Abstract
AbstractScholars have examined the role that negative stereotypes play in electoral discrimination against minority candidates. Incorporating literature on in-group favoritism, the author argues here that some degree of this discrimination can be explained instead by voters holding positive stereotypes of majority candidates and discriminating in their favor. Based on the results of an original moderation-of-process survey experiment carried out in Italy, the study provides evidence of electoral discrimination pertaining to immigrant-origin candidates, concentrated among right-wing citizens. It finds that stereotypes have little mediating effect on discriminationagainstcandidates with a migration background; rather, the primary role played by stereotypes is in discriminationin favor ofmajority candidates, that is, positive bias that reserves electoral benefits to them. The relevance of in-group favoritism is corroborated by the finding that large segments of the Italian voting population hold distinctively positive stereotypes of majority candidates without also negatively stereotyping immigrant-origin candidates.
Highlights
Individuals of immigrant origin in European democracies are increasingly being granted legal citizenship and thereby full rights to run as candidates for political office
I analyze the explanatory role of stereotypes in two distinct forms of discrimination, one rooted in out-group hostility and the other arising from in-group favoritism
Do candidates with a migration background incur an electoral penalty? What form does this discrimination take – a positive in-group bias or a negative out-group bias? And can stereotype-based approaches help explain this electoral discrimination? the mediating role of stereotypes has attracted considerable attention in the political science literature on racial minority candidates, we know little about these questions as they pertain to immigrant-origin minorities
Summary
Individuals of immigrant origin in European democracies are increasingly being granted legal citizenship and thereby full rights to run as candidates for political office. Social psychological research suggests that in-group favoritism is more prevalent than out-group hostility (Greenwald and Pettigrew 2014), but that the two forms of biases are theoretically and empirically distinguishable This literature shows that they form at different stages in the development process, with in-group favoritism forming first (Buttelmann and Böhm 2014); correlate with specific individual-level characteristics (Bizumic et al 2009; De Dreu 2010; Shah, Brazy and Higgins 2004); and tend to exist independently of each other (Brewer 2017; Buttelmann and Böhm 2014). Immigrant-origin individuals are increasingly visible as candidates on Italian party ballots, they remain notably under-represented in political office (Vintila and Morales 2018)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
