Social dominance‐based threat reactions to immigrants in need of assistance

The present investigation examined how individuals higher in social dominance orientation (SDO) react to experimentally induced intergroup threat in terms of support for helping immigrants. Participants read editorials describing an incoming immigrant outgroup posing realistic threats (to tangible resources and well‐being), symbolic threats (to values and traditions) or no threats. Participants higher in SDO exhibited greater resistance to helping immigrants upon exposure to realistic, symbolic, (Experiments 1 and 2), or combined realistic–symbolic (Experiment 2) intergroup threats, but not when the same immigrants posed no threats. In Experiment 2, SDO exerted indirect effects on modern prejudice through both heightened infra‐humanization and intergroup anxiety, with modern prejudice itself predicting greater resistance and indifference to helping immigrants. Moderated mediation analyses revealed strongest SDO‐infra‐humanization relations under conditions of symbolic threat. Implications for prejudice‐reduction interventions are considered. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Living under threat: Mutual threat perception drives anti‐Muslim and anti‐Western hostility in the age of terrorism

This research demonstrates a common psychology of outgroup hostility driven by perceived intergroup threat among three groups and seven cultural contexts: non‐Muslim Westerners, Muslims in Western societies, and Muslims in the Middle East. In Study 1, symbolic, but not realistic and terroristic threats, predicted non‐Muslim Norwegians' intentions to join anti‐Islamic movements. In Study 2, symbolic and realistic, but not terroristic threat, predicted non‐Muslim Americans' willingness to persecute Muslims. In Studies 3 and 4, symbolic threat predicted support and behavioral intentions against the West among Swedish and Turkish Muslims. Finally, in Study 5, a comparison demonstrated that symbolic and realistic threats had the same effects on violent intentions among non‐Muslim and Muslim Danes, and Muslims in Afghanistan. Meta‐analysis showed that symbolic threat was most strongly associated with intergroup hostility. Across studies, participants with high religious group identification experienced higher levels of threat. Implications for intergroup research and prejudice reduction are discussed.     

Foreign Language Exposure,Cultural Threat,and Opposition to Immigration

In the present article, we extend the notion of cultural threat posed by immigrants beyond its current conceptualization as symbolic, collective‐level threats to American culture and identity. Instead, we argue that routine encounters with non‐English‐speaking immigrants cause many individuals to feel threatened because of real barriers to interpersonal communication and exchange. We draw upon survey and experimental data to demonstrate that local contact with immigrants who speak little to no English, as well as incidental exposure to the Spanish language, heighten feelings of cultural threat, which increases anti‐immigrant sentiment and policy preferences.     

Is There a Backlash Against Immigration From Richer Countries? International Hierarchy and the Limits of Group Threat

Why do immigrants from particular countries systematically face more opposition? To resolve inconsistencies of prevailing group‐threat theories, I reintroduce a long‐standing hypothesis stipulating that people have a disposition for maintaining status hierarchy between ethnic groups. Accordingly, independent of perceived economic or cultural threat, natives are more likely to prefer immigrant groups of higher status based on the development level of the group's national origin. To test this argument, I exploit a substantial provincial variation of immigration flows and attitudes in Spain—one of the only countries that has received immigrants from both less and more developed countries. Consistent with my hypothesis, I demonstrate that anti‐immigration attitudes are more widespread in areas with immigrants from less developed countries regardless of their economic and cultural characteristics. I further document that many voters perceive stable group hierarchies and that these preferences are more predictive of anti‐immigration attitudes in lower‐status immigration contexts. Overall, these results suggest that even culturally similar and economically beneficial immigrant groups from poorer countries can face public opposition due to their lower‐status national origin, highlighting the independent role of group‐status perceptions in politics.     

Generalized and specific components of prejudice: The decomposition of intergroup context effects

Although different types of prejudice tend to be highly correlated, target‐specific and more generalized components can nevertheless be distinguished. Here, we analyze whether indicators of the intergroup context—threat, contact, and neighborhood composition—predict the target‐specific and/or generalized components of prejudice. Using data from the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study (N = 4629), we build a multilevel model that captures the relationship between social dominance orientation, general levels of neighborhood heterogeneity, symbolic and realistic threat and cross‐group friendship (averaged across target groups), and generalized prejudice. Our model simultaneously estimates the relationship between target‐specific levels of these intergroup context indicators and target‐specific prejudice. Results indicated that social dominance orientation remained the strongest predictor of generalized prejudice when adjusting for other variables and that indicators of the intergroup context primarily explain differences between target group ratings. Aggregate levels of cross‐group friendship also had a small effect on generalized prejudice.     

