They’re threatening us: Partisan media use, perceived threats, and political engagement

The complex phenomenon of prejudice has been the focus of interest among social psychologists since the mid-20th century. The Intergroup Threat Theory (ITT) is one of the most efficient theoretical frameworks to identify the triggers of prejudice. In this study, using experimental design, we examined the effects of symbolic and realistic threats on prejudice that was measured by means of a modified social distance scale. The study participants were 611 undergraduate students from the country of Georgia. In addition to providing further support for ITT, the study showed that the level of religiosity moderated the effects between both types of threats and prejudice, although it had different indications for realistic and symbolic threats, while gender interacted only with symbolic threat. Implications of the findings are discussed.

Previous research has found that populist attitudes and conspiracy mentality – here summarised as anti-establishment attitudes – increase when people feel threatened. Two types of intergroup threat have been distinguished, namely realistic threats (pertaining to socio-economic resources, climate, or health), and symbolic threats (pertaining to cultural values). However, there is no agreement on which types of threat and corresponding appraisals would be most important in predicting anti-establishment attitudes. We hypothesise that it is the threat itself, irrespective of its cause, that predicts anti-establishment attitudes. In the current paper, we conducted new (multilevel) regression analyses on previously collected data from four high-powered studies with multiple time points (Study 1) or collected in multiple nations (Studies 2–4). All studies included a populist attitudes scale, a conspiracy mentality scale, and different types of threat and emotion measures, reflecting both realistic and symbolic threats. Across studies, both realistic and symbolic threats positively predicted anti-establishment attitudes. The results support an emotional appraisal approach to anti-establishment attitudes, which highlights the importance of anxiety and feeling threatened regardless of what type of event elicits the threat.

In postconflict Kosovo and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, we investigated the relationships of right‐wing authoritarianism (RWA), social dominance orientation (SDO), symbolic and realistic threat with attitudes toward peace and war. We also examined the mediating role of symbolic and realistic threat in the links between RWA, SDO, and attitudes toward peace and war. In Study 1, we focused on Kosovo Albanians (N = 415) and their relationship with Serbs, and in Study 2, we focused on the relationship between Russians (N = 132) and Ukrainians (N = 102). In both studies, we found that SDO was negatively associated with positive attitudes toward peace and positively with positive attitudes toward war. RWA was positively associated with positive attitudes toward war in Study 1. Symbolic threat was negatively related to positive attitudes toward peace, and realistic threat was positively related to positive attitudes toward war in both studies. The relationship between RWA and attitudes toward peace was mediated by symbolic threat, and the relationship between RWA and attitudes toward war was mediated by realistic threat. These findings attest to the negative role of RWA, SDO, symbolic and realistic threat on attitudes toward peace and war in conflict‐related contexts. We discuss potential implications for interventions that challenge negative attitudes toward peace and positive attitudes toward war in (former) adversary groups.

The ongoing Covid-19 outbreak has brought increased incidents of racism, discrimination, and violence against “Asians,” particularly in the United States, with reports of hate crimes of over 100 per day. Since January 2020, many Asian Americans have reported suffering racial slurs, wrongful workplace termination, being spat on, physical violence, extreme physical distancing, etc., as media and government officials increasingly stigmatize and blame Asians for the spread of Covid-19. The links with social media are increasingly evident, as anti-Asian sentiment increases, with reports of anti-Asian sentiment spreading and Asian-Americans fighting hate via social media. Using integrated threat theory, this study explores the links between prejudice/hate toward Asians-Americans, in particular Chinese, and social media use. Three key results emerged from the study. First, the more a social media user believes their most used daily social media is fair, accurate, presents the facts, and is concerned about the public (social media believe), the more likely that user is to believe Chinese pose a realistic and symbolic threat to America. Second, men and women significantly differed on each type of prejudice, with men scoring higher on intergroup anxiety and women higher on symbolic and realistic threat. Third, respondents who do not use social media on a daily basis are less likely than those who use Facebook to perceive Chinese as a symbolic threat. Implications and recommendations for practitioners, health workers and government are proposed.

Despite growing scientific attention for hate, little is known about how perceived threats may influence hate and aggression. In four preregistered online studies (Ntotal = 1422), we test a threat – hate – aggression model, examining the differential effects of symbolic and realistic threats on the emergence of hate, and the associations between hate and specific aggressive behaviors, across interpersonal and intergroup hate targets. In Study 1 we specify models testing the threat – hate – aggression paths. In Studies 2 (interpersonal hate) and 3 and 4 (intergroup hate) we manipulate realistic and symbolic threat perceptions, measuring hate and aggression. Across studies, hate is better predicted by symbolic than realistic threats. Also, hate consistently predicts aggressive tendencies and hurting behaviors, and interpersonal hate mediates the relationship between symbolic threats and the two aggressive behaviors while intergroup hate mediates the relationships between symbolic (and partially realistic) threats and the two aggressive behaviors. We discuss the implications of our findings for hate, threat, and prejudice research.

