Outgroup Threat, complex identities, and attitudes toward war and peace in Ukraine

This study addressed questions of whether right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO) would be related to perceptions of terrorists as either symbolic or realistic threats to the United States. RWA was expected to be positively associated with the perception of terrorists as a symbolic threat, whereas SDO was expected to be positively associated with the perception of terrorists as a realistic threat. One-hundred and seventy six community adults were surveyed as part of this study on measures of RWA, SDO, self-rated political conservatism, and perceived symbolic and realistic threat. RWA and SDO were both positively correlated with perceived symbolic and realistic threat in the study. During regression analyses, RWA emerged as a strong predictor of the perception of symbolic threat from terrorists, yet failed to predict scores on perceived realistic threat. SDO failed to predict both forms of perceived threat.

In postconflict Kosovo and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, we investigated the relationships of right‐wing authoritarianism (RWA), social dominance orientation (SDO), symbolic and realistic threat with attitudes toward peace and war. We also examined the mediating role of symbolic and realistic threat in the links between RWA, SDO, and attitudes toward peace and war. In Study 1, we focused on Kosovo Albanians (N = 415) and their relationship with Serbs, and in Study 2, we focused on the relationship between Russians (N = 132) and Ukrainians (N = 102). In both studies, we found that SDO was negatively associated with positive attitudes toward peace and positively with positive attitudes toward war. RWA was positively associated with positive attitudes toward war in Study 1. Symbolic threat was negatively related to positive attitudes toward peace, and realistic threat was positively related to positive attitudes toward war in both studies. The relationship between RWA and attitudes toward peace was mediated by symbolic threat, and the relationship between RWA and attitudes toward war was mediated by realistic threat. These findings attest to the negative role of RWA, SDO, symbolic and realistic threat on attitudes toward peace and war in conflict‐related contexts. We discuss potential implications for interventions that challenge negative attitudes toward peace and positive attitudes toward war in (former) adversary groups.

Veiled Threats: How Do Identity Threats Shape Muslims' Support for Terrorism?

Despite growing scientific attention for hate, little is known about how perceived threats may influence hate and aggression. In four preregistered online studies (Ntotal = 1422), we test a threat – hate – aggression model, examining the differential effects of symbolic and realistic threats on the emergence of hate, and the associations between hate and specific aggressive behaviors, across interpersonal and intergroup hate targets. In Study 1 we specify models testing the threat – hate – aggression paths. In Studies 2 (interpersonal hate) and 3 and 4 (intergroup hate) we manipulate realistic and symbolic threat perceptions, measuring hate and aggression. Across studies, hate is better predicted by symbolic than realistic threats. Also, hate consistently predicts aggressive tendencies and hurting behaviors, and interpersonal hate mediates the relationship between symbolic threats and the two aggressive behaviors while intergroup hate mediates the relationships between symbolic (and partially realistic) threats and the two aggressive behaviors. We discuss the implications of our findings for hate, threat, and prejudice research.

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.

The present study prospectively examines associations between citizens’ perceived symbolic and realistic threat and mental health before and after refugee settlement in their neighbourhood. Citizens in two Amsterdam (the Netherlands) neighbourhoods participated in the study ( N = 280). A follow-up measurement after the settlement of refugees was conducted in one neighbourhood ( n = 66). Cross-sectional results confirm that higher levels of perceived symbolic and realistic threat were both associated with poorer mental health. A prospective longitudinal analysis showed no increase in realistic or symbolic threat, but mental health was poorer in citizens after refugee settlement. Higher threat perceptions among citizens in the area before the settlement of refugees predicted poorer mental health after the settlement. This association was stronger than the reverse association (poorer mental health predicting higher threat perceptions). Policymakers should consider experienced threat levels among citizens when developing and communicating refugee settlement policies.

