Immigration Opposition Among U.S. Whites: General Ethnocentrism or Media Priming of Attitudes About Latinos?

General ethnocentrism seems to be a powerful antecedent of immigration opinion, typically displaying larger effects than economic concerns. News about immigration, however, may focus attention on a particular group in a given historical moment. We predict group‐specific affect, not general ethnocentrism, should most powerfully shape immigration policy opinion in the contemporary United States. We test this expectation with content analyses of news coverage, survey data from 1992 to 2008, a survey experiment, and official statistics. First, we find that mentions of Latinos in news coverage of immigration outpace mentions of other groups beginning in 1994, the year when Proposition 187, a proposal in California to end most social welfare and educational assistance to illegal immigrants, garnered significant national attention. Second, while ethnocentrism dominates economic concerns in explanations of Whites' immigration policy opinions, attitudes toward Latinos in particular account for nearly all of the impact of ethnocentrism since 1994. Finally, journalistic attention to Latino immigration roughly parallels actual rates of immigration from Latin America, suggesting the media shaping of policy opinion around this group may be driven by real‐world demographic patterns.     

Right-wing authoritarianism and majority members’ preferences for minority acculturation

The present research examines the role of right-wing authoritarianism for the formation of majority members’ attitudes towards minority members’ contribution to the acculturation process. Previous research has confirmed the link between right-wing authoritarianism and majority members’ acculturation preferences. Nonetheless, a test of their longitudinal relationship was still lacking. Using data from a 3-wave panel study in Germany, we demonstrate that right-wing authoritarianism among majority members predicts less support for immigrants’ cultural maintenance and less support for the establishment of intergroup relations over time (Study 1, N = 551). Using cross-sectional survey data, we show that collective threat mediates these relationships (Study 2, N = 817). Data were representative of the German adult population. Our findings indicate that authoritarian majority members oppose integration because they perceive foreigners as threatening. Right-wing authoritarianism appears to be a meaningful individual difference variable linked to majority members’ attitudes towards immigrants’ maintenance of their heritage culture and the establishment of intergroup relations over time. Our findings complement recent theorizing about acculturation processes.     

Mental Health Professionals’ Attitudes,Perceptions, and Stereotypes Toward Latino Undocumented Immigrants

We assessed the attitudes, perceptions, and stereotypes toward Latino immigrants among 247 mental health professionals across 32 U.S. states. We also randomly presented two versions of an attitude measure that varied in their references to immigrants (“illegal aliens” or “undocumented immigrants”). Participants reported that they did not agree with the anti-immigration law Arizona SB 1070 and other similar bills. Also, greater multicultural awareness was related to positive attitudes and fewer stereotypes toward immigrants. Furthermore, participants who were asked to think about “undocumented immigrants” viewed Latino immigrants more positively than those who were asked think about “illegal aliens.” Findings show the continued need for multicultural awareness and competence training for mental health professionals, which align with the American Psychological Association’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (i.e., Principle E: Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity and Standard 3.01: Unfair Discrimination). Limitations and future directions for research are discussed.     

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.     

Distributive Justice for Others,Collective Angst,and Support for Exclusion of Immigrants

Harsh treatment of others can reflect an underlying motivation to view the world as fair and just and also a dispositional tendency to believe in justice. However, there is a critical need to refine and expand existing knowledge, not only to identify underlying psychological processes but also to better understand how justice may be implicated in support for exclusionary policies. Across two studies, we show that support for policies that restrict immigrants is exclusively associated with thoughts about fair outcomes for other people (distributive justice for others). In Study 1, Americans' dispositional tendency to believe in distributive justice for others was associated with greater support for a policy proposing to further restrict immigrant job seekers' capacity to gain employment in the United States. In Study 2, we experimentally primed thoughts about justice in a sample of U.S. police officers. Support for a policy that mandated stricter policing of illegal immigration was strongest among officers who first thought about fair outcomes for other people, relative to other unique justice primes. Across both studies, distributive justice for others was associated with greater collective angst—perceived threat towards the future existence of Americans. Moreover, collective angst mediated the link between distributive justice for others and support for restrictive policies. Overall, this research suggests that thoughts about distributive justice for others can especially diminish compassion towards immigrants and other underprivileged groups via support for exclusionary policies. In addition, merely thinking about distributive justice for others may be sufficient to amplify social callousness.     