IntroductionThis study (N = 141, Mage = 20.15) aimed at deepening knowledge on the factors that can lead young adults to deny the inalienability of human rights to migrants by examining whether, under realistic and symbolic intergroup threat (versus no-threat), the denial of human rights to migrants increases. In doing so, the role of fraternalistic relative deprivation in mediating this relation was examined. Also, two potential positive factors were considered: in-depth exploration of personal identity in the educational domain and identification with the human group. Intergroup threat was expected to enhance perceived relative deprivation, thus reducing the attribution of human rights to migrants. Such relation was expected to be mediated by those factors expressing complex views of self and others (in-depth exploration of identity in the educational domain and identification with the human group).MethodRealistic and symbolic threat were experimentally manipulated through a written scenario. In the no-threat condition, no scenario was presented.ResultsShowed significant effects of intergroup threat on the attribution of human rights to migrants, on perceived fraternalistic relative deprivation, on in-depth exploration of identity in the educational domain and identification with the human group. More specifically, intergroup realistic threat, but not symbolic threat, reduced the attribution of human rights to migrants and identification with the human group. Symbolic threat, but not realistic threat, increased the perception of fraternalistic relative deprivation, whereas both realistic and symbolic threat reduced in-depth exploration of identity in the educational domain, and identification with the human group. As shown by the sequential mediation analysis, and as expected, the effect of intergroup threat in reducing attribution of human rights to migrants was mediated by in-depth exploration of identity in the educational domain, identification with the human group, and fraternalistic relative deprivation. Implications of findings concerning the processes underlying identification with the human group and its beneficial effects in terms of humanization of a stigmatized outgroup were highlighted by stressing the intertwined nature of personal identity and social identity processes. The importance of complex views of self and others in helping to create inclusive generations of adults was also highlighted.

Australia has a significant intake of refugees each year. The majority enter through the humanitarian entrants program and a small percentage arrive seeking asylum. These processes have resulted in considerable debate, which has sometimes been associated with negative attitudes within the mainstream community. Research has indicated that realistic threat and symbolic threat are important components of the integrated threat theory for understanding opposition towards immigrants and refugees. Social desirability has also been indicated as potentially influential in the expression of negative attitudes. The current study examined the prevalence and correlates of negative attitudes towards refugees in an Australian sample. Participants consisted of 261 volunteer university students (119 men and 142 women). Participants were assessed on a prejudicial attitude measure, measures of symbolic and realistic threat and the Marlowe – Crowne Social Desirability Scale. The results indicated that more than half of the participants (59.8%) scored above the mid-point on prejudicial attitudes. Male participants reported less favourable attitudes towards refugees than female participants. Analysis revealed that both realistic and symbolic threats were influential in predicting prejudicial attitudes and, of these, realistic threat was the better predictor. The results are discussed in relation to the integrated threat theory of prejudice and in the context of addressing prejudice towards refugees in Australia.

This study examines a specific effect of hostile intent attribution within intergroup relationships. Based on our application of integrated threat theory, we hypothesised that different types of symbolic and realistic threats had a mediating effect on relations between basic human values (traditionalism and universalism) and hostile intent attribution. We conducted a survey among two university population samples of Chinese and Japanese respondents. The results for our first sample of Chinese undergraduate students (N = 201) revealed that both traditionalism and universalism predicted hostile intent attribution and that these relations were fully mediated by symbolic threats, but not by realistic threats. However, the results for the second sample of Japanese undergraduate students (N = 256) differed, indicating that traditionalism, but not universalism, predicted hostile intent attribution, and that this relation was fully mediated by both symbolic and realistic threats. In conclusion, we discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings.

The present study prospectively examines associations between citizens’ perceived symbolic and realistic threat and mental health before and after refugee settlement in their neighbourhood. Citizens in two Amsterdam (the Netherlands) neighbourhoods participated in the study ( N = 280). A follow-up measurement after the settlement of refugees was conducted in one neighbourhood ( n = 66). Cross-sectional results confirm that higher levels of perceived symbolic and realistic threat were both associated with poorer mental health. A prospective longitudinal analysis showed no increase in realistic or symbolic threat, but mental health was poorer in citizens after refugee settlement. Higher threat perceptions among citizens in the area before the settlement of refugees predicted poorer mental health after the settlement. This association was stronger than the reverse association (poorer mental health predicting higher threat perceptions). Policymakers should consider experienced threat levels among citizens when developing and communicating refugee settlement policies.

