Although anti-immigrant attitudes represent a widespread social problem in many European societies, research has only partially understood the role the demographic size of the immigrant population plays for the prevalence of such attitudes. In this study, we use group threat-and intergroup contact theory to derive competing hypotheses on the role the size of the immigrant population plays for explaining the anti-immigrant attitudes of Dutch citizens. To this end, we used structural equation modeling with robust standard errors on nationally representative individual-level survey data enriched with official municipality-level statistics. We found empirical evidence for both group threat-and intergroup contact theory. Objective measurements of immigrant group size corresponded with subjective perceptions of a larger immigrant group size. Conversely, subjective perceptions of a larger immigrant group size were associated with perceptions of threatened group interests, which in turn related to anti-immigrant attitudes. On the other hand, however, larger immigrant group size facilitates intergroup contact, which was negatively associated with perceived threat and subsequent anti-immigrant attitudes.

Although immigrant integration policies have long been hypothesized to be associated with majority members' anti-immigrant sentiments, systematic empirical research exploring this relationship is largely absent. To address this gap in the literature, the present research takes a cross-national perspective. Drawing from theory and research on group conflict and intergroup norms, we conduct two studies to examine whether preexisting integration policies that are more permissive promote or impede majority group members' subsequent negative attitudes regarding immigrants. . For both studies, the results from multilevel regression models demonstrate that immigrant integration policies that are more permissive are associated with decreased perceptions of group threat from immigrants. These findings suggest that immigrant integration policies are of key importance in improving majority members' attitudes regarding immigrants, which is widely considered desirable in modern immigrantreceiving societies. AbstractAlthough immigrant integration policies have long been hypothesized to be associated with majority members' anti-immigrant sentiments, systematic empirical research exploring this relationship is largely absent. To address this gap in the literature, the present research takes a cross-national perspective. Drawing from theory and research on group conflict and intergroup norms, we conduct two studies to examine whether preexisting integration policies that are more permissive promote or impede majority group members' subsequent negative attitudes regarding immigrants. For several Western and Eastern European countries, we link country-level information on immigrant integration policies from 2007 with individual-level survey data from the Eurobarometer 71.3 collected in 2009 (Study 1) and from the fourth wave of the European Value Study collected between 2008 and 2009 (Study 2). For both studies, the results from multilevel regression models demonstrate that immigrant integration policies that are more permissive are associated with decreased perceptions of group threat from immigrants. These findings suggest that immigrant integration policies are of key importance in improving majority members' attitudes regarding immigrants, which is widely considered desirable in modern, immigrant-receiving societies.2

This study attempts to further our understanding of the contextual sources of anti-immigrant sentiments by simultaneously examining the impact of immigrant group size, negative immigration-related news reports and their interaction on natives' perceived group threat. We test our theoretical assumptions using repeated cross-sectional survey data from Spain during the time period 1996-2007, enriched with regional statistics on immigrant group size and information from a longitudinal content analysis of newspaper reports. Drawing on multilevel regression models, our findings show that a greater number of negative immigration-related news reports increases perceived group threat over and above the influence of immigrant group size. Additionally, our findings indicate that the impact of negative immigration-related news reports on perceived group threat is amplified (weakened) in regions with a smaller (larger) immigrant group size. Collectively, these results testify to the importance of immigrant group size and negative immigration-related news reports as key contextual sources of natives' perceived group threat.

No abstract

Twenty-nine teams involving 61 analysts used the same dataset to address the same research question: whether soccer referees are more likely to give red cards to dark skin toned players than light skin toned players. Analytic approaches varied widely across teams, and estimated effect sizes ranged from 0.89 to 2.93 in odds ratio units, with a median of 1.31. Twenty teams (69%) found a statistically significant positive effect and nine teams (31%) observed a non-significant relationship. Overall 29 different analyses used 21 unique combinations of covariates. We found that neither analysts' prior beliefs about the effect, nor their level of expertise, nor peer-reviewed quality of analysis readily explained variation in analysis outcomes. This suggests that significant variation in analysis of complex data may be difficult to avoid, even by experts with honest intentions. Crowdsourcing data analysis, a strategy by which numerous research teams are recruited to simultaneously investigate the same research question, makes transparent how defensible, yet subjective analytic choices influence research results.

This study explores how researchers’ analytical choices affect the reliability of scientific findings. Most discussions of reliability problems in science focus on systematic biases. We broaden the lens to emphasize the idiosyncrasy of conscious and unconscious decisions that researchers make during data analysis. We coordinated 161 researchers in 73 research teams and observed their research decisions as they used the same data to independently test the same prominent social science hypothesis: that greater immigration reduces support for social policies among the public. In this typical case of social science research, research teams reported both widely diverging numerical findings and substantive conclusions despite identical start conditions. Researchers’ expertise, prior beliefs, and expectations barely predict the wide variation in research outcomes. More than 95% of the total variance in numerical results remains unexplained even after qualitative coding of all identifiable decisions in each team’s workflow. This reveals a universe of uncertainty that remains hidden when considering a single study in isolation. The idiosyncratic nature of how researchers’ results and conclusions varied is a previously underappreciated explanation for why many scientific hypotheses remain contested. These results call for greater epistemic humility and clarity in reporting scientific findings.

In this study, we examine which role the size of the immigrant population plays in explaining immigrant derogation within and between European regions. We draw upon group threat- and intergroup contact theory to consider the following question: does a larger size of immigrant population increase perceived group threat and thereby lead to greater immigrant derogation? Or does it increase intergroup contact and thereby ameliorate immigrant derogation? We test the empirical adequacy of these alternative suggestions using regionalized European Social Survey 2002 and official data which will be analyzed by means of multilevel structural equation modeling. Within regions, our results confirm that perceived group threat increases subsequent immigrant derogation. Likewise, intergroup contact reduces perceived group threat and thereby amends such derogation of immigrants. Between regions, our findings show that a larger size of the immigrant population increases both greater perceived group threat and intergroup contact. At the same time, the effects of perceived group threat and intergroup contact on immigrant derogation resemble those found within regions. In sum, these results lend evidence to the generalizability of both group threat- and contact effects. Implications of these findings for future research are discussed.

What factors explain majority members' anti-Muslim prejudice? This is an increasingly important question to ask, but to date only relatively few studies have sought to provide answers from a cross-national comparative perspective. This study aims to help fill this gap. Using data from the seventh round of the European Social Survey (ESS) linked with country-level characteristics, our results indicate that (a) a larger Muslim population size, (b) more liberal immigrant integration policies and (c) greater state support of religion are all associated with lower levels of majority members' negative attitudes towards Muslim immigration -our indicator of anti-Muslim prejudice. Such attitudes, however, prove to be unrelated to (d) cross-national differences in the frequency of negative immigration-related news reports as measured by the ESS media claims data. Collectively, these findings bring us one important step closer towards a better understanding of interethnic relations between majority members and Muslim immigrants in European host societies.