Attitudes toward U.S. immigration policy: the roles of in-group-out-group bias,economic concern,and obedience to law

California's Proposition 187, directed primarily toward Mexican immigrants, deprives illegal immigrants of many benefits associated with U.S. citizenship and facilitates their deportation. The authors hypothesized that the respondents' opinions on this proposition would be determined by in-group-out-group bias (i.e., the tendency to evaluate the ethnic out-group more negatively than the ethnic in-group). In accord with that hypothesis, variations in respondent ethnicity (Studies 1 and 2) and in immigrant ethnicity (Study 3) were systematically related to the respondents' opinion on that issue. Moreover, the effect of in-group-out-group bias was independent of perceived reasoned economic and legal considerations that underlay the respondents' opinion.     

Stereotypical beliefs and psychological well-being of African American adolescent girls: Collective self-esteem as a moderator

African American women are often times characterized by stereotypes that can be traced back to slavery. Those stereotypes have been found to affect many outcomes in an array of domains related to work, intimate relationships, and personal well-being. The literature does not address how these stereotypes may affect adolescent African American girls. This study aimed to fill that gap by examining how the endorsement of stereotypes affects the psychological well-being, specifically stress, in 144 African American adolescent girls (N = 144) who ranged from 12–19 years old. This study goes a step further to investigate whether collective self-esteem can serve as a buffer between endorsement of stereotypes and perceived stress. Using combined mediation–moderation model, the analysis showed that there is a significant positive relationship between stereotypic beliefs and perceived stress that is buffered by moderate to high levels of collective self-esteem. Implications for treatment and policy, as well as educational recommendations are discussed.     

Inclusive victim consciousness predicts minority group members’ support for refugees and immigrants

What motivates minority group members to support other minorities, rather than compete for resources? We tested whether inclusive victim consciousness —i.e., perceived similarities between the ingroup's and outgroups’ collective victimization—predicts support for other minority groups; and whether personal and family experiences of group‐based victimization moderate these effects. Study 1 was conducted among members of historically oppressed groups in India. As hypothesized, inclusive victim consciousness predicted support for refugees. Personal experiences of group‐based victimization moderated this effect. Conceptually replicating these findings, in Study 2 (among Vietnamese Americans, mostly second‐generation immigrants) inclusive victim consciousness predicted less hostility toward other refugees and immigrants, and greater perceived responsibility to help victims of collective violence. This effect was moderated by family experiences of victimization.     

Self-esteem and favoritism toward novel in-groups: the self as an evaluative base

The self-as-evaluative base (SEB) hypothesis proposes that self-evaluation extends automatically via an amotivated consistency process to affect evaluation of novel in-groups. Four minimal group studies support SEB. Personal trait self-esteem (PSE) predicted increased favoritism toward a novel in-group that, objectively, was equivalent to the out-group (Study 1). This association was independent of information-processing effects (Study 1), collective self-esteem, right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), and narcissism (Studies 2 and 3). A self-affirmation manipulation attenuated the association between in-group favoritism and an individual difference associated with motivated social identity concerns (RWA) but did not alter the PSE effect (Study 3). Finally, the association between PSE and in-group favoritism remained positive even when the in-group was objectively less favorable than the out-group (Study 4).     

What Determines Voting Behaviors of Muslim Minorities in Europe: Muslim Identity or Left-Right Ideology?

Voting is key to political integration of immigrant-background minorities, but what determines their voting preferences remains unclear. Moreover, dual-citizen minorities can vote differently in their country of residence and origin. Using a representative survey of Turkish-Muslim minorities in two cities in Belgium (N = 447, M_age = 36.3), we asked whether left-right ideology or religious identity predicted their voting in their country of residence and origin, besides typical predictors of right-wing voting (i.e., efficacy, deprivation, and authoritarianism). Authoritarianism, low political efficacy, and high deprivation predicted voting for right-wing parties in Turkey, whereas the latter two, surprisingly, predicted voting for the left in Belgium. Latent class analyses of their religious practices distinguished “moderate” versus “strict” Muslims. While “strict” Muslims voted for right-wing parties in Turkey, ideology did not predict their voting. Conversely, in Belgium, while Muslim identity did not predict their voting, ideology did. Analyzing their combined effects, “moderate” Muslims voted based on their ideology—right-leaning voting for the right, whereas “strict” Muslims voted according to their interests as a disadvantaged minority in Belgium—thus voting for the left—or as a devout Muslim in Turkey—thus voting for the right. Our results elucidate processes underlying the voting behaviors of European-Muslim minorities.     

