For example, Nail and McGregor (2009) examined political attitudes of Americans both prior to and following the September 11th terrorist attacks and found the largest increase in support for conservative policies related to the attacks (e.g., increased military spending); support for conservative policies increased less for less relevant issues (e.g., socialized medicine). Thus, it is possible that certain kinds of threats engender quite targeted conservative shifts, whereas others yield more generalized conservative shifts. — Maureen A. Craig and Jennifer A. Richeson, On the Precipice of a…, 91

Categorization

• XREF: Directly relevant to the reader’s threatened-privilege mobilization question: threat-to-attitude mapping may be domain-specific rather than uniformly global, complicating whether demographic-shift threat generalizes across identity axes. — connects to: Group-status threat is the proposed causal mediator of shift-induced conservatism. — Maureen A. Craig and Jennifer A. Richeson, On the Precipice of a…, 22; Status-threat alleviation should cancel the shift-conservatism effect, isolating threat as the mediator. — Maureen A. Craig and Jennifer A. Richeson, On the Precipice of a…, 46; Different outgroup types provoke distinct kinds of threat — Walter G. Stephan, Oscar Ybarra, Kimberly Rios Morrison, Intergroup Threat Theory, 9 (+5 more)

Related

• Group-status threat is the proposed causal mediator of shift-induced conservatism. (similarity 0.89)
• Status-threat alleviation should cancel the shift-conservatism effect, isolating threat as the mediator. (similarity 0.87)
• Anticipatory status threat directly shifts reported political identity toward conservatism. (similarity 0.87)
• Perceived threat to in-group status evokes greater political conservatism. (similarity 0.87)
• Liberal and conservative participants responded similarly to demographic threat (similarity 0.85)
• Demographic threat generalizes conservative shift to race-neutral policy (similarity 0.85)
• Threat shifts supposedly stable ideological dispositions like authoritarianism (similarity 0.84)
• Removing anticipatory status threat eliminates the conservative reaction to demographic shift. (similarity 0.84)
• Groups are perceived as more threatening than individuals, so dissolving category boundaries lowers threat. (similarity 0.83)
• Perceived demographic shift causal threat to White status shifts policy conservatism (similarity 0.83)
• Perceived racial demographic shifts cause a conservative shift in White Americans through group-status threat. (similarity 0.82)
• Racial status threat may drive conservative shifts even among minorities (similarity 0.82)
• A larger fear-processing amygdala may make conservatives more susceptible to threats (similarity 0.80)
• Group-level threats and individual-level threats trigger systematically different responses (similarity 0.80)
• Exposure to information about racial demographic change raises Whites’ status threat and conservatism (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Different outgroup types provoke distinct kinds of threat #expands (0.85) — Walter G. Stephan, Oscar Ybarra, Kimberly Rios Morrison, Intergroup Threat Theory, 9
• Different types of threat may drive authoritarianism differently #expands (0.85) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 833
• Perceived racial demographic shifts cause a conservative shift in White Americans through group-status threat. #exemplifies (0.85) — Maureen A. Craig and Jennifer A. Richeson, On the Precipice of a…, 8
• Group-level threats and individual-level threats trigger systematically different responses #corroborates (0.80) — Walter G. Stephan, Oscar Ybarra, Kimberly Rios Morrison, Intergroup Threat Theory, 23
• Racial status threat may drive conservative shifts even among minorities #expands (0.75) — Maureen A. Craig and Jennifer A. Richeson, On the Precipice of a…, 94
• Threat differs from curiosity and exploitability by holding subjects at a distance #qualifies (0.70)