Educational Leadership and Innovation, Division of

Scopus Publication Detail

The publication detail shows the title, authors (with indicators showing other profiled authors), information on the publishing organization, abstract and a link to the article in Scopus. This abstract is what is used to create the fingerprint of the publication.

Self-Protective Biases in Group Categorization: Threat Cues Shape the Psychological Boundary Between "Us" and "Them"

Saul L. Miller; Jon K. Maner; D. Vaughn Becker (Profiled Author: David Vaughn Becker)

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2010;99(1):62-77.

Across 6 studies, factors signaling potential vulnerability to harm produced a bias toward outgroup categorization-a tendency to categorize unfamiliar others as members of an outgroup rather than as members of one's ingroup. Studies 1 through 4 demonstrated that White participants were more likely to categorize targets as Black (as opposed to White) when those targets displayed cues heuristically associated with threat (masculinity, movement toward the perceiver, and facial expressions of anger). In Study 5, White participants who felt chronically vulnerable to interpersonal threats responded to a fear manipulation by categorizing threatening (angry) faces as Black rather than White. Study 6 extended these findings to a minimal group paradigm, in which participants who felt chronically vulnerable to interpersonal threats categorized threatening (masculine) targets as outgroup members. Together, findings indicate that ecologically relevant threat cues within both the target and the perceiver interact to bias the way people initially parse the social world into ingroup vs. outgroup. Findings support a threat-based framework for intergroup psychology. © 2010 American Psychological Association.

PMID: 20565186    

Scientific Context

This section shows information related to the publication - computed using the fingerprint of the publication - including related publications, related experts with fingerprints representing significant amounts of overlap between their fingerprint and this publication. The red dots indicate whether those experts or terms appear within the publication, thereby showing potential and actual connections.