It’s security,stupid! Voters’ perceptions of immigrants as a security risk predicted support for Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential election

We analyzed two datasets to determine the predictive validity of four explanations of support for Donald Trump during the 2016 US presidential election: (a) security concerns regarding immigrants, (b) economic concerns regarding immigrants, (c) cultural concerns regarding immigrants, and (d) social dominance orientation. Results of a two‐phase study (N = 354) suggested that perceiving immigrants as a security concern was predictive of increased support for and greater odds of voting for Donald Trump three weeks later. Perceiving immigrants as an economic threat predicted odds of voting for Donald Trump, but only among liberals and there was no evidence of cultural concern or social dominance orientation (SDO) predicting support for Donald Trump or odds of voting for Trump. A follow‐up analysis of the cross‐sectional ANES survey corroborated that security concerns were an important correlate of voting for Trump, but also that SDO was correlated with having previously voted for Donald Trump. While our two‐phase study has the benefit of prediction, the cross‐sectional ANES data does not—“predictors” in these data were collected up to two months post‐election.     

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.     

‘It's not really us discriminating against immigrants,it's more telling people how to fit in’: Constructing the nation in immigration talk in New Zealand

Previous research has demonstrated that talk about immigration can function to produce, reproduce and stabilize racism (Capdevila & Callaghan, 2008 ). In New Zealand (NZ), changes in immigration policy have seen a rapid increase in diverse groups of migrants with varied cultural backgrounds entering the country in the past two decades. Given its unique colonial history and ‘settler nationality in a bicultural nation’ (Bell, 2009 ), we explored how young NZ adults talk about and produce meanings and understandings of immigration, immigrants and cultural diversity. Appealing to notions of NZ as ‘one society’, as English speaking, and as English looking participants constructed NZ, NZ national identity and the NZ economy in particular ways. This constituted a nationalist rhetoric that was taken up in common‐sense ways by participants to legitimize racist talk whilst simultaneously acting to locate participants themselves as reasonable and moral individuals. It is concluded that nationalist discourses function to reinforce patterns of social dominance and perpetuate the notion of New Zealanders as largely white, European‐looking and English‐speaking. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Attitudes Toward Immigration: The Role of Personal Predispositions

This article examines if deep‐seated psychological differences add to the explanation of attitudes toward immigration. We explore whether the Big Five personality traits matter for immigration attitudes beyond the traditional situational factors of economic and cultural threat and analyze how individuals with different personalities react when confronted with the same situational triggers. Using a Danish survey experiment, we show that different personality traits have different effects on opposition toward immigration. We find that Openness has an unconditional effect on attitudes toward immigration: scoring higher on this trait implies a greater willingness to admit immigrants. Moreover, individuals react differently to economic threat depending on their score on the traits Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. Specifically, individuals scoring low on Agreeableness and individuals scoring high on Conscientiousness are more sensitive to the skill level of immigrants. The results imply that personality is important for attitudes toward immigration, and in the conclusion, we further discuss how the observed conditional and unconditional effects of personality make sense theoretically.     

Personal values and immigrant group appraisal as predictors of voluntary contact with immigrants among majority students in Israel

What predicts whether young people will establish contacts with immigrants? Students are at a pivotal point in which the campus environment can enable substantial contact with immigrants, and where world views and behavioural patterns are formed which can follow through their adult lives. Through a value‐attitude‐behavior paradigm we examine a conceptual model in which appraisal of an immigrant group as a threat and/or benefit to the host society mediates the relationship between personal values and contact. Findings among 252 students in Israel showed that (1) threat/benefit appraisal of immigrants predicted voluntary contact; (2) personal values of self‐direction and hedonism directly predicted voluntary contact; and (3) Threat/benefit appraisal mediated the relationship between self‐direction and power and contact. Results suggest that increasing awareness of benefits of immigrants can promote positive inter‐group relations.     

Anti‐Immigrant Prejudice in Rising East Asia: A Stereotype Content and Integrated Threat Analysis

Immigration is a global phenomenon, yet comparatively few psychological investigations of anti‐immigrant prejudice have been conducted in East Asia, a region of high economic growth that is set to become a leading destination for international migrants. Over two studies, we examined Singaporean attitudes towards four prominent immigrant groups: Chinese, Filipino, South Asian, and Western immigrants. Each immigrant group was found to be associated with a unique attitudinal profile. Chinese immigrants, who are culturally the most closely related to most Singaporeans, were viewed the most negatively in terms of prejudice, stereotyped warmth, and realistic and symbolic threat. Westerners were viewed the most positively despite higher ratings of perceived competence, possibly due to Western cultural influence, whereas South Asians and Filipinos were viewed as being relatively unthreatening, possibly due to their occupation of undesirable social roles. Perceived threat—both realistic and symbolic—proved to be stronger predictors of anti‐immigrant prejudice than stereotypes. Implications for immigration policy in the region are discussed.     