An Intergroup Perspective on Immigrant Acculturation with a Focus on Collective Strategies

This study adopted an intergroup perspective on immigrant acculturation, which views immigrants as members of a disadvantaged social category. Its primary purpose was to relate the relative disadvantage of certain immigrant groups to a preference for collective acculturation strategies. Questionnaires were administered to immigrants from four ethnic groups, two of which (blacks from the Caribbean, and Chinese) were considered to be relatively more “stigmatized” within the Canadian context than the other two (Greeks and Italians). In addition, a cross-generational methodology provided comparisons between first-generation immigrants (n = 116), and their adult children (n = 133). It was hypothesized and found that the more “stigmatized” immigrants perceived themselves to be at a greater social disadvantage and were more supportive of a collective integration orientation than less stigmatized immigrants. Parents were more likely to endorse a collective acculturation orientation and exhibited a stronger ethnic identification than their children. The results are interpreted using an intergroup approach to immigrant acculturation.     

Born in the USA: how immigrant generation shapes meritocracy and its relation to ethnic identity and collective action

Endorsing meritocracy can make low-status group members more accepting of inequality. This study examined whether rejecting meritocracy is related to increased ethnic identification among Latino immigrants, and whether identity in turn is related to increased support for collective action. We hypothesize that these relationships depend upon immigrant generation. A survey was conducted with 184 first- and second-generation Latino immigrants in New York City. Second-generation Latinos endorsed meritocracy less than those in the first generation, at least in part because they perceived that other Americans viewed their group in a less positive light (i.e., lower public regard). Further, meritocracy was negatively linked to ethnic identity and, through it, support for collective action among the second generation. Among the first generation, meritocracy was not related to ethnic identity and was positively related to support for collective action. We discuss the implications of growing up near the bottom of the U.S. social hierarchy for ethnic identity and collective action.     

Culture-specific personality correlates of anxiety among Chinese and Caucasian college students

The present study investigated the relationship between a set of personality constructs (i.e. perfectionism, independent-interdependent self-construal, and collective self-esteem) and trait and social anxiety among 324 Mainland Chinese and 333 Caucasian college students. It was hypothesized that the strength of the correlation between these personality factors and anxiety would be different for the two samples. The results indicated that socially prescribed perfectionism was a better predictor of social anxiety for the Chinese participants, but of trait anxiety for the Caucasian participants. Independent self-construal predicted social anxiety better for the Caucasians than for the Chinese. Overall, aspects of collective self-esteem were more correlated with anxiety among the Chinese than the Caucasians. The authors argued that the findings can be used to improve multicultural counselling in China and the USA and to provide more culturally specific interventions to clients having anxiety disorders.     

Support for Anti‐Muslim Policies: The Role of Political Traits and Threat Perception

We explored how political beliefs and attitudes predict support for anti‐Muslim policies and extremist behavior in the United States following the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks. A large sample completed measures of authoritarianism, social dominance orientation (SDO), generalized prejudice, identification with all humanity (IWAH), perceptions of Muslim threat, and support for anti‐Muslim policies and behaviors. These measures accounted for 73% of the variance in moderate anti‐Muslim policies and 55% of the variance in extreme anti‐Muslim policies. Authoritarianism and SDO directly and indirectly predicted support for anti‐Muslim policies, with their effects partially mediated by generalized prejudice, IWAH, and perceptions of Muslims as threatening. Threat both mediated and moderated the relationship between authoritarianism and anti‐Muslim policies. A negative interaction between authoritarianism and perceptions of Muslims as threatening predicted moderate anti‐Muslim policies, but a positive interaction predicted extreme anti‐Muslim policies. A tentative explanation is offered. Perceptions of Muslim threat was consistently a powerful predictor of anti‐Muslim policies and willingness to engage in extremist behaviors targeting Muslims. Programs to combat anti‐Muslim prejudice should consider the role of threat‐related stereotypes in expressions of anti‐Muslim 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.     

