Public Reactions to Immigration in the U.S.: The Effects of Intergroup Contact and Political Orientation

Author(s):  
Xiaodi Yan ◽  
Mary Bresnahan ◽  
Yi Zhu ◽  
Syed Ali Hussain
Author(s):  
Ralf Wölfer ◽  
Miles Hewstone ◽  
Eva Jaspers

Despite six decades of research in the field of intergroup contact, the special role of the school setting as a key context for mixing has, after an initial focus on studies of school desegregation in the U.S., received relatively little attention, especially in Europe. In this chapter, we will explain why the school setting can provide particularly effective intergroup contact experiences for improving intergroup attitudes, before we report empirical evidence using the CILS4EU dataset. Our findings demonstrate that the school provides more intergroup contact opportunities than other contexts, and these opportunities are consistently associated with more favorable intergroup attitudes for the majority as well as different minority groups. The present findings highlight the usefulness of early intergroup contact interventions within the school setting due to the specific structure of the school as a setting, as well as the efficacy of outgroup experiences in childhood and adolescence.


2022 ◽  
Vol 86 ◽  
pp. 190-202
Author(s):  
Katrín Árnadóttir ◽  
Judit Kende ◽  
Karen Phalet ◽  
Linda R. Tropp
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 707-735 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mauricio J. Alvarez ◽  
Markus Kemmelmeier

Political orientation influences support for free speech, with liberals often reporting greater support for free speech than conservatives. We hypothesized that this effect should be moderated by cultural context: individualist cultures value individual self-expression and self-determination, and collectivist cultures value group harmony and conformity. These different foci should differently influence liberals and conservatives’ support for free speech within these cultures. Two studies evaluated the joint influence of political orientation and cultural context on support for free speech. Study 1, using a multilevel analysis of data from 37 U.S. states (n = 1,001), showed that conservatives report stronger support for free speech in collectivist states, whereas there were no differences between conservatives and liberals in support for free speech in individualist states. Study 2 (n = 90) confirmed this pattern by priming independent and interdependent self-construals in liberals and conservatives. Results demonstrate the importance of cultural context for free speech. Findings suggest that in the U.S. support for free speech might be embraced for different reasons: conservatives’ support for free speech appears to be motivated by a focus on collectively held values favoring free speech, while liberals’ support for free speech might be motivated by a focus on individualist self-expression.


2020 ◽  
Vol 50 (7) ◽  
pp. 406-417
Author(s):  
Anja Eller ◽  
Dominic Abrams ◽  
Stephen C. Wright ◽  
Ben Davies
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Ruth Milkman

This chapter examines the ways in which job segregation by gender is mirrored in the structure of organized labor, by analyzing patterns of union membership by gender, occupation, and industry in the early twenty-first century. It first looks at data on workforce feminization and segregation as well as evidence of women's view of organized labor and receptivity to unionism before comparing the composition of union membership to that of the U.S. labor force as a whole. It shows that there are two separate worlds of unionism, one male and one female, each with a distinctive culture and political orientation. Finally, it considers the fact that the labor movement is highly segmented along gender lines, along with its implications for understanding the dynamics of the relationship of women workers to unions in an era of labor movement decline.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa-Maria Tanase ◽  
John R Kerr ◽  
Alexandra Freeman ◽  
Claudia R. Schneider

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has been the worst infectious disease outbreak in the U.S. in over 100 years and was associated with the deaths of over 500,000 people in the U.S. within its first year alone. This public health challenge is additionally affected by public scepticism over the severity of the disease, or even its existence in many countries, including the U.S. Previous research has shown that this scepticism is politically skewed in the U.S., with conservatives more likely to downplay or deny the risks of the virus. Such polarisation has been led by elite cues, including the President of the U.S. at one point describing the virus as a ‘hoax’. However, the subsequent hospitalisation of President Trump with COVID-19 in October 2020 served as a high-profile exemplar of the reality and risks of the virus, and as such may have influenced opinions, particularly for U.S. conservatives. The current research draws on two studies, both of which serendipitously surveyed independent representative U.S. samples before and shortly after the announcement of Trump’s illness. In Study 1, measuring risk perceptions of the virus, we find that, controlling for sociodemographic factors, participants surveyed before and after the announcement did not differ in their risk perception regardless of political orientation. However, in Study 2, measuring belief that the virus is a hoax, we find that among those on the far right of the political spectrum, such a belief was lower for those surveyed after the announcement, suggesting that Trump’s hospitalisation may have changed the beliefs of those most receptive to the President’s earlier claims of the virus being a hoax.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Bi ◽  
Louis Martí ◽  
David O'Shaughnessy ◽  
Celeste Kidd

Analyses of political discourse typically focus on the semantic content of politicians’ statements. The approach treats the meaning of a speaker’s words as independent from the speaker’s identity itself; however, there are reasons to believe that one might influence the other. Features of a speaker’s identity influence others’ judgements of their character (e.g., Kinzler & DeJesus, 2013), and thus speaker identity could influence listeners’ assessment of the semantics and validity of the statements themselves. Here, we collect U.S. participants’ judgements of the political orientation of different statements, from liberal to conservative, heard with one of three accents, a generic U.S. accent, a Southern U.S. accent or an Australian accent. In comparison to identical statements conveyed in the generic U.S. accent, participants tended to perceive the U.S. Southern accented statements as more conservative and the Australian accented statements as more liberal.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document