From prejudice to discrimination: The legitimizing role of perceived threat in discrimination against immigrants

This research analyses the mediational role of threat perception in the relationship between prejudice and discrimination (opposition to immigration and opposition to naturalization of immigrants). In the first study, using representative samples in 21 European countries (N = 36 566) from European Social Survey (2002), we showed that the relationship between prejudice and opposition to immigration was more strongly mediated by realistic than by symbolic threat perceptions. In Study 2, using representative samples in two countries with different traditions of immigration (Switzerland, N = 940; Portugal, N = 1514), we showed that realistic threat more strongly mediated the relationship between prejudice and opposition to immigration, while only symbolic threat perception mediated the link between prejudice and opposition to naturalization. The theoretical implications of considering threat perceptions as factors that legitimize discrimination are discussed. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The role of ingroup threat and conservative ideologies on prejudice against immigrants in two samples of Italian adults

This research investigated the relationship among perception of ingroup threats (realistic and symbolic), conservative ideologies (social dominance orientation [SDO] and right-wing authoritarianism [RWA]), and prejudice against immigrants. Data were collected with a cross-sectional design in two samples: non-student Italian adults (n = 223) and healthcare professionals (n = 679). Results were similar in both samples and indicated that symbolic and realistic threats, as well as SDO and RWA, positively and significantly predicted anti-immigrant prejudice. Moreover, the model considering SDO and RWA as mediators of threats’ effects on prejudice showed a better fit than the model in which ingroup threats mediated the effects of SDO and RWA on prejudice against immigrants. Accordingly, SDO and RWA partially mediated the effect of both symbolic and realistic threats, which maintained a significant effect on prejudice against immigrants, however.     

The relationships between contact,status and prejudice: An integrated threat theory analysis of Hindu–Muslim relations in India

In the context of Hindu–Muslim relations in India, the present study (N = 87) utilized Integrated Threat Theory (Stephan & Stephan, 2000 ) to examine the mediating roles of intergroup anxiety, realistic and symbolic threats and the moderating role of group membership (Hindu vs. Muslim) in the relationships between cross‐community contact, relative in‐group status and prejudice. Overall, intergroup anxiety and realistic, but not symbolic, threat emerged as proximal predictors of prejudice and partial mediators between the predictor and criterion variables. But these findings were qualified by majority (Hindu) versus minority (Muslim) group membership. As predicted, while symbolic threat was a predictor of prejudice for Hindus, realistic threat was a paramount predictor for Muslims. In‐group status was as a significant predictor for low‐status minority group only. The results are discussed with reference to their potential implications for future research and interventions aimed at improving intergroup relations. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Managers’ selection preferences: The role of prejudice and multicultural personality traits in the assessment of native and immigrant job candidates

PresentationStatistics across European countries show that immigrants have a disproportionate lower employment probability than persons born in the host country (SOPEMI, 2010). Explanations to this phenomenon are complex.ObjectivesAn experiment was conducted to investigate the relationship between multicultural personality traits and managers’ selection preferences in the hiring of native vs. foreign-born job candidates. We proposed that this relationship was mediated by prejudice.MethodsNorwegian managers (n = 222) were presented with one Turkish immigrant job candidate and two Norwegian-born, less qualified job candidates. The managers completed the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire (MPQ) and the Blatant Prejudice Scale (SBPS).ResultsWe found that the threat and rejection blatant prejudice subscale and Emotional stability predicted the managers’ hiring preferences. Specifically, the higher threat and rejection subscale scores and the lower emotional stability scores, the more likely it is that the managers preferred to hire a native, less qualified candidate over the Turkish immigrant candidate. The effect of emotional stability on candidate preference was not mediated by prejudice.ConclusionsThe results suggest that managers’ feelings of threat due to foreign-born immigrants’ participation in the host society (political conservatism), and threat due to intercultural interactions, are significantly related to foreign-born immigrant job candidates’ chances of being hired.     

The implications of threat for blind and constructive patriots and immigration attitudes

Immigration attitudes are influenced by types of patriotism and the perceived threat that immigrants pose. Previous research indicated realistic and symbolic threat mediates the relationships between blind and constructive patriotism types and anti-immigration attitudes in different ways. In two studies, the purpose was to replicate the mediating role of realistic and symbolic threat for the relationship between patriotism types and anti-immigration attitudes, and to determine if inducing threat in constructive patriots would result in immigration attitudes like that of blind patriots. In both studies, hypotheses were confirmed. Blind patriotism predicts realistic threat, symbolic threat, and anti-immigration attitudes. Realistic and symbolic threats provided moderated mediation between blind patriotism and anti-immigration attitudes. Constructive patriotism negatively predicts anti-immigration attitudes, but realistic and symbolic threats provide complete mediation for this relationship. The introduction of threatening information on future demographic changes had no impact on the relationship between blind patriotism, realistic and symbolic threats, and anti-immigration attitude. However, the introduction of demographic threat modified the relationship for constructive patriots, leaving no predictive negative relationship with realistic threat, symbolic threat, or anti-immigration attitude. The findings are important for understanding ethnic threat and the motivations to oppose immigrants in a changing United States.     