Attitudes toward immigrants: The interactive role of the authoritarian predisposition,social norms,and humanitarian values

This investigation tested whether social norms and endorsement of humanitarian values interact to influence authoritarians' attitudes toward immigrants. Oyamot, Borgida, and Fisher (2006) found correlational evidence for a model in which: (1) clear social norms for attitudes toward an outgroup (favorable or unfavorable) influence the authoritarianism–attitude relationship in the direction of the norm, and (2) in the absence of clear social norms, endorsement of humanitarian–egalitarian values attenuate the intolerant tendencies of authoritarians. The current investigation tested the model in a survey experiment conducted in a diverse adult sample (N = 388). We measured participants' levels of authoritarian predisposition and endorsement of humanitarian values. Participants were then randomly told that Americans in general had either negative, positive, or mixed opinions about immigrants and immigration (social norm condition), and then asked about their attitude toward immigrants. Consistent with the model, authoritarianism was negatively related to attitudes toward immigrants in the negative norm condition. However, authoritarians' tendency toward intolerance was attenuated when they thought that Americans in general had positive opinions about immigrants. Also as predicted, when societal norms were depicted as mixed, authoritarians' attitudes depended upon endorsement of humanitarian values: humanitarian authoritarians held positive attitudes and non-humanitarian authoritarians held the most negative attitudes toward immigrants. Implications for understanding the effects of authoritarian predispositions in varying social contexts are discussed.     

Parenting typologies in Georgian and Belgian adolescents: Associations with self-esteem

The parenting context is of fundamental importance for the optimal development of adolescents. Making use of a person-centered approach, we derived parenting typologies from the perspective of Georgian and Belgian adolescents based on four dimensions of perceived parenting (responsiveness, structure, psychological control, and autonomy support). Further, we examined how perceived parenting typologies were associated with adolescents' self-esteem. The study sample included 511 Georgian and 830 Belgian adolescents (N = 1341; 48% female). A cluster-analytic procedure on the full sample was conducted separately for mothers and fathers. The analysis yielded five parenting typologies: Supportive—Highly structuring (high responsiveness and structure), Highly structuring—Moderately controlling (high structure and psychological control, moderate—responsiveness), Supportive—Low structuring/controlling (high responsiveness and autonomy support, low structure and psychological control), Highly controlling (very high psychological control, low responsiveness and autonomy support) and Uninvolved (low on all dimensions). Results indicated that the Highly structuring—Moderately controlling paternal cluster was more prevalent in the Belgian sample. A country-moderating effect was found with the paternal Uninvolved profile associated with low levels of self-esteem in Belgian adolescents, but with moderate levels of self-esteem in Georgian adolescents.     

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.     

Proposition 187 reexamined: Attitudes toward immigration among California voters

The purposes of this study were to examine socio-demographic predictors of attitudes toward immigration in a community-based sample (N = 494) from the Los Angeles area; and to explore the relationship between attitudes toward immigration and the providing of educational and health services to the children of undocumented immigrants. Not providing services to the children of undocumented immigrants was a key element of California's Proposition 187. Attitudes toward immigration were measured with the Attitudes Toward Immigration Scale (ATIS). The providing of services was measured through the participants' evaluations of a school scenario and a health care scenario. Results indicated that participants who were middle-aged or older, less educated, identified as Republican, and were third generation or greater were more likely to hold negative attitudes toward immigration. Furthermore, participants holding negative attitudes toward immigration were less likely to provide education and health care services to the children of undocumented immigrants.     

Proposition 187 reexamined: Attitudes toward immigration among California voters

The purposes of this study were to examine socio-demographic predictors of attitudes toward immigration in a community-based sample (N = 494) from the Los Angeles area; and to explore the relationship between attitudes toward immigration and the providing of educational and health services to the children of undocumented immigrants. Not providing services to the children of undocumented immigrants was a key element of California's Proposition 187. Attitudes toward immigration were measured with the Attitudes Toward Immigration Scale (ATIS). The providing of services was measured through the participants' evaluations of a school scenario and a health care scenario. Results indicated that participants who were middle-aged or older, less educated, identified as Republican, and were third generation or greater were more likely to hold negative attitudes toward immigration. Furthermore, participants holding negative attitudes toward immigration were less likely to provide education and health care services to the children of undocumented immigrants.