Search

Individuals are often confronted with intergroup threats, yet many of these threats emanate from distant groups that most individuals are unlikely to encounter in their local environment. An important yet unanswered question is whether reactions to those threats, such as intolerance towards the threatening group, carry over to other groups that individuals actually do encounter in their local environment (e.g., immigrants). The main goal of our studies was to experimentally identify this carry-over effect of intergroup threat. Specifically, we hypothesized that (by definition relatively abstract) symbolic threats (e.g., threats to the ingroup's worldview) have an especially strong carry-over potential because those threats can be easily attributed to other outgroups. We tested these predictions in one correlational and two experimental studies. The results of all three studies confirmed our hypothesis that particularly distant symbolic threats were predictive of intolerance towards local outgroups., (© 2013 The British Psychological Society.)

Introduction: The discourse on immigration and immigrants is central to contemporary political and public discussions. Analyzing online conversations about immigrants provides valuable insights into public opinion, complemented by data from questionnaires on how attitudes are formed. Methods: The research includes two studies examining the expressive and informational use of social media. Study 1 conducted a computational text analysis of comments on Singaporean Facebook pages and forums, focusing on how social media is used to discuss immigrants. Study 2 utilized survey data to examine the use of social media at the individual level, testing the relationships between cognitive ability, perceptions of threat, negative emotions towards immigrants, and social media usage within the Integrated Threat Theory framework. Results: Study 1 found that discussions about immigrants on social media often involved negative emotions and concerns about economic impact, such as competition for jobs and crime. Complementing these findings about perceived economic threats, Study 2 showed that individuals with higher social media usage and greater perceptions of threat were more likely to have negative emotions towards immigrants. These relationships were mediated by perceptions of threat and were stronger in individuals with lower cognitive abilities. Discussion: The findings from both studies demonstrate the role of social media in shaping public attitudes towards immigrants, highlighting how perceived threats influence these attitudes. This research suggests the importance of considering how digital platforms contribute to public opinion on immigration, with implications for understanding the dynamics of attitude formation in the digital age. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

IntroductionThe discourse on immigration and immigrants is central to contemporary political and public discussions. Analyzing online conversations about immigrants provides valuable insights into public opinion, complemented by data from questionnaires on how attitudes are formed.MethodsThe research includes two studies examining the expressive and informational use of social media. Study 1 conducted a computational text analysis of comments on Singaporean Facebook pages and forums, focusing on how social media is used to discuss immigrants. Study 2 utilized survey data to examine the use of social media at the individual level, testing the relationships between cognitive ability, perceptions of threat, negative emotions towards immigrants, and social media usage within the Integrated Threat Theory framework.ResultsStudy 1 found that discussions about immigrants on social media often involved negative emotions and concerns about economic impact, such as competition for jobs and crime. Complementing these findings about perceived economic threats, Study 2 showed that individuals with higher social media usage and greater perceptions of threat were more likely to have negative emotions towards immigrants. These relationships were mediated by perceptions of threat and were stronger in individuals with lower cognitive abilities.DiscussionThe findings from both studies demonstrate the role of social media in shaping public attitudes towards immigrants, highlighting how perceived threats influence these attitudes. This research suggests the importance of considering how digital platforms contribute to public opinion on immigration, with implications for understanding the dynamics of attitude formation in the digital age.

The importance of skin colour is often neglected in empirical studies of negative attitudes towards minorities. In this study we use data from the 2014/2015 wave of the European Social Survey to analyse explicitly racist attitudes in Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic. The data was collected before the refugee crisis of 2015–2016, which gives the study a unique opportunity to analyse these attitudes in three of the countries that were among the most hostile to migrants in the EU. The study demonstrates how theoretical perspectives commonly used in explorations of negative attitudes based on ethnicity may be effectively used to analyse racist attitudes. The results show high levels of racist attitudes in both Hungary and the Czech Republic, despite there being very few non-white immigrants in these countries, while, in Poland, the racist attitudes are less widespread. Realistic threats seem to be of little importance for understanding racist attitudes – in contrast, symbolic threats appear to be very important for understanding them. There is also the surprising result that voters for more moderate political parties are no less racist than voters for the more radical political parties in any of the three countries.

