The Effect of Immigrant Integration Policies on Public Immigration Attitudes: Evidence from a Survey Experiment in the United Kingdom

Drawing on intergroup threat theory, this article argues that immigrant integration policies can improve public attitudes toward immigrants and, particularly, toward refugees and asylum-seekers. Examining evidence from an original survey experiment conducted in the United Kingdom, I find that support for admitting asylum-seekers increases when respondents are made aware that prospective asylum-seekers will be required to partake in language and civic-education courses. This effect is particularly strong among respondents who were more likely to perceive asylum-seekers as a symbolic threat (i.e., conservatives). Similarly, support for admitting asylum-seekers increases when respondents are told that future asylum-seekers will only have limited access to welfare. This effect is stronger among respondents who were more likely to view asylum-seekers as a material threat (i.e., conservatives and individuals with low socioeconomic status). These findings have important implications for the literatures on immigrant integration policies, intergroup threat theory, and public immigration attitudes generally. Importantly, the results reported in this article illustrate the significance of structural determinants for the study of immigration attitudes and demonstrate the importance of disaggregating immigrant integration policies when evaluating their effects.

Intergroup threat and affective polarization in a multi-party system

What explains affective polarization among voters and societal groups? Much of the existing literature focusing on mass political polarization in modern democracies originates in the US, where studies have shown that, while ideological separation has grown, political conflict increasingly reflects social identity divisions rather than policy disagreements, resulting in affective polarization. We focus on explaining such polarization in a multi-party context. Drawing on social identity theory and intergroup threat theory, we hypothesize that individuals who perceive an intergroup threat show stronger intergroup differentiation and increased affective polarization. We analyze the influence of perceived threat on affective polarization drawing on two large-scale representative surveys in Sweden (N = 1429 and 1343). We show that individual-level affective polarization is related to perceived intergroup threats among the voters in both studies, measuring affective polarization using social distance, negative trait attribution, and party like-dislike ratings.

CONTENT MATTERS, FAKE OR NOT: MEDIA CONTENT INFLUENCE ON PERCEIVED INTERGROUP THREAT

We investigate how consumption of media content leads to change in perception of an outgroup, and how is such change affected when the content is presented as false. 403 Israeli participants filled out a questionnaire measuring realistic and symbolic threat towards EU asylum seekers (EUAS). after 10-14 days, participants read an article about EUAS. Group 1 read a positive article, group 2 read a negative article and group 3 read the same negative article, followed by a disclaimer notifying that fact-check websites found the facts in the article misleading and false. Group 4 read a neutral report and a control group did not read an article. A follow-up questionnaire measured perceived threat towards EUAS again, as well as participant’s evaluation of the articles. The finding show that media content has an immediate effect on perceived threat towards EUAS, and the relevant perceived threat emphasized in each article was significantly changed in the direction of the article (positively/negatively). The change was similar in the case of the negative article presented as a fake article. Further analysis shows that participants evaluated the fake article similarly to the negative article which was not presented as fake. Apparently, in each group the evaluation of the article (reliability, professionalism, convincingness, or objectivity) significantly correlated with participant prior perceived threat towards EUAS. It seems that prior attitude serves as a lens through which media consumers evaluate content, and the question of whether the facts are true becomes negligible compared to one’s own inclination and beliefs.

Sources of prejudice among police cadets toward foreigners: A test of intergroup threat theory

Literature in policing has mostly overlooked the antecedents of prejudice, especially those who choose a police career. Such a choice is important given the results of prejudice that might cause police misconduct toward regular migrants, irregular migrants, and refugees. This study aims to examine the factors that explain prejudice among police cadets toward other ethnic groups. This study’s data come from a survey of 725 police cadets in three police vocational schools in Turkey. We employed structural equation modeling to examine the antecedents of prejudice toward foreigners within the framework of intergroup threat theory. More specifically, in this study, we included factors such as anomie, authoritarianism, and nationalism and participants’ symbolic and realistic threat perceptions in shaping prejudice toward foreigners. The findings suggest that police cadets’ realistic threat perception was the most salient antecedent of prejudice toward foreigners.

Authoritarianism and Immigration Attitudes in the UK

Opposition to immigration has featured prominently in the “cultural backlash” to globalization in Western nations and was a key determinant of Britain’s Brexit referendum. In this article, we draw on theories of intergroup threat to examine the effect of “right-wing authoritarianism” on immigration attitudes in the UK. Previous research suggests that cultural aspects of immigration are especially important in shaping anti-immigrant attitudes. We use an original survey measuring attitudes toward immigration from differing skill levels and national origins. We find that right-wing authoritarianism is a much stronger predictor of immigration attitudes than other attributes. In addition, the effect of right-wing authoritarianism varies by immigrant origin, most strongly predicting opposition toward immigrant groups that may be perceived as culturally distant. We also find evidence that these effects are driven by the “aggression” component of right-wing authoritarianism, a facet of authoritarianism that captures a predisposition toward the enforcement of group norms.

The Role of Intergroup Threat in Support of Punitive Policies Toward Mexican Immigrants

The present research examined the degree to which symbolic and realistic threat perceptions of documented and undocumented Mexican immigrants predicted support for willingness to provide basic resources (e.g., food, water) in detention centers and agreement with policies that restrict Mexican immigration through detention and deportation. Our study recruited 191 participants online via Amazon Mechanical Turk. Results showed that undocumented immigrants were more realistically, but not symbolically threatening than their documented counterparts. Intergroup threat predicted lower willingness to provide basic resources in detention centers and greater support of punitive policies. This finding was not moderated by whether participants evaluated documented or undocumented immigrants. Once we accounted for social dominance orientation (SDO), political attitudes, and contact with Mexican immigrants, only SDO remained a significant predictor of attitudes toward resources in detention centers, while all variables predicted more support for punitive policies. These findings highlight the roles of symbolic and realistic threats, SDO, political attitudes, and intergroup contact in endorsing punitive immigration policies.