The Muted Consequences of Correct Information About Immigration

Drawing on intergroup contact theory and intergroup threat theory, this chapter outlines the interplay of contact and threat in intergroup relations over time and their interactive effects on prejudice. We propose the Temporally Integrated Model of Intergroup Contact and Threat (TIMICAT), which holds that both (positive or negative, direct or indirect) contact and (different types of) threat can vary over time and in relation to one another. The effects of contact and threat on prejudice may be cumulative and additive and this trajectory can be disrupted by salient changes in any temporal element. TIMICAT systematically structures the intergroup context in terms of the temporal frame for contact and threats (none, past, continuous, discrete, multiple, future). We then provide initial empirical evidence for TIMICAT, using data from majority and minority group perspectives, from different countries. Moreover, a two-year longitudinal study questions the causal direction proposed by intergroup threat theory. Finally, a quasi-experimental study found that threat cannot only be a mediator in the contact-prejudice relationship, but that threat and contact can operate in parallel as independent influences on prejudice. In conclusion, we propose the TIMICAT framework as a novel way to conceptualize the contact-threat-prejudice links and look forward to seeing more research that examines these variables in a temporal and interactive framework.

Recent theoretical models stress the importance of both personal and contextual factors in the development of political extremism. One such theory is the Intergroup Threat Theory (ITT) that suggests a relationship between extremism and intergroup threat (i.e., the perception that one's ingroup is threatened by a particular social outgroup). Using an adaptation of the Semantic Misattribution Procedure (SMP), the present research aimed at replicating the results of previous studies using a novel measure. In a first study (N = 88, 77% female), self-reported intergroup threat was significantly and positively related to two types of extreme political attitudes, namely, right-wing authoritarianism and generic conspiracy beliefs. The SMP score, in contrast, was only significantly correlated to right-wing authoritarianism. In a second study, these results were replicated in a larger sample (N = 243, 68% female). Moreover, both self-reported and indirectly measured intergroup threat were related to hostile attitudes and stereotypes against immigrants. When compared to explicit intergroup threat, however, the SMP score was not incremental in the prediction of hostile attitudes against immigrants. These results support the validity of the SMP for the assessment of intergroup threat. Replications should explore the practical utility of the SMP in other samples using additional validation criteria.

Background. Media reports on armed fights or terror attacks introduce reminders of death into people’s daily lives. When people feel non-specific threats (mortality salience) or specific threats (intergroup threats), they may demonstrate unfavorable attitudes toward national outgroups. The issue is mostly analyzed today in line with Terror Management Theory and Intergroup Threat Theory. Objective. To examine such threats in the Russian context, and the impact of mortality salience (MS) on attitudes toward national outgroups that induced different levels of perceived intergroup threat. Design. In two studies, participants watched films and completed questionnaires about social distance, social thermometer, and trust toward “more or less threatening” countries. In Study 1, 120 Russian students were assigned to six groups via experimental design: 3 (MS: terrorist attacks in Europe, terrorist attacks in Russia, or a control group watching a video about dental treatment) x 2 (country: Ukraine and Belarus). In Study 2, 122 participants were similarly divided into six groups, evaluating attitudes toward the USA and China. Results. Study 1 showed that MS mostly increased unfavorable attitudes toward a country perceived as more threatening (Ukraine) than toward one perceived as less threatening (Belarus). Study 2 indicated the same effect on attitudes toward both more (the USA) and less (China) threatening outgroups. Conclusion. The results identified contradictory tendencies in MS effect, in line with Terror Management Theory and Intergroup Threat Theory. The findings could be used in improving relationships from an international perspective.

ABSTRACTDutch adults from a nationwide Internet panel (N = 426) were asked to imagine that their next‐door neighbours would move out and that people with intellectual disability would move in. Severity of disability and group size were varied to manipulate intergroup threat. These two factors independently influenced social acceptance and a variety of emotional and behavioural measures. In particular, it was found that a large group with severe disability aroused the strongest negative response, whereas a small group with mild disability aroused the weakest negative response. Small groups with a severe disability and large groups with a mild disability aroused similar and intermediate negative responses. Results are discussed in terms of theories of intergroup threat and stigmatisation. Practical implications for predicting the success of de‐institutionalisation and social integration of groups with special needs are addressed. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Media reports on armed fights or terror attacks introduce reminders of death into people's daily lives. When people feel non-specific threats (mortality salience) or specific threats (intergroup threats), they may demonstrate unfavorable attitudes toward national outgroups. The issue is mostly analyzed today in line with Terror Management Theory and Intergroup Threat Theory. To examine such threats in the Russian context, and the impact of mortality salience (MS) on attitudes toward national outgroups that induced different levels of perceived intergroup threat. In two studies, participants watched films and completed questionnaires about social distance, social thermometer, and trust toward "more or less threatening" countries. In Study 1, 120 Russian students were assigned to six groups via experimental design: 3 (MS: terrorist attacks in Europe, terrorist attacks in Russia, or a control group watching a video about dental treatment) x 2 (country: Ukraine and Belarus). In Study 2, 122 participants were similarly divided into six groups, evaluating attitudes toward the USA and China. Study 1 showed that MS mostly increased unfavorable attitudes toward a country perceived as more threatening (Ukraine) than toward one perceived as less threatening (Belarus). Study 2 indicated the same effect on attitudes toward both more (the USA) and less (China) threatening outgroups. The results identified contradictory tendencies in MS effect, in line with Terror Management Theory and Intergroup Threat Theory. The findings could be used in improving relationships from an international perspective.

Women experience realistic and symbolic gender intergroup threats across diverse social contexts, which can profoundly influence their decision-making processes. Drawing on intergroup threat theory, this research investigated how perceived gender intergroup threats affect women’s intertemporal choice behavior and examined cognitive appraisal as a potential mediating mechanism. Study 1 (N = 281) found a negative correlation between gender intergroup threat perception and delay discounting through questionnaires. Study 2 (N = 154) experimentally manipulated threat perception and demonstrated that both realistic and symbolic gender threats enhanced consideration of future consequences, with cognitive appraisal serving as a complete mediator of these effects. Study 3 (N = 120) employed a recall paradigm, providing convergent evidence that heightened realistic threat perception and associated threat appraisal increased preferences for delayed, long-term outcomes. These findings suggest that perceived gender intergroup threats promote future-oriented decision-making among women, potentially as an adaptive strategy to manage threat-related risks, and the mediating role of cognitive appraisal further elucidates the psychological mechanisms underlying this behavioral shift. This research advances the theoretical understanding of how intergroup threat dynamics shape women’s economic behavior and extends knowledge of gender threat interactions in decision-making contexts.

Employing the integrated threat theory of prejudice (Stephan & Stephan, 1996), the proposition that the intergroup threats (realistic and symbolic) would be more predominant in predicting prejudice among high-identified group members was examined in this study. In contrast, the interpersonal threats (intergroup anxiety and negative stereotypes) would be more predominant in predicting prejudice among low-identified group members. Prejudice of native Israelis toward Russian immigrants, as well as their perceptions of the 4 types of threats posed by these immigrants, was assessed among 104 participants. Regression analyses revealed that realistic threats were more influential in predicting prejudice for high identifiers than for low identifiers, whereas intergroup anxiety was more influential in predicting prejudice for low identifiers than for high identifiers. High and low identifiers did not differ in regard to the relative influence of the symbolic threat and negative stereotypes. The results are discuss...

Why do some individuals feel hostility and express bias against supporters of other political parties? Drawing on intergroup threat theory, we examine the role of emotions as a mechanism by which perceived threats against the ingroup are a source of increased affective polarization. In two survey experiments performed in the multiparty contexts of Sweden (N = 505) and Germany (N = 776), we manipulated intergroup threat using simulated online media, presenting participants with content related to immigration, and measured affective polarization using ratings of ingroup and outgroup supporter traits and feeling thermometers. Compared to a control condition, the threatening content evoked fear, anxiety, and anger among participants. However, only when individuals reacted to the threatening content with anger was increased affective polarization observed, in line with research showing that anger is a high‐arousal emotion related to an increased reliance on stereotypes. We conclude that individuals distance themselves from supporters of opposing political parties when they perceive a threat to their ingroup and subsequently react with anger. The findings contribute to the literature on affective polarization by stressing the role of emotional reactions to intergroup threat.

The present research aims to contribute to the understanding of anti-vaccination attitudes. We do this by analyzing the role of social identity and intergroup threat. Drawing on intergroup threat theory, we hypothesize that being informed that the general population is positive toward vaccines may be perceived as threatening to individuals identifying as vaccine-hesitant, which may lead to stronger anti-vaccination attitudes. We evaluate this hypothesis in two survey experiments performed among Swedish citizens (Study 1, N = 376; Study 2, N = 698), where we present participants in the treatment group with information that the position toward vaccines in the general population is positive. We find that when vaccine-hesitant individuals are informed that the general population is positive toward vaccines, they express stronger anti-vaccination attitudes. We further find that this relationship is mediated by negative emotions, implying perceptions of intergroup threat. We conclude that individuals with a vaccine-hesitant identity feel threatened when learning that most others are positive toward vaccines, which is associated with stronger anti-vaccination attitudes. These results have important implications for the understanding of anti-vaccination attitudes, suggesting that such attitudes may increase when individuals feel that their identity is threatened.

