Integrated threat theory

Integrated threat theory, also known as intergroup threat theory is a theory in psychology and sociology which attempts to describe the components of perceived threat that lead to prejudice between social groups. The theory applies to any social group that may feel threatened in some way, whether or not that social group is a majority or minority group in their society. This theory deals with perceived threat rather than actual threat. Perceived threat includes all of the threats that members of group believe they are experiencing, regardless of whether those threats actually exist. For example, people may feel their economic well-being is threatened by an outgroup stealing their jobs even if, in reality, the outgroup has no effect on their job opportunities. Still, their perception that their job security is under threat can increase their levels of prejudice against the outgroup. Thus, even false alarms about threat still have “real consequence” for prejudice between groups. Integrated threat theory, also known as intergroup threat theory is a theory in psychology and sociology which attempts to describe the components of perceived threat that lead to prejudice between social groups. The theory applies to any social group that may feel threatened in some way, whether or not that social group is a majority or minority group in their society. This theory deals with perceived threat rather than actual threat. Perceived threat includes all of the threats that members of group believe they are experiencing, regardless of whether those threats actually exist. For example, people may feel their economic well-being is threatened by an outgroup stealing their jobs even if, in reality, the outgroup has no effect on their job opportunities. Still, their perception that their job security is under threat can increase their levels of prejudice against the outgroup. Thus, even false alarms about threat still have “real consequence” for prejudice between groups. Integrated Threat Theory was first proposed by Walter G. Stephan and Cookie White Stephan (2000). The original theory had four components: realistic threats, symbolic threats, intergroup anxiety, and negative stereotypes. Realistic threats are threats that pose a danger to the in-group's well-being. These can include threats to physical safety or health, threats to economic and political power, and threats to the existence of the group. This component was originally developed as a part of realistic conflict theory by Donald T. Campbell (1965). Symbolic threats arise where there is a perceived difference between the values and worldview of an ingroup and outgroup. The difference can make the ingroup feel that the outgroup poses a threat to their group morals, standards, beliefs, and attitudes. These threats are thus strongly tied to a group's sense of identity. The category was derived from Gordon Allport’s discussion of the relationship between one's values and one's identity. He proposed that, since values are important to who we are, we will reject other groups that disagree with our values. It is also based on the research of Esses and colleagues (1993), who found that groups had more negative feelings towards an outgroup if that outgroup interfered with the in-group's customs. Intergroup anxiety refers to the expectation that interacting with someone from a different group will be a negative experience. People with intergroup anxiety fear that they will feel uncomfortable, embarrassed, unsafe, or judged, either by members of the outgroup or by people of their own in-group. Before creating the Integrated Threat Theory framework, Stephan & Stephan had been conducting research on intergroup anxiety. The concept of intergroup anxiety also draws from Aversive Racism Theory, which argues that subconscious negative feelings about Black Americans are an important part of racism against them. Stereotypes are a strategy of simplifying a complex situation by relying on popular pre-set judgements. Integrated Threat Theory predicts that negative pre-set judgments about another group can lead to prejudice. This component of ITT draws from research that found that belief in negatively-rated stereotypical traits was linked to higher levels of prejudice against the stereotyped group. Stephan & Stephan (2000) acknowledged that some research has not found links between prejudice and general stereotypes. Thus, it seems that, while general stereotypes assume some positive things about other groups, only the negative aspects of stereotypes are relevant to prejudice. In 2002, Stephan and Renfro proposed an updated version of the theory which reduced the four components to two basic types: realistic and symbolic threats. The categories of negative stereotypes and intergroup anxiety were removed from the basic framework of the theory because they were found to be better understood as subtypes of threat. They can lead to either realistic or symbolic threats rather than standing as their own separate categories. For example, intergroup anxiety can be based on expectations of physical danger, a realistic threat, as well as on expectations of damage to one's identity, a symbolic threat. Since ITT makes a causal claim that perceived threat causes prejudice, studies using an experimental design are necessary. Some researchers have taken on this task to experimentally manipulate types of realistic and perceived threat in order to examine if they cause prejudice. For example, Esses and colleagues (1998) and Esses and colleagues (2001) carried out research studies in which they manipulated the research participants’ understanding of economic threat posed by immigrants. Esses and colleagues (1998) had Canadian undergraduate student participants read one of two editorials that were written for the study. One editorial discussed a new group of immigrants with no mention of the job market while the other editorial discussed the same group and emphasized their success in finding jobs despite the scarcity of jobs in Canada. They then studied the effects of perception of economic threat, a type of realistic threat, on attitudes about immigrants and reported willingness to help immigrants. Results showed that participants that read the editorial that emphasized competition had less favorable attitudes towards immigrants and were less likely to approve of programs to empower immigrants Esses and colleagues (2001) carried out similar experiments with very similar editorials. Their results showed that participants that read articles that emphasized the tough job market had more negative attitudes towards the immigrants, were less supportive of their immigration into Canada, and were less supportive of programs to empower immigrants. The data from these research studies provide some support for the causal influence of realistic threat on prejudice against immigrants.