This article meta-analyses the available data on attitudes towards refugees and asylum seekers, with the aim of estimating effect sizes for the relationships between these attitudes and prejudice-relevant correlates. Seventy studies (Ntotal = 13,720) were located using systematic database searches and calls for unpublished data. In the case of demographic factors, being male, religious, nationally identified, politically conservative, and less educated were associated with negative attitudes (Fisher’s zs = 0.11, 0.17, 0.18, 0.21, and –0.16, respectively). For ideological factors, increases in right-wing authoritarianism and social-dominance orientations correlated with negative attitudes, while the endorsement of macro (but not micro) justice principles were associated with positive attitudes (Fisher’s zs = 0.50, 0.50, –0.29, and 0.00, respectively). Perceptions of refugees as symbolic and realistic threats were the strongest correlates of negative attitudes (Fisher’s zs = 0.98 and 1.11, respectively). These findings have contributed to the growing body of knowledge that endeavors to understand the antecedents of refugee-specific prejudice, and are discussed in light of the global refugee crisis.

Objective: A global increase in forced displacement has led to rapid increases in the number of people seeking asylum. Negative attitudes toward these people are pervasive and the literature attempting to understand the prevalence and impact of these attitudes is growing. This article contains a meta-analysis of the Australian quantitative research in this field. Method: We combined effect sizes from published and unpublished Australian data. The primary outcomes were effect size estimates for the correlations between reported attitudes towards asylum seekers and a range of demographic factors (age, gender, education, religious affiliation, political orientation, national identification) and ideological variables (right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, social justice principles). Results: We identified 34 suitable studies (N participants = 5,994). Demographic factors of gender, education, religious affiliation, political orientation, and national identification were related to attitudes. More specifically, being male, having less education, being more politically conservative, and higher in national identification were associated with more negative attitudes (rs = .08, -.18, .24, .23, and .15, respectively; ps < .01). Increases in right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation, and decreases in macrojustice principles were also associated with more negative attitudes (rs = .49, .56, and -.28, respectively; ps < .05). Conclusion: Most demographic factors were weakly or moderately related to attitudes. Ideological variables were stronger correlates, with right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientations correlating the most strongly. Significant amounts of heterogeneity for most variables suggest that more research is needed to explore interactions between these variables, and to identify relevant moderators of these relationships.

This paper meta-analyses the available data on attitudes towards refugees and asylum seekers, with the aim of estimating effect sizes for the relationships between these attitudes and prejudice-relevant correlates. Seventy studies (Ntotal = 13,720) were located using systematic database searches and calls for unpublished data. In the case of demographic factors, being male, religious, nationally identified, politically conservative, and less educated were associated with negative attitudes (Fisher’s zs = 0.11, 0.17, 0.18, 0.21, &amp; -0.16, respectively). For ideological factors, increases in right-wing authoritarianism and social-dominance orientations correlated with negative attitudes, while the endorsement of macro (but not micro) justice principles were associated with positive attitudes (Fisher’s zs = 0.50, 0.50, -0.29, &amp; 0.00 respectively). Perceptions of refugees as symbolic and realistic threats were the strongest correlates of negative attitudes (Fisher’s zs = 0.98, &amp; 1.11, respectively). These findings have contributed to the growing body of knowledge that endeavors to understand the antecedents of refugee-specific prejudice, and are discussed in light of the global refugee crisis.

Defendants can deny they have agency, and thus responsibility, for a crime by using a defense of mental impairment. We argue that although this strategy may help defendants evade blame, it may carry longer-term social costs, as lay people’s perceptions of a person’s agency might determine some of the moral rights they grant them. In this registered report protocol, we seek to expand upon preliminary findings from two pilot studies to examine how and why those using the defense of mental impairment are seen as less deserving of certain rights. The proposed study uses a hypothetical vignette design, varying the type of mental impairment, type of crime, and type of sentence. Our design for the registered study improves on various aspects of our pilot studies and aims to rigorously test the reliability and credibility of our model. The findings have implications for defendants claiming reduced agency through legal defenses, as well as for the broader study of moral rights and mind perception.

Defendants can deny they have agency, and thus responsibility, for a crime by using a defense of mental impairment. We argue that although this strategy may help defendants evade blame, it may carry longer-term social costs, as lay people’s perceptions of a person’s agency might determine some of the moral rights they grant them. Three randomized between-group experiments (N = 1601) used online vignettes to examine lay perceptions of a hypothetical defendant using a defense of mental impairment (versus a guilty plea). We find that using a defense of mental impairment significantly reduces responsibility, blame, and punitiveness relative to a guilty plea, and these judgments are mediated by perceptions of reduced moral agency. However, after serving their respective sentences, those using the defense are sometimes conferred fewer rights, as reduced agency corresponds to an increase in perceived dangerousness. Our findings were found to be robust across different types of mental impairment, offences/sentences, and using both manipulated and measured agency. The findings have implications for defendants claiming reduced agency through legal defenses, as well as for the broader study of moral rights and mind perception.