Intergroup Threat Theory WALTER G. STEPHAN AND MARISA D. MEALY

Over the past several decades, a growing number of social scientists have become interested in the role that threats play in intergroup confl ict. Threats are believed to be a major cause of confl ict as well as an impediment to peace and reconciliation. In this essay we explore these two issues using the intergroup threat theory as a frame-work. We also discuss psychological proc-esses and techniques involved in reducing intergroup threats.

TYPES OF THREAT

Intergroup threat theory proposes four basic types of threats that can cause intergroup confl ict. These threats vary along two dimensions. The fi rst dimension concerns whether the threat involves realistic (tangi-ble) or symbolic (intangible) harm to the ingroup. (See threats , kinds and effects of .) Realistic threats include threats to the ingroup ’ s welfare, such as territorial thr eats, threats to political power, economic threats, and threats of physical harm. Symbolic threats include threats to the ingroup ’ s iden-tity, values, beliefs, norms, and way of life. The second dimension concerns whether the threats are perceived to be directed at the ingroup as a whole or at individual members. In combination, the two dimensions result in four types of threat: realistic group threat, symbolic group threats, realistic individual threats, and symbolic individual threats.

Distinctions between these types of threats are important because different types of thre ats have different consequences. For example, threats to the group as a whole

are more likely to evoke anger than fear, whereas individual threats are more likely to evoke fear than anger. Likewise, symbolic threats are more likely to lead to emotions that involve a moral evaluation of the out-group (e.g., contempt and disgust), while realistic threats are more likely to cause feel-ings of insecurity and frustration. Generally, to have an impact on the development of a confl ict, threats must be seen as credible. However, threats do not necessarily have to be perceived accurately to have an impact – even inaccurately perceived threats can have real consequences. The magnitude of per-ceived intergroup threats increases as a function of the size of the stakes and the immediacy of the threatened negative outcomes.

CONSEQUENCES OF THREAT

Intergroup threats contribute to confl ict because they infl uence emotions, percep-tions, and behaviors. An appraisal of threat can evoke strong negative emotions, includ-ing fear, rage, anger, hatred, resentment, frustration, contempt, and insecurity. In addition, perceptions of threat reduce emo-tional empathy for members of the out-group. These negative emotional responses, combined with a lack of empathy for the other group, can bring people to the point of killing their enemies. (See emotion .)

Intergroup perceptions are characterized by a wide variety of biases that hinder accu-rate perceptions of outgroups. These biases include negative stereotyping, distorted per-ceptions of the outgroup ’ s intentions and motives, dehumanization of its members, an infl ated sense of the moral legitimacy of the ingroup ’ s cause, a perception that the outgroup is homogeneous, negative attributions to explain outgroup conduct,

The Encyclopedia of Peace Psychology, First Edition. Edited by Daniel J. Christie.© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2012 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

2 intergroup threat theory

a magnifi cation of perceived intergroup differences, and a heightened belief in the diffi culty of resolving confl icts with the out-group. The arousal and anxiety associated with intergroup emotions can amplify these intergroup perceptual biases. Furthermore, the cognitive demands of coping with threat reduce executive functioning, which can lead to poor decision - making (e.g., group-think). (See groupthink .) Intergroup threats can also infl uence the ingroup ’ s perceptions of itself in relation to the outgroup. For instance, when powerful groups feel thre-atened they may perceive themselves as vulnerable – as happened to Americans after the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001 and to many Europeans shortly thereafter. (See terror management theory : why war ?)

Negative intergroup emotions and inter-group perceptual biases contribute to the behavioral responses to threat. To some extent, these behavioral responses depend on the power of the threatened group. High - power groups are unaccustomed to being threatened because their power typically insulates them from threat. For high - power groups, feeling threatened is a new and unwanted experience. High - power groups often react more forcefully to being threat-ened than low - power groups and use their power to take repressive, and often violent, countermeasures. These behavioral coun-termeasures include warfare, genocide, eco-nomic sanctions, deprivation of civil liberties, unlawful detention, torture, dis-crimination, segregation, exile, prohibition of cultural displays (e.g., minorities speak-ing their own language or practicing their religion), destruction of property, and nega-tive media campaigns.

Low - power groups may be more accus-tomed to feeling threatened and usually must be careful to respond in ways that do not risk overwhelming retaliation by the more powerful group. Nonetheless, they, too, have a wide range of behavioral options available to them. These options may include terrorism, riots, street violence, sabotage,

dissident media campaigns, cyber attacks, the destruction of outgroup cultural symbols (e.g., fl ag burning), the formation of local militia, alliances with antigovernment forces, and open rebellion. Dissent may also be expressed in the form of demonstrations, boycotts, nonviolent protests, public viola-tions of the dominant group ’ s moral code, and civil disobedience. It is important to note that low - power groups are also more likely than powerful groups to comply with demands made by the other group.

Even after the cessation of open confl ict, intergroup threats create emotional, cogni-tive, and behavioral responses that can inter-fere with attempts to foster peace and reconciliation. The threats that are present during confl ict resolution may be new or they may be altered forms of threats that existed during open confl ict. New threats may be related to apprehensions of being exploited or deceived by the other group during negotiations, losing face, or making too many concessions. Negative behavioral effects associated with these threats can impede peace and derail reconciliation. For example, the perception of threats may lead to a refusal to cease hostilities, reluctance to compromise, lack of creativity in problem solving, as well as argumentation, guile, and false assurances. Perceived threats can also prevent the ingroup from accepting respon-sibility for injustices perpetrated by its members or from forgiving the outgroup for the offenses committed by its members. Finally, it is worth noting that the effects of threats are not always negative: In some cases, intergroup threats can be benefi cial to confl ict resolution processes by deterring new violence and encouraging negotiations and reconciliation.