Constructing who can be Japanese: A study of social markers of acceptance in Japan

Social markers of acceptance are socially constructed indicators of adaptation (e.g., language skills or adherence to social norms) that recipient nationals use in deciding whether to view an immigrant as a host community member. This study had two objectives: (a) to distill the markers considered important by Japanese undergraduates to accept immigrants in Japanese society and (b) to test the premises of integrated threat and social identity theories by ascertaining the effects on marker endorsement of perceived immigrant threat, contribution, relative social status, and intergroup permeability. Native‐born Japanese (the term “native‐born Japanese” is used throughout this article to refer to people born as Japanese citizens—differentiating them from immigrants who are Japanese citizens naturalized after birth) from 12 Japanese universities (N = 428) completed an online survey. Marker importance ratings were factor‐analyzed, and three latent dimensions were found representing sociolinguistic, ethnic, and socioeconomic markers. Multiple hierarchical regressions discerned the main effects of immigrants’ perceived threat and contribution on social markers as well as their interactions with intergroup permeability and immigrant relative status. The results underscored perceived threat’s consistent role in increasing marker importance and suggested divergent paths to acceptance: Immigrants perceived as “low‐status” were expected to conform to sociolinguistic and ethnic markers, whereas socioeconomic markers were stressed more for “high‐status” immigrants when perceived immigrant threat increased and intergroup boundaries were considered less permeable.     

Opposition to Antiracism Laws Across Swiss Municipalities: A Multilevel Analysis

Public opposition to antiracism laws—an expression of prejudice toward immigrants—is widespread in Switzerland as well as in other European countries. Using data from the European Social Survey 2002 (N = 1,711), the present study examined across Swiss municipalities individual and contextual predictors of opposition to such laws and of two well‐established antecedents of prejudice: perceived threat and intergroup contact. The study extends multilevel research on immigration attitudes by investigating the role of the ideological climate prevailing in municipalities (conservative vs. progressive), in addition to structural features of municipalities. Controlling for individual‐level determinants, stronger opposition to antiracism laws was found in more conservative municipalities, while the proportion of immigrants was positively related to intergroup contact. Furthermore, in conservative municipalities with a low proportion of immigrants, fewer intergroup contacts were reported. In line with prior research, intergroup contact decreased prejudiced policy stances through a reduction of perceived threat. Overall, this study highlights the need to include normative and ideological features of local contexts in the analysis of public reactions toward immigrants.     

Cultural threat and perceived realistic group conflict as dual predictors of prejudice

Recent research has focused on how perceived intergroup similarity influences stereotyping and prejudice. Very little is known, however, regarding how the quality or type of similarity influences intergroup relations. Presented is a methodology that allows one to manipulate the quality of perceived intergroup similarity. This methodology is used to test contrasting predictions about how perceptions of intergroup similarity on self-stereotyped interpersonal and work-related traits predict attitudes towards immigrants. Predictions were derived from cultural threat and perceived realistic group conflict theories. Some participants were asked to rate how similar they perceived their in-group was to Mexican immigrants, whereas others were asked to evaluate how the groups differed on the given traits. Control participants evaluated themselves on the given traits. Participants were presented with either interpersonal traits or work related traits as stimuli. The main dependent measures were a perceived realistic conflict scale, a prejudice scale, and a stereotyping scale. All three scales used Mexican immigrants as the target category. When interpersonal traits were made salient, contrast comparisons led to more negative attitudes towards immigrants, supporting a cultural threat hypothesis. When work-related traits were made salient, similarity comparisons led to more prejudice and more negative attitudes towards immigrants, supporting a perceived realistic conflict hypothesis. Thus, a perceived threat to either the cultural norm or economic well being led to more negative attitudes towards immigrants. Results are discussed for their relevance to models of intergroup relations.     

The Role of Threat in Attitudes Toward Affirmative Action and Its Beneficiaries1

This set of two studies employed the integrated threat theory to examine attitudes toward affirmative action (AA). The first study found that opposition to the policy of AA was predicted by realistic threats, symbolic threats, and personal relevance; while attitudes toward the beneficiaries of AA were predicted by three of the four threat variables (symbolic threats, intergroup anxiety, and negative stereotypes), and in‐group identity. The second study replicated and expanded on the first study and found that the effects of several individual‐difference variables (racism, anti‐Black affect, and political conservatism) on opposition to AA were mediated by three of the threats in the integrated threat theory (realistic threats, symbolic threats, and negative stereotypes). The implications of the results are discussed.     

