Explaining immigrant threat perceptions and pro‐immigrant collective action intentions through issue‐specific moral conviction and general need for closure: The case of the US–Mexico border wall

Abstract

AbstractThis research aimed at explaining immigrant threat perceptions and pro‐immigrant collective action intentions through moral conviction regarding the construction of the US–Mexico border wall and general need for closure (NFC). Among independent samples of Democrats and Republicans, we found that NFC (measured in Study 1, manipulated in Study 2) was negatively related to pro‐immigrant collective action intentions through enhanced immigrant threat perceptions when moral conviction was low. Instead, when moral conviction was high, Democrats were more motivated to act collectively to support immigrants through reduced immigrant threat perceptions, independent of NFC, whereas Republicans were less motivated to act collectively to support immigrants through enhanced immigrant threat perceptions, independent of NFC. These results suggest that moral conviction offers a powerful moral and issue‐specific motivation that can psychologically buffer against the negative influences of general NFC. We discuss how these results complement and advance the literature and open up new research avenues.