Two studies examined whether men's perception of the declining value of traditional masculinity activates social status, realistic, and symbolic threat, and in turn motivates opposition to feminist social movements. In Study 1, men's perception that their ingroup is losing value across several social spheres was associated with social status and realistic threat, both of which were associated with opposition to feminist movements. Study 2, an experiment, presented men with public opinion data showing a 30-year decline in the degree to which Americans value traditional masculinity or no decline. Information about the declining value of masculinity activated status threat, which motivated less support for feminist movements. Among men who highly identified as masculine, this same information reduced support for feminist movements through symbolic threat. In sum, perceived decline in the social value of traditional masculinity creates status anxiety about the ingroup's future and motivates compensatory reactions against gender equality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article investigates the role social identity and values (e.g., universalism and security) play in perceived threat from Syrians from the perspective of internal migrants in Turkey. A process model connecting the key concepts of Integrated Threat Theory, Social Identity Theory, and a theory of value systems was proposed. We predicted that higher city identification would be related to higher perceived realistic threat (against physical resources) and symbolic threat (against cultural resources). We also predicted a positive indirect effect between city identity and threat through conservation values which are motivated to protect ingroup, and a negative indirect effect through self-transcendence values which are motivated to embrace outgroups. Internal migrants in İzmir (N = 219, age = 21-53 years, 50% men) responded to realistic and symbolic threat, city identity, and self-transcendence and conservation value scales. A Structural Equation Modelling analysis confirmed our hypotheses: Higher city identity predicted higher perceived threat from Syrians both directly and also indirectly through higher conversation values, but it predicted lower threat through Self-transcendence values. The contribution of the proposed process model in understanding prejudice toward Syrians and intergroup conflicts was discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to Gordijn (2002), prejudice does not only escalate because of how the ingroup feels towards the outgroup but also because of the perception the ingroup has about how the outgroup feels towards the ingroup, that is meta-prejudice. In a sample of 604 participants, this study explores the extent to which meta-prejudice predicts perceived threat and prejudice towards immigrants in Finland. In line with previous studies, results showed that meta-prejudice significantly predicted the perception of immigrants as a threat and feelings of prejudice towards immigrants. In addition, perceived threat significantly mediated the relationship between meta-prejudice and prejudice towards immigrants. Implications and recommendations for future research are discussed as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a context of inflow of immigration and economic crisis, new forms of prejudice and the activation of the perception of threat (realistic and symbolic) will determine the response to immigrant minorities (outgroups). The antecedents of threat are considered to be: the perception of the intergroup situation and the forms of affective prejudice. The outcome variables are ingroup favouritism, prosocial response, empathy and willingness to help. In a cross-sectional study based on a random survey of Basques (n = 500), structural equation modelling analyses were applied to test the differences between realistic and symbolic threat. The results indicate that when the majority group status is perceived as legitimate, the perception of realistic threat arises and this increases ingroup favouritism and decreases prosocial response to the outgroup, directly and through the expression of affective prejudice. Symbolic threat, on the other hand, plays a more limited role. Mechanisms of the perception of realistic and symbolic threat regarding attitudes of natives to immigrants are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent years have witnessed a rise in support for political parties with an anti-immigration sentiment and nationalistic rhetoric as their distinguishing traits. Within this context, our study, through a survey, analyses the relation of prejudice toward immigrants with ideological postulates of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance and outgroup threat. With a sample of 247 individuals (54.7% men and 45.3% women), our results reveal that positions favouring right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance and perception of realistic and symbolic threat have an influence on negative attitudes toward immigrants. At the same time, greater prejudice is found in those individuals scoring high in authoritarianism and symbolic threat. These results confirm, on one hand, the dual process motivation model of ideology and prejudice, and on the other, the bifactor structure of outgroup threat. As a conclusion, we propose that in order to foment peaceful coexistence and reduce hostility towards minority groups within today's social context, it is important to consider the relevance of ideological postulates and outgroup threat. It is a priority to design public policies that favour the inclusion and integration of minority groups with the goal of building more sustainable societies that respect human rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]