The complex phenomenon of prejudice has been the focus of interest among social psychologists since the mid-20th century. The Intergroup Threat Theory (ITT) is one of the most efficient theoretical frameworks to identify the triggers of prejudice. In this study, using experimental design, we examined the effects of symbolic and realistic threats on prejudice that was measured by means of a modified social distance scale. The study participants were 611 undergraduate students from the country of Georgia. In addition to providing further support for ITT, the study showed that the level of religiosity moderated the effects between both types of threats and prejudice, although it had different indications for realistic and symbolic threats, while gender interacted only with symbolic threat. Implications of the findings are discussed.

IntroductionThis study (N = 141, Mage = 20.15) aimed at deepening knowledge on the factors that can lead young adults to deny the inalienability of human rights to migrants by examining whether, under realistic and symbolic intergroup threat (versus no-threat), the denial of human rights to migrants increases. In doing so, the role of fraternalistic relative deprivation in mediating this relation was examined. Also, two potential positive factors were considered: in-depth exploration of personal identity in the educational domain and identification with the human group. Intergroup threat was expected to enhance perceived relative deprivation, thus reducing the attribution of human rights to migrants. Such relation was expected to be mediated by those factors expressing complex views of self and others (in-depth exploration of identity in the educational domain and identification with the human group).MethodRealistic and symbolic threat were experimentally manipulated through a written scenario. In the no-threat condition, no scenario was presented.ResultsShowed significant effects of intergroup threat on the attribution of human rights to migrants, on perceived fraternalistic relative deprivation, on in-depth exploration of identity in the educational domain and identification with the human group. More specifically, intergroup realistic threat, but not symbolic threat, reduced the attribution of human rights to migrants and identification with the human group. Symbolic threat, but not realistic threat, increased the perception of fraternalistic relative deprivation, whereas both realistic and symbolic threat reduced in-depth exploration of identity in the educational domain, and identification with the human group. As shown by the sequential mediation analysis, and as expected, the effect of intergroup threat in reducing attribution of human rights to migrants was mediated by in-depth exploration of identity in the educational domain, identification with the human group, and fraternalistic relative deprivation. Implications of findings concerning the processes underlying identification with the human group and its beneficial effects in terms of humanization of a stigmatized outgroup were highlighted by stressing the intertwined nature of personal identity and social identity processes. The importance of complex views of self and others in helping to create inclusive generations of adults was also highlighted.

Australia has a significant intake of refugees each year. The majority enter through the humanitarian entrants program and a small percentage arrive seeking asylum. These processes have resulted in considerable debate, which has sometimes been associated with negative attitudes within the mainstream community. Research has indicated that realistic threat and symbolic threat are important components of the integrated threat theory for understanding opposition towards immigrants and refugees. Social desirability has also been indicated as potentially influential in the expression of negative attitudes. The current study examined the prevalence and correlates of negative attitudes towards refugees in an Australian sample. Participants consisted of 261 volunteer university students (119 men and 142 women). Participants were assessed on a prejudicial attitude measure, measures of symbolic and realistic threat and the Marlowe – Crowne Social Desirability Scale. The results indicated that more than half of the participants (59.8%) scored above the mid-point on prejudicial attitudes. Male participants reported less favourable attitudes towards refugees than female participants. Analysis revealed that both realistic and symbolic threats were influential in predicting prejudicial attitudes and, of these, realistic threat was the better predictor. The results are discussed in relation to the integrated threat theory of prejudice and in the context of addressing prejudice towards refugees in Australia.

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.

In Chapter 10, Croucher and colleagues explore COVID-19 prejudice and intergroup contact in 20 nations. The chapter defines prejudice, integrated threat, and intergroup contact. The chapter then outlines how prejudice during the COVID-19 pandemic manifested in each of the 20 nations before comparing prejudice, particularly integrated threat, and intergroup contact in each nation. Results showed that England, Brazil, and Peru were the highest on realistic and symbolic threats. France, Singapore, and India were the lowest on realistic threat, while Kyrgyzstan, Singapore, and India were the lowest on symbolic threat. India, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia were the highest on intergroup contact, while Chile, Peru, and Turkey were the lowest. In addition, symbolic and realistic threats were positively correlated in the combined sample and in each nation. The importance of connections between historical context and the influence of negative intergroup contact is explored.