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.     

Immigrant students’ educational trajectories: The influence of cultural identity and stereotype threat

Research has shown that stereotype threat can inhibit immigrant students to unlock their full potential. Individual differences in cultural identity could be associated with immigrants’ stereotype vulnerability. This longitudinal study (n = 516) investigates the influence of recurring experiences of stereotype threat at school, and how adolescent immigrants’ cultural identity and stereotype vulnerability affect their educational achievement. The results show a stronger decline of immigrants’ (vs. non-immigrants’) GPA, domain identification, and sense of academic belonging, as well as higher dropout rates. Higher stereotype vulnerability predicted a stronger decline in GPA, and lower levels of academic belonging. Stronger ethnic identity was related to higher stereotype vulnerability. An experimental belonging treatment failed to improve students’ educational achievement. This research combines stereotype threat and acculturation research within the educational context.     

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.     

Do Threats Galvanize Authoritarians or Mobilize Nonauthoritarians? Experimental Tests from 19 European Societies

Authoritarian predispositions and contextual threats are both thought to result in intolerance and prejudice towards immigrants and other minorities. Yet there is considerable dispute as to how authoritarianism and threat interact to produce an “authoritarian dynamic.” Some scholars argue that threats increase intolerance by “galvanizing” authoritarians. Others claim that authoritarians are always intolerant toward outgroups, with threat instead “mobilizing” nonauthoritarians. Using experimental manipulations of immigrant cultural threat embedded in nationally representative samples from 19 European societies, this study offers a test of these competing hypotheses. While we find some evidence for the “galvanizing” hypothesis, we find no evidence for the “mobilizing” hypothesis. The effects vary considerably across national samples however, with immigrants from Muslim societies being particularly likely to activate authoritarian predispositions. These findings show how the migration of culturally distinctive groups has the potential to activate authoritarian dispositions, thereby pushing the issue of immigration to the center of political debates.     

Terrorist threat,dehumanization, and right‐wing authoritarianism as predictors of discrimination

This study analyzed the relationship between terrorist threat and discrimination, operationalized by support for retributive justice against Islamic groups suspect of terrorist crimes. Two experimental studies were performed. Study 1 (N = 215) showed that the terrorist threat against the ingroup raises the support for the retributive procedures through the dehumanization of the outgroup. Study 2 (N = 304) analyzed how the mediating role of dehumanization in the relationship between terrorist threat and support for retributive justice is moderated by right‐wing authoritarianism (RWA). In addition, the study aimed to verify if the dehumanization of outgroup and RWA could explain the relationship between terrorist threat and discrimination of Muslim immigrants. The results indicated that adherence to RWA favors dehumanization of the outgroup and, consecutively, the discrimination, operationalized as support for the use of retributive justice. The adherence to RWA has been identified as the mechanism that explains the discrimination against Muslim immigrants.     

What's to Fear from Immigrants? Creating an Assimilationist Threat Scale

We argue that cultural threat, stressed in recent studies of anti-immigrant sentiment, is properly measured in the U.S. case as "assimilationist threat": a resentful perception that immigrants are failing to adopt the cultural norms and lifestyle of their new homeland. We explore the meaning and form of assimilationist threat in the minds of Americans through an analysis of four focus groups, two in Los Angeles, CA, and two in Columbus, OH. Using information from the focus groups, we develop and test a set of survey questions covering three dimensions of immigrants' commitment to their new country: language, productivity, and citizenship. We produce a summary scale of assimilationist threat that can be used by other researchers seeking to understand the causes and consequences of anti-immigrant sentiment.     

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.     

Social Dominance and the Cultural Politics of Immigration

We argue that conflict over immigration largely concerns who bears the burden of cultural transaction costs, which we define as the costs associated with overcoming cultural barriers (e.g., language) to social exchange. Our framework suggests that the ability of native‐born citizens to push cultural transaction costs onto immigrant out‐groups serves as an important expression of social dominance. In two novel studies, we demonstrate that social dominance motives condition emotional responses to encountering cultural transaction costs, shape engagement in cultural accommodation behavior toward immigrants, and affect immigration attitudes and policy preferences.     