REDUCING THREAT/BUILDING PEACE

When considering how to reduce threats among the general populace, it is important

intergroup threat theory 3

to distinguish between threats to the ingroup as a whole (i.e., group threats) and threats directed at individual members of the ingroup (i.e., individual threats). Those threats which are perceived to be directed toward the group are best addressed at the societal level. Realistic group threats can be reduced by such behaviors as public declara-tions of peace, prosecuting crimes against humanity, and providing amnesty to low - level combatants. Leaders of both groups can contribute to the reduction of realistic threat by coming together to renounce vio-lence, denounce hate groups, and engage in civil public discourse. In addition, they should establish and promote a set of mutu-ally verifi able steps to intergroup peace, thereby facilitating a public vision of a pathway to a more peaceful future. To address perceptions of symbolic group threats, public displays of divisive or offen-sive symbols (e.g., fl ags, graffi ti) can be out-lawed, media campaigns to support peace and reconciliation can be undertaken, memorials can be erected to those who suf-fered or died in the confl ict, billboards can display messages that promote peaceful coexistence, and social norms and roles that place a greater emphasis on inclusiveness and equality can be encouraged. The media can also play a supportive role by helping to prevent incidents of intergroup violence from spiraling out of control by providing accurate information quickly when inci-dents arise.

Individual threats may be more diffi cult to de - escalate than group threats because they often result from individuals ’ own per-sonal circumstances. Furthermore, evidence indicating that these types of threats have been diminished may not be readily availa-ble to, or accepted by, the individuals who feel threatened. Nonetheless, realistic indi-vidual threats can be reduced by ensuring that basic human rights are protected and day - to - day security is maintained, passing laws or establishing rules that prohibit intergroup violence, discri mination, and

exclusionary policies, as well as implement-ing affi rmative action policies which ensure the representation of all groups in employ-ment, government, and educational settings. Individual symbolic threats can be reduced through efforts to forge superordinate iden-tities, providing opportunities for intergroup contact under optimal conditions, and creat-ing a sympathetic understanding of cultural differences, values, beliefs, and practices. New educational practices can be intro-duced in order to counter negative stereo-types, reduce perceived dissimilarity, and increase emotional and cognitive empathy for members of the other group. These prac-tices should also emphasize the decategori-zation of outgroup members through the use of multiple crosscutting identities (e.g., age, sex, social class, interests, social and work roles). Efforts such as these should foster perceptions of outgroup members as less menacing and more human. (See common ingroup identity model ; dialogue methods ; contact theory : extended and parasocial ; peace education ; contact theory , intergroup .)

There are a number of intergroup rela-tions programs currently in existence that can help to reduce intergroup threats and promote peace. These programs include peace education, multicultural education, intergroup dialogues, problem - solving inter-group workshops, intercultural relations training, and confl ict resolution training. What most of these programs share in common is intergroup contact under optimal conditions, opportunities to acquire positive, personalized, and accurate information about the outgroup, and an opportunity to learn interactions skills associated with con-fl ict avoidance and resolution. Despite the existence of these programs, there is a press-ing need for new programs that take advan-tage of what is known about the specifi c psychological processes that reduce threat and promote improved intergroup relations, especially for constituencies that have not been targeted in previous programs.

4 intergroup threat theory

In sum, although an enormous number of factors contribute to confl ict and its reso-lution, intergroup threats play a particularly prominent role because they are a direct cause of confl ict and undermine efforts to create peace. Reducing perceived threats is a complex and often subtle process, but it does hold great promise as a means of promoting and maintaining peace.

SEE ALSO: Common Ingroup Identity Model; Contact Theory: Extended and Parasocial; Contact Theory, Intergroup; Dialogue Methods; Emotion; Groupthink; Peace Education; Terror Management Theory: Why War?; Threats, Kinds and Effects of.

REFERENCES

Greenberg , J. , Landau , M. Kosloff , S. , & Solomon , S. ( 2009 ). How our dreams of

death transcendence breed prejudice . In T. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice , (pp. 309 – 332 ). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates .

Maoz , I. , & McCauley , C. ( 2008 ). Threat, dehumanization, and support for retaliatory aggressive policies in asymmetric confl ict . Journal of Confl ict Resolution , 52 ( 1 ), 93 – 116 .

Richeson , J. A. , & Trawalter , S. ( 2005 ). Why do interracial interactions impair executive function? A resource depletion account . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 88 , 934 – 947 .

Stephan , W. G. , & Renfro , C. L. ( 2002 ). The role of threats in intergroup relations . In D. Mackie & E. R. Smith (Eds.), From prejudice to intergroup emotions (pp. 191 – 208 ). New York, NY : Psychology Press .

Stephan , W. G. , & Stephan , C. W. ( 2001 ). Improving intergroup relations . Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage .

Stephan , W. G. , Ybarra , O. , & Rios Morrison , K. ( 2009 ). Intergroup threat theory . In T. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice (pp. 43 – 59 ). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates .