The recent wave of refugees arriving in Europe has given rise to much social debate. One important issue in this debate regards public opinions about the way political institutions should deal with existing prejudice against refugees. We examined this question in three studies. In Study 1 (N ϭ 119), we assessed the relationship between participants' agreement with refugees' inclusion, perceived realistic and symbolic threats, and attitudes toward refugees' acculturation. In Study 2 (N ϭ 166), we tested the effects of the existence (vs. nonexistence) of government refugee inclusion policies on participants' prejudice toward refugees. In Study 3 (N ϭ 112), we tested the effect of governments' integrative (vs. assimilative vs. uncertainty) policies on prejudice toward refugees. Realistic and symbolic threats predicted agreement with assimilation, but realistic threat also negatively predicted integration. Moreover, the presence of inclusive policies decreased perceived threat of, and negative attitudes toward, refugees. Perceived threat and negative attitudes emerged more strongly when government policies were uncertain than when they were directed at integration or assimilation, and predicted participants' agreement with refugees' assimilation. We discuss the social and theoretical implications of these results. Public Significance StatementThe major insight of this study is that feeling threatened by the migration of refugees to one's country is at least partially due to a lack of clear governmental policies on how to integrate them. This points to the need of governments, both national and european, to outline clear and transparent decisions on how to integrate these refugees.

The Western hemisphere has witnessed recent increased immigration flows generating social and political debate across Europe. In one view, migration flows represent an opportunity to construct a diverse social cohesion. In another view, migration flows are perceived as a threat to existent national cultures. This view is held by political nationalisms and right-wing populist forces installed in the majority of EU countries' parliaments, accentuating discrimination against immigrants and residents in Europe. We theorize that European identity predicts positive attitudes toward immigrants (prosocial behavior and support for inclusive policies), whereas national identity's predictions of attitudes toward immigrants' inclusion depends on participants' political tendency. Moreover, we test the mediation effect of positive (humanitarian concerns and economic benefit) and negative (jobs scarcity, cultural deterioration, and invasion) arguments used in political discourses regarding immigrants' inclusion on the relation between national and European identities and attitudes toward immigrants' inclusion. Results (Portuguese sample, N = 176) show that national identity predicts negative attitudes toward immigrants' inclusion, but only among right-wing individuals. Among left-wing individuals, national identity predicts less contestation to immigrant's inclusion sustained by humanitarian concerns. Interestingly, European identification weakened right-wing individuals' adherence to discriminatory arguments and increased perceived economic contribution that immigrants bring to society, increasing agreement with prosocial behavior and immigrants' inclusion. We discuss that European identity, sustained in humanitarian values and economic benefit, may stimulate a stronger multicultural social cohesion, intergroup trust, and social wellbeing based on democratic values, social justice, and equality, and on the respect for human dignity.

Abstract. Participants ( N = 119) played the “Dictator Game” (computer mediated) with two bogus computer-simulated players, one of whom, the Dictator, distributed money across ten trials, either as extremely unfair (Inflexible Dictator) or being less unfair (Flexible Dictator). The other player either protested against (Protest condition) or did not react (Apathy condition) to the dictator’s decision, after each trial. We measured participants’ self-reported anger and disinterest, physiological skin conductance (SCL), heart rate (HR), and number and type of comments directed to the Dictator. Anger and number of comments were lower in the Apathy than in the Protest condition. Participants’ SCL, HR, and protest comments decreased in the Apathy condition, and increased in the Protest condition. Protest assumed a more punitive tone in the Inflexible than in the Flexible Dictator condition. We discuss these results’ contribution to understand individuals’ motivation to engage in protest and apathy, and the role of emotions in that process.