The effects of realistic threat and group identification on social dominance orientation

Status boundary enforcement and the categorization of black–white biracials

“…1 Eighty-four were randomly assigned to a realistic threat condition, in which they were exposed to ideas suggesting that African Americans represent a growing socioeconomic threat (i.e., they had to complete a measure of realistic threat; Stephan et al, 2002). Because the items of this measure constituted our manipulation of threat, we were not interested in responses to these items (Morrison & Ybarra, 2008). All participants completed the SDO 6 measure (α = .94; m = 2.38, SD = 1.16; Pratto et al, 1994); participants in the control condition were simply directed to the SDO…”

Symbolic threat and social dominance among liberals and conservatives: SDO reflects conformity to political values

“…In addition, participants in the present experiments were led to believe that an outgroup posed a symbolic threat to their group's value system, rather than a realistic threat to their group's power and status. These two differences help to explain why the Morrison and Ybarra (2008) paper showed consistent increases in SDO under threat, whereas the current paper showed that the direction in which SDO shifts depends on the ingroup's values.…”

“…The present experiments differed from Morrison and Ybarra's (2008) studies by using social groups that differed in their hierarchy-enhancing (Republicans) versus hierarchy-attenuating (Democrats) values. In addition, participants in the present experiments were led to believe that an outgroup posed a symbolic threat to their group's value system, rather than a realistic threat to their group's power and status.…”

Differences in State Anxiety Responses to Combat Pictures between Young Adult Israeli Jews and Israeli Palestinian Arabs

“…These results coincide with previous research knowledge emphasizing that belonging to a minority group is one of the risk factors for mental illness after experiencing a traumatic event (Loo, Fairbank, & Chemtob, 2005;Norris et al, 2002;Palinkas, Petterson, Russel, & Downs, 1993). Moreover, social psychology research has demonstrated that threatened individuals and groups usually cope with threat by developing hostile attitudes toward out-groups, attempting to reduce their relative power and supporting actions that potentially harm out-group members in various ways (Maddux, Galinsky, Cuddy, & Polifroni, 2008;Rios-Morrison & Ybarra 2008;Pettigrew, 2003). This process may be exacerbated when these minority groups are believed to be associated with the enemy (Bar-Tal & Labin, 2001;Pettigrew, 2003;Skitka, Bauman, & Mullen 2004).…”