Cultural and demographic correlates of self‐reported guardedness among East Asian immigrants in the US

The study examined guarded self‐disclosure or reticence to reveal personal information about oneself to others among East Asian immigrants in the United States, in terms of cultural (ethnic identity, self‐construal, and acculturation) and demographic (gender, age, number of years in the US, and English fluency) variables. Norms regarding appropriate amount, content, and type of self‐disclosure differ noticeably between Asian and American cultures. In general, Asians have been found to be more guarded in their self‐disclosure than their American counterparts. Such differences may hinder the formation of relationships between Asian immigrants and Americans. Thus, it is important for psychologists to examine culture‐specific and non‐culture‐specific correlates of guarded self‐disclosure among Asian immigrants in the United States. However, to date, there has been a dearth of studies examining this topic. This paucity of research is somewhat surprising given the large number of Asian immigrants in the United States. The participants included 170 East Asian immigrants (88 males, 82 females) who were administered a battery of psychometrically established measures. While guarded self‐disclosure did not vary by ethnic group (i.e., Chinese, Japanese, and Korean), it was associated with cultural and demographic variables. East Asian immigrants who exhibited guarded self‐disclosure were more likely to report elevated ethnic pride, interdependent self‐construal, separation, and marginalization, and were less likely to report elevated interpersonal distance, independent self‐construal, and integration. Men reported significantly higher guarded self‐disclosure than women. Overall, this study highlights the importance of assessing both culture‐specific and nonspecific factors in guarded self‐disclosure among East Asian immigrants. The findings emphasize the importance of considering more generic types of self‐disclosure in addition to disclosure of very private and/or distressing information. Awareness of the cultural correlates of guarded self‐disclosure may help counsellors target their outreach programmes for individuals of East Asian heritage.     

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.     

Negative Intergroup Contact and Radical Right‐Wing Voting: The Moderating Roles of Personal and Collective Self‐Efficacy

This study examines whether negative contact with immigrants promotes voting for radical right‐wing parties, to what extent this relationship can be explained by feelings of outgroup threat, and whether this relationship depends on perceived personal and collective self‐efficacy. Hypotheses were tested among 630 native Dutch respondents, mainly living in multicultural neighborhoods. The results show that negative contact with immigrants is associated with feelings of personal (egocentric) and group (sociotropic) threat, and both these feelings, in turn, are associated with radical right‐wing voting. However, negative intergroup contact is less strongly related to egocentric threat when individuals feel able to personally address negative situations with other people (personal self‐efficacy). Furthermore, the findings suggest that negative intergroup contact is less strongly related to sociotropic threat when individuals believe that people in their neighborhood are able to collectively address some negative situations (collective self‐efficacy).     

Cultural Threat and Anti‐immigrant Prejudice: The Case of Protestants in Northern Ireland

Cultural threat has emerged as a consistent predictor of anti‐immigrant and anti‐minority attitudes across many different national contexts. We examine this issue in the context of Northern Ireland using representative survey data, suggesting that Protestant and unionist communities experience a higher level of cultural threat than Catholic and nationalist communities on account of the ‘parity of esteem’ principle that has informed changes in the province since the Belfast Agreement of 1998. Our analyses confirm that, although there is evidence for some level of anti‐immigrant sentiment across all groups, Protestants and unionists do indeed report relatively more negative attitudes towards a range of immigrant and ethnic target groups compared with Catholics, nationalists or respondents who do not identify with any political category. The analyses further suggest that their higher level of perceived cultural threat partially accounts for this difference. We argue that cultural threat can be interpreted as a response to changes in Northern Ireland that have challenged the dominant status enjoyed by Protestants and unionists in the past. More generally, we argue that a politicised characterisation of cultural threat needs to be elaborated through future work. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Sociopolitical Control for Immigrants: The Role of Receiving Local Contexts

This study examines the individual and contextual factors associated with sociopolitical control expressed by immigrants in southern Spain. We used hierarchical linear modeling to evaluate the relations between individual (community participation, social connectedness, and perceived cultural competence of receiving community services) and municipality characteristics (city community participation, city social connectedness, and city community services’ cultural competence) and immigrants’ feelings of sociopolitical control. Data were analyzed using a two‐level model based on 707 Moroccan immigrants in 25 municipalities. After adjusting for gender, educational level, and psychosocial confounding factors, we observed a positive association between social connectedness and sociopolitical control at the individual level. At the contextual level, we observed a positive association between (a) city community participation, (b) city social connectedness, and (c) city community services’ cultural competence, and sociopolitical control. Indeed, living in a municipality where there are community services with high levels of cultural competence and where, on average, many people participate in organizations and neighbors are connected, was associated with higher levels of perceived control in the sociopolitical domain for immigrants. We also discuss implications for community‐based research and practice.