The Threat of Symbolic Incompatibility Looms Larger Than the Threat of Status Rivalry: Symbolic Threat from Others Determines Feelings for Them More Than Status Threat

Bai, Max H., and Jeremy C. Simon. 2020. “The Threat of Symbolic Incompatibility Looms Larger Than the Threat of Status Rivalry: Symbolic Threat from Others Determines Feelings for Them More Than Status Threat.” PsyArXiv. August 15. doi:10.31234/osf.io/7wux6

Abstract: Evidence from three studies shows that the perceived symbolic threat from a group, more so than the perceived status threat, determines how people feel about it (i.e., how much they like the group). Study 1 shows that Whites’ perception of symbolic threat from racial minorities, but not status threat, predicts Whites’ favorability toward racial minorities. Using a 2×2 experiment, Study 2 shows that hypothetical immigrants described as capable of posing a status threat to Americans (versus not) or capable of posing a symbolic threat to Americans (versus not) are evaluated based on their potential symbolic threat, but not their potential status threat. Finally, the results from Study 2 replicated in another 2×2 experiment where American participants evaluated a hypothetical foreign country. Thus, the perceived symbolic threat from a group, more so than the perceived status threat, determines people’s overall attitude toward them.

---
Realistic threat refers to the types of threat that imperil an in-group’s political and economic power, material well-being, and very existence.

Symbolic threats, meanwhile, originate from perceived differences in world values, morality, or beliefs between the in-group and out-groups. In other words, symbolic threats may portend conflict due to intangible value incompatibilities.