Editing Hate group (section)

==Psychology of hate groups==
Hateful intergroup conflict may be motivated by "[[in-group]] love," a desire to positively contribute to the group to which one belongs, or "[[Ingroups and outgroups|out-group]] hate," a desire to injure a foreign group.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Halevy |first=N. |author2=Weisel, O. |author3=Bornstein, G. |title="In-group love" and "out-group hate" in repeated interaction between groups |journal=Journal of Behavioral Decision Making |date=2012 |volume=25 |issue=2 |pages=188–95 |doi=10.1002/bdm.726}}</ref> Both individuals and groups are more motivated by "in-group love" than "out-group hate," even though both motivations might advance a group's status.  This preference is especially salient when a group is not situated in a competitive position against another.  This partiality towards cooperative behavior suggests that intergroup conflict might decline if group members devoted more energy to positive in-group improvements than to out-group competition.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Halevy |first=N. |author2=Bornstein, G. |author3=Sagiv, L. |title="In-group love" and "out-group hate" as motives for individual participation in intergroup conflict |journal=Psychological Science |date=2008 |volume=19 |issue=4 |pages=405–11 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02100.x |pmid=18399895 |s2cid=6869770}}</ref> Groups formed around a set of moral codes are more likely than non-morality-based groups to exhibit "out-group hate" as a response to their especially strong sense of "in-group love."<ref>{{cite journal |last=Parker |first=M.T. |author2=Janoff-Bulman, R. |title=Lessons from morality-based social identity: the power of outgroup "hate," not just ingroup "love" |journal=Social Justice Research |date=2013 |volume=26 |issue=1 |pages=81–96 |doi=10.1007/s11211-012-0175-6 |s2cid=144523660}}</ref>

Intergroup threat occurs when one group's interests threaten another group's goals and well-being.<ref name="Stephan 2000 23–45">{{cite journal |last=Stephan |first=W.G. |author2=Stephan, C.W. |title=An integrated theory of prejudice |journal=Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination: The Claremont Symposium on Applied Social Psychology |date=2000 |pages=23–45}}</ref> Intergroup threat theories provide a framework for intergroup biases and aggression.<ref name="Riek 2006 336–353">{{cite journal |last=Riek |first=B.M. |author2=Mania, E.W. |author3=Gaertner, S.L. |title=Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: a meta-analytic review |journal=Personality and Social Psychology Review |date=2006 |volume=10 |pages=336–53 |doi=10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_4 |pmid=17201592 |issue=4 |s2cid=144762865}}</ref>

One type of intergroup threat theory, [[Realistic conflict theory|realistic group conflict theory]], addresses competition between groups by positing that when two groups are competing for limited resources, one group's potential success is at odds with the other's interests, which leads to negative out-group attitudes.<ref>{{cite book |last=Sherif, M., & Sherif, C.W. |title=Social psychology |date=1969 |publisher=Harper & Row |location=New York |pages=221–66}}</ref> If groups have the same goal, their interactions will be positive, but opposing goals will worsen intergroup relations.  Intergroup conflict may increase in-group unity, leading to a larger disparity and more conflict between groups.

[[Symbolic threat]] theory proposes that intergroup bias and conflict result from conflicting ideals, not from perceived competition or opposing goals.<ref>{{cite journal |last=McConahay |first=J.B. |title=Self-interest versus racial attitudes as correlates of anti-busing attitudes in Louisville: Is it the buses or the blacks? |journal=Journal of Politics |volume=441 |pages=692–720}}</ref> Biases based on symbolic threat tend to be stronger predictors of practical behavior towards out-groups than biases based on realistic threat.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Kinder |first=D.R. |author2=Sears, D.O. |title=Prejudice and politics: Symbolic racism versus racial threats to the good life |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |date=1981 |volume=40 |issue=3 |pages=414–31 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.40.3.414}}</ref>

Realistic group conflict theory and symbolic threat theory are, in some cases, compatible. [[Integrated-threat theory]] recognizes that conflict can arise from a combination of intergroup dynamics and classifies threats into four types: realistic threat, symbolic threat, [[intergroup anxiety]], and negative [[stereotypes]].<ref name="Stephan 2000 23–45"/> Intergroup threat theories provide a framework for intergroup biases and aggression.<ref name="Riek 2006 336–353"/> Intergroup anxiety refers to a felt uneasiness around members of other groups, which is predictive of biased attitudes and behaviors.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Ho |first=C. |author2=Jackson, J.W. |title=Attitudes toward Asian Americans: Theory and measurement |journal=Journal of Applied Social Psychology |date=2001 |volume=31 |issue=8 |pages=1553–81 |doi=10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02742.x}}</ref> Negative stereotypes are also correlated with these behaviors, causing threat based on negative expectations about an out-group.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Eagley |first=A.H. |author2=Mladinic, A. |title=Gender stereotypes and attitudes toward women and men |journal=Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin |date=1989 |volume=15 |issue=4 |pages=543–58 |doi=10.1177/0146167289154008 |s2cid=145550350}}</ref>

According to the 7-stage hate model, a hate group, if unimpeded, passes through seven successive stages.<ref>{{cite web |title=2003 FBI Law Enforcement bulletin |url=https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/2003-pdfs/mar03leb.pdf/at_download/file |year=2003 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130818015515/http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/2003-pdfs/mar03leb.pdf/at_download/file |archive-date=2013-08-18}}</ref><ref name="Schafer 2006 73–86">{{cite journal |last=Schafer |first=J.R. |title=The seven-stage hate model: the psychopathology of hate groups |journal=Cultic Studies Review |date=2006 |volume=5 |pages=73–86}}</ref> In the first four stages, hate groups vocalize their beliefs and in the last three stages, they act on their beliefs.  Factors that contribute to a group's likelihood to act include the vulnerability of its members as well as its reliance on symbols and mythologies.  This model points to a transition period that exists between verbal violence and acting out that violence, separating hardcore haters from rhetorical haters. Thus, [[hate speech]] is seen as a prerequisite of [[hate crime]]s, and as a [[condition of possibility|condition of their possibility]].

Hate group intervention is most possible if a group has not yet passed from the speech to the action stage, and interventions on immature hate groups are more effective than those that are firmly established.<ref name="Schafer 2006 73–86"/> Intervention and rehabilitation is most effective when the one investigating a hate group can identify and deconstruct personal insecurities of group members, which in turn contribute to the weakness of the group.  Perhaps most critical to combating group hate is to prevent the recruitment of new members by supporting those who are most susceptible, especially children and youth, in developing a positive self-esteem and a humanized understanding of out-groups.<ref>{{cite book |last=Sternberg |first=R.J. |title=The Psychology of Hate |date=2005 |publisher=American Psychological Association |location=Washington, D.C. |pages=61–63}}</ref>