Threat and Outgroup Derogation—A Social Neuroscience Perspective

Abstract

The overall objective of this program of research was to study the consequences of engaging in outgroup derogation. In particular, we studied if in threatening intergroup contexts, derogation, as suggested by social identity theory, alleviates stress or, in line with the model of intergroup anxiety, exacerbates the negative connotations of a threatening situation, resulting in more stress. To achieve this objective, four studies were conducted with undergraduate students, which varied in the stress-related indicators they measured (salivary cortisol and salivary alpha-amylase), psychological indicators associated with ingroup threats (sentiments of anger and identity), as well as the forms of derogation they investigated (having an opportunity to derogate, engaging in implicit linguistic derogation, and an explicit measure of derogation). The first two studies offer a simple demonstration of the relationship between having an opportunity to derogate and physiological stress, as measured by salivary cortisol in study 1, and salivary alpha-amylase in study 2, in a threatening context. The findings from study 1 (N = 110) revealed that in a threatening intergroup context, even an opportunity to engage in bias is associated with an increase in cortisol, a product of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis activity. Study 2 (N = 66), however, showed that threatened participants who had an opportunity to derogate did not show higher alpha-amylase concentrations, an indicator of sympathetic-adrenal-medullary axis activity. The third study (N = 169) incorporated a measure of linguistic derogation based on the linguistic intergroup bias paradigm. Findings suggested that reading a threatening passage was associated with an increase in cortisol levels, as was displaying linguistic bias after being threatened. The fourth study (N = 322) addressed some of the limitations of the first three studies by also assessing the anger and identity-related costs of experiencing a threat and by providing an opportunity to engage in derogation to deal with the perceived threat. A form of explicit derogation was also investigated. The results indicated that following exposure to an intergroup threat, sentiments of anger increased and identification with the ingroup decreased. Among threatened participants, those who engaged in explicit derogation showed more anger and no increase in identification with the ingroup compared to those who did not engage in derogation. Threatened participants who engaged in implicit forms of derogation showed no decrease in anger nor an increase in identification with the ingroup. Together, these studies suggest that exposure to threat is harmful, and is especially so when outgroup derogation is used to deal with it. Overall, the findings from this study address some key methodological limitations in the literature by introducing a neuroscientific approach, as well as furthering the research on the social consequences of outgroup derogation.