What can public attitudes towards the integration of co-ethnic migrants teach us about social integration in newly diverse societies? Research finds that South Koreans prefer co-ethnic migrants from culturally similar or desirable origins, but it says little about the integration of migrant groups. Existing data and qualitative studies suggest considerable barriers to fully incorporating otherwise preferred migrants. Focusing on integrating North Korean migrants in South Korea – a relatively privileged migrant group that enjoys substantial resettlement support but encounters barriers to full integration – this paper addresses the research gap by testing competing explanations of migrant incorporation. Informed by Intergroup Threat Theory (ITT), the study examines how threats defined as realistic or symbolic shape native attitudes toward these migrants. Using a conjoint survey experiment to measure preferences for economic, political, and social integration, we find South Koreans favor North Korean migrants with extended residence in South Korea, which is a marker for diminishing realistic and symbolic intergroup threats. Conversely, migrants signaling stronger affiliations to North Korea or lacking diverse social ties in South Korea fail to alleviate intergroup threat concerns and consequently face discrimination. Our findings offer insights into integration policy and contribute to the migration and citizenship literature and contemporary Korean Studies.

Although the effectiveness of intergroup contact as a mechanism for reducing prejudice is well-established, limited research has simultaneously examined this effect among groups that are in different contact relationships. Using data based on a between-group cross-sectional design from 335 Turkish undergraduate students, this study compared the direct and the indirect association of intergroup contact with prejudice toward Kurds and Syrians in Turkey through intergroup threat. The results showed that intergroup contact predicted less prejudice toward Kurds but not toward Syrians, and intergroup threat mediated the role of intergroup contact in prejudice toward Kurds but not toward Syrians. The findings were discussed based on theories of intergroup contact and intergroup threat, with a reflection on the limitations, extensions, and implications of the study.

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.

Using concepts from social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979), we examined whether racial/ethnic majority group members' reactions to future demographic shifts is a function of the degree to which they perceive their ingroup's higher-status in society to be legitimate. In two studies, participants who varied in the degree to which they perceived their group's status to be legitimate were either exposed to real projections for 2060 (i.e., large decline in proportion of population that is the “majority” group), or fake projections for 2060—that resembled current figures (i.e., small decline). In Study 1, White Americans who perceived their status to be highly legitimate expressed greater intergroup threat, and negative feelings (anger and fear) toward minorities after exposure to projections with a large decline in the relative size of the White American population. In contrast, demographic shift condition had no effect on intergroup threat and negative feelings toward minorities among White Americans who perceived their status to be relatively illegitimate; negative feelings and threat remained low across both conditions. Similarly, in Study 2, ethnic Portuguese people in Portugal exposed to projections in which there was a large decline in the relative size of the ethnic Portuguese population experienced more intergroup threat and expressed a greater desire to engage in anti-immigration behaviors. The effect of demographic shift condition on intergroup threat and anti-immigration behaviors was stronger among ethnic Portuguese who perceived their status to be legitimate compared to ethnic Portuguese people who perceived their status to be relatively illegitimate. These results highlight that across different cultural contexts, majority group members' beliefs about the legitimacy of intergroup relations can affect their reactions to the prospect of increased diversity.

Although research has shown that different types of prejudice are highly correlated, the existence of prejudice hierarchies indicates that individuals differentiate between target groups. Here we examine the relationship between television news coverage and differences in attitudes toward minority groups. We rely on intergroup threat theory, tone, and framing theories to formulate our hypotheses and conduct a multimethod study: All prime-time television news items in Flanders (N = 1,487) reporting on five minority groups (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender; Jews; Eastern Europeans; North Africans; Roma) were coded in terms of tone and framing and subsequently combined with individual-level survey data. Patterns in news coverage reflect differences in prejudice: Groups that are most negatively/positively evaluated by the public receive the most negative/positive coverage. Prejudice is especially high for minority groups associated with problems and criminal threat frames in the news. We conclude that news content is an important characteristic of the intergroup context reflecting differences in minority group appraisals in society.

This article examines the relationship between intergroup threat and negative outgroup attitudes. We first qualitatively review the intergroup threat literature, describing the shift from competing theories toward more integrated approaches, such as the integrated threat theory (ITT; W. G. Stephan and Stephan, 2000). The types of threats discussed include: realistic threat, symbolic threat, intergroup anxiety, negative stereotypes, group esteem threat, and distinctiveness threat. We then conducted a quantitative meta-analysis examining the relationships between various intergroup threats and outgroup attitudes. The meta-analysis, involving 95 samples, revealed that 5 different threat types had a positive relationship with negative outgroup attitudes. Additionally, outgroup status moderated some of these relationships. Implications and future directions are considered.