The link between integration policies and intergroup attitudes or threat perceptions has received considerable attention. However, no studies so far have been able to explore how this relationship changed following the European migration crisis due to a lack of recent comparative policy data. Using new MIPEX data, this is the first study to examine mechanisms underlying the policy-threat nexus following the European migration crisis, distinguishing between several strands of integration policies, and realistic and symbolic threat. To do so, we combine 2017 Eurobarometer data with 2017 Migrant Integration Policy data, resulting in a sample of 28,080 respondents nested in 28 countries. The analyses also control for economic conditions, outgroup size, and media freedom. Multilevel analyses indicate that respondents living in countries with more inclusive integration policies in general report lower realistic and symbolic threat. When investigating different policy strands, we find that inclusive policies regarding political participation and access to nationality for immigrants are associated with lower realistic and symbolic threat. We compare our findings to those from prior to the European migration crisis and discuss the potential role of this crisis in the policy-threat nexus.

(1) Background: This study explores how threat perception mediates the relationship between binding moral foundations and prejudice toward migrants. We hypothesized that the relationship between binding moral foundations and prejudice against migrants, which is already established in the literature, is mediated through realistic and symbolic threat perception. (2) Methods: Two separate samples were gathered, in Malta (N = 191) and Italy (N = 189). The participants responded to an anonymous questionnaire containing several scales: the Moral Foundation Questionnaire, perceived threat from migrants, prejudice toward migrants, and social distance from several macro-categories of migrants. (3) Results: We confirmed a significant relationship between binding moral foundations and explicit prejudice toward migrants, and also found that this relationship was mediated by perceived realistic and symbolic threats in both countries. However, when the indices of social distance were considered as criterion variables, the direct relationship between binding moral foundations and social distance was not confirmed for all the migrant macro-groups. In addition, in some migrant groups, we found that this relationship was mediated by perceived realistic and symbolic threats. (4) Conclusions: This study indicates that the perception of realistic threats may have a significant role in determining the effect of binding moral foundations; this may have theoretical and practical implications.

Extensive research has found hostility between the political parties in the United States. While it is generally accepted that the parties perceive threats from each other, there is little empirical research investigating whether these perceived threats exist among the public. This article utilizes social identity theory and intergroup threat theory to examine relationships between partisan media use and perceived symbolic and realistic threats from the opposing political party. Using cross-sectional data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, we ran mediation models. We found that the use of in-group media is associated with higher levels of both the symbolic and realistic threats that emanate from the opposing political party. We also examine whether these two types of threats are related to political engagement in the form of political participation. Our results reveal that symbolic threats are associated with engagement, while realistic threats are not. Finally, we examined a full moderated mediated model where media use predicts engagement through our two types of threats. Implications and areas for future research are discussed.

ABSTRACTThere is ample evidence of the beneficial effects of intergroup contact in reducing negative attitudes towards immigrants. Although the valuable role of institutional support, one of the initial optimal conditions for contact, has been demonstrated, the impact of actual immigration integration policies, as a manifestation of institutional support, remains unknown. In the current study, we examine how country-level migrant integration policies, assessed by the MIPEX indicator, shape the relationship between everyday contact and threat perceptions associated to immigration. Multilevel regression analyses were conducted with European Social Survey Round 7 data from 20 European countries (N = 32,093 citizens). Everyday contact was related to less symbolic and realistic threat perceptions. Moreover, on the country level, tolerant policies (a high MIPEX score) were related to higher everyday contact and lower symbolic threat perceptions. Confirming that institutional support facilitates the effects of contact, a cross-level interaction revealed that the link between everyday contact and symbolic threat was stronger in high rather than low MIPEX countries. The pattern of results was partially replicated when contact quality and cross-group friendships were assessed, though integration policies did not moderate the effects of these intergroup contact measures. These findings extend the body of multilevel contact research and are crucial for application as they show that integration policies have the potential to guide national majority members’ perceptions regarding immigrants.