Perceptions of Threat and Expressions of Prejudice Toward the New Minorities of Western Europe

This article presents a group position model of prejudice and a set of individual-level theoretical approaches to explain prejudice toward immigrants, who are a relatively new minority group in Western Europe. It specifically tests the effects of the perceived threat posed by the new minorities to the dominant group position of the citizens in the European nation-states. Threat is measured both as individuals’ perceptions of threat over economic and sociocultural resources and as contextual factors. Results show that individuals’ perception of threat to their ingroup’s position has the most powerful effect on prejudice, whereas context does not seem to matter. The findings imply that sources of perceived threat should be addressed to help reduce prejudice.     

From Stigmatized Immigrants to Radical Right Voting: A Multilevel Study on the Role of Threat and Contact

This study examines the interplay between presence of stigmatized immigrants, threat, and intergroup contact that underlies radical right voting (voting propensity and actual district‐level vote results). On the one hand, low‐status immigrants are often stigmatized and depicted as threats. Thus, presence of stigmatized immigrants should heighten threat perceptions, thereby increasing radical right voting. On the other hand, as positive contact with stigmatized immigrants is known to reduce anti‐immigrant prejudice, it should also attenuate radical right voting. As predicted, multilevel path analyses with the Swiss Election Studies 2011 data (N = 1,736 respondents in 136 districts) revealed that the proportion of stigmatized immigrants (from former Yugoslavia and Albania) in districts heightened perceived threat. Threat perceptions, in turn, increased propensity to vote for the Swiss People's Party, the major radical right party. In contrast, experiencing positive, everyday contact with former Yugoslav and Albanian immigrants reduced voting propensity through attenuated threat perceptions. Contact and threat perceptions were also related to the actual vote through voting propensity.     

Prejudice Toward Immigrants1

In the present study, 4 variables (realistic threats, symbolic threats, intergroup anxiety, and negative stereotypes) were used to predict prejudice toward immigrants from Cuba, Mexico, and Asia in samples of students from states in the United States that are affected by immigration from these areas (Florida, New Mexico, and Hawaii, respectively). All 4 variables were significant (or marginally significant) predictors of attitudes toward these immigrant groups. Evidence is presented that the predictor variables are conceptually and empirically distinct. However, these variables do appear to be tied together by an underlying theme: They all concern threats to the in-group or its members. Some of the implications of the results for intergroup relations are discussed.     

Romaphobia among Serbian and Dutch adolescents: The role of perceived threat,nationalistic feelings,and integrative orientations

This study examines the relationships between nationalism and integration attitudes on one hand, and anti‐Roma prejudice on the other. Using Stephan and Stephan's threat theory, the study analyzes whether and to what extent these relationships are mediated by perceived economic and symbolic threats. Data were collected among 16‐ and 17‐year‐old students in Serbia and The Netherlands. A path analysis shows that perceived economic and symbolic threats mediate the relationships between nationalism and integration on one hand, and Romaphobia on the other. Moreover, the findings show that these relationships are comparable between Serbian and Dutch youth. Levels of threat and Romaphobia differ between countries. Youth in the Netherlands, who barely have contact opportunities with Roma, are characterized by higher threat and Romaphobia scores than Serbian youth, who have proportionally more contact opportunities. Explanations are discussed as well as implications for theory and prejudice reduction in diverse intercultural settings.     

Perceived threat to national values in evaluating stereotyped immigrants

The present research examined the psychological reasons behind Americans’ (un)willingness to accept immigrants. Participants read a scenario depicting immigrant groups allegedly expected to arrive in the United States and evaluated how much the immigrants would influence two types of American national values: civic values (e.g., political ideology) and ethnic values (e.g., shared culture and customs). Across three studies, competitive immigrant groups were stereotyped to be untrustworthy and perceived to threaten American civic values, but not ethnic values. Value threat then mediated the predicted competition–prejudice relationship in Study 3. Perceived vulnerability of in-group boundary might specify one motivated cause of derogating immigrants.     

The role of threat,emotions, and prejudice in promoting collective action against immigrant groups

In two studies we assessed the role of distinctiveness threat, group‐based emotions (angst, fear, and anger), and prejudice on people's willingness to engage in collective action against immigrant groups. In Study 1 (N = 222) White British participants were either informed that in the next 40 years the proportion of immigrants in the UK is unlikely to change (control condition) or that there will be more immigrants than White British people living in Britain (threat condition). We obtained support for a sequential multiple mediator model in which threat predicted British people's willingness to engage in collective action via the emotions first and then prejudice. This finding was replicated in Study 2 with an Italian sample (N = 283). These results enhance understanding of when and why advantaged groups undertake collective action against disadvantaged groups by demonstrating that distinctiveness threats and emotions promote such actions.