This study addressed questions of whether right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO) would be related to perceptions of terrorists as either symbolic or realistic threats to the United States. RWA was expected to be positively associated with the perception of terrorists as a symbolic threat, whereas SDO was expected to be positively associated with the perception of terrorists as a realistic threat. One-hundred and seventy six community adults were surveyed as part of this study on measures of RWA, SDO, self-rated political conservatism, and perceived symbolic and realistic threat. RWA and SDO were both positively correlated with perceived symbolic and realistic threat in the study. During regression analyses, RWA emerged as a strong predictor of the perception of symbolic threat from terrorists, yet failed to predict scores on perceived realistic threat. SDO failed to predict both forms of perceived threat.

In Chapter 10, Croucher and colleagues explore COVID-19 prejudice and intergroup contact in 20 nations. The chapter defines prejudice, integrated threat, and intergroup contact. The chapter then outlines how prejudice during the COVID-19 pandemic manifested in each of the 20 nations before comparing prejudice, particularly integrated threat, and intergroup contact in each nation. Results showed that England, Brazil, and Peru were the highest on realistic and symbolic threats. France, Singapore, and India were the lowest on realistic threat, while Kyrgyzstan, Singapore, and India were the lowest on symbolic threat. India, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia were the highest on intergroup contact, while Chile, Peru, and Turkey were the lowest. In addition, symbolic and realistic threats were positively correlated in the combined sample and in each nation. The importance of connections between historical context and the influence of negative intergroup contact is explored.

Abstract. Individuals differ in the extent to which they perceive threat imposed by out-groups like migrants. An established distinction in intergroup threat research is between symbolic and realistic threat. While symbolic threats concern a perceived menace against societal values, realistic threats jeopardize in-group members’ well-being more directly. Typically applied realistic threat conceptions explicitly include the aspect of physical integrity, but most empirical research captures only realistic economic threats, arguably also due to a lack of appropriate measures. Therefore, we have developed the Perceived Realistic Physical Threat scale (PRPT) with samples from Germany and the UK (total N = 1,391). Moreover, we conducted follow-up analyses with data from a subsample ( N = 473) of the initial UK sample. Factor analyses indicated an 8-item one-factorial solution for the PRPT scale. We further identified measurement invariance across samples and over time and stability across 21 months. We found convincing evidence for its convergent and divergent validity and for its predictive and, importantly, incremental validity, above and beyond the prediction of relevant criteria by other threat types. The PRPT scale appears to be a distinct, comprehensive, and psychometrically sound measure of perceived realistic physical threat, complementing the existing body of available measures.

Immigration attitudes are influenced by types of patriotism and the perceived threat that immigrants pose. Previous research indicated realistic and symbolic threat mediates the relationships between blind and constructive patriotism types and anti‐immigration attitudes in different ways. In two studies, the purpose was to replicate the mediating role of realistic and symbolic threat for the relationship between patriotism types and anti‐immigration attitudes, and to determine if inducing threat in constructive patriots would result in immigration attitudes like that of blind patriots. In both studies, hypotheses were confirmed. Blind patriotism predicts realistic threat, symbolic threat, and anti‐immigration attitudes. Realistic and symbolic threats provided moderated mediation between blind patriotism and anti‐immigration attitudes. Constructive patriotism negatively predicts anti‐immigration attitudes, but realistic and symbolic threats provide complete mediation for this relationship. The introduction of threatening information on future demographic changes had no impact on the relationship between blind patriotism, realistic and symbolic threats, and anti‐immigration attitude. However, the introduction of demographic threat modified the relationship for constructive patriots, leaving no predictive negative relationship with realistic threat, symbolic threat, or anti‐immigration attitude. The findings are important for understanding ethnic threat and the motivations to oppose immigrants in a changing United States.

ABSTRACTAccording to Intergroup Threat Theory (Stephan, Ybarra, & Rios, 2015), perceived threats from outgroups can be categorised into realistic threats (to the ingroup’s power, resources, or well-being) and symbolic threats (to the ingroup’s values, identity, or way of life). Although many studies have documented correlations between such threats and intergroup attitudes, experimental and quasiexperimental tests of Intergroup Threat Theory are relatively sparse. In the present article, we review our own and others’ research on manipulations, moderators, and consequences of realistic and symbolic threat, with close attention to the ways in which these threats are similar vs. different. Given the growing racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity in the Western world, understanding how and under what conditions each type of threat can be causally induced is critical to reducing threat and ultimately improving intergroup harmony.

Veiled Threats: How Do Identity Threats Shape Muslims' Support for Terrorism?