In this study, we examined the relationship between national identification and anti-immigrant prejudice in a multilevel analysis of ISSP survey data from 37,030 individuals in 31 countries. We argue that this relationship depends on how national groups are defined by their members. Across the 31 national samples, the correlation between national identification and prejudice ranged from weakly negative (-.06) to moderately positive (.37). The relationship was significantly stronger in countries where people on average endorsed a definition of national belonging based on language, and weaker where people on average defined the nation in terms of citizenship. These effects occurred at a national rather than individual level, supporting an explanation in terms of the construction of nationality that prevails in a given context. Endorsement of the ancestry-based criteria for nationality was positively associated with prejudice, but only at the individual level.

Two studies were carried out in England to investigate the role of essentialist national group definitions in determining the effect of national identification on prejudice towards immigrants, and asylum seekers in particular. It was expected that the relationship between national identification and prejudice would depend on the degree to which participants endorse an essentialist ('ethnic') definition of their nationality. Consistent with this, Study 1 (N=154) found that national identification is associated with negativity towards asylum seekers only among individuals who endorse an essentialist conception of the group, and shows no significant association with prejudice among those who reject such a conception. Study 2 (N=219) used a longitudinal design conducted over 6 weeks, allowing cross-lagged analysis of causality between essentialism, identification, and behavioural intentions towards asylum seekers. A causal effect of essentialism on willingness to support a group acting against asylum seekers was observed, with no significant causal effect in the reverse direction. The reverse causal direction was observed in the case of support for a group seeking to support asylum seekers, with intended behaviours determining essentialism. The results are discussed in terms of the importance of group definitions in the study of in-group affiliations and prejudice.

We argue that attitudes about immigration can be better understood by paying closer attention to the various ways in which national group boundaries are demarcated. We describe two related lines of work that address this. The first deals with national group definitions and, based on evidence from studies carried out in England and analyses of international survey data, argues that the relationship between national identification and prejudice toward immigrants is contingent on the extent to which ethnic or civic definitions of nationality are endorsed. The second, which uses European survey data, examines support for ascribed and acquired criteria that can be applied when determining who is permitted to migrate to one's country, and the various forms of national and individual threat that affect support for these criteria. We explain how the research benefits from a multilevel approach and also suggest how these findings relate to some current policy debates.Hostility toward immigrants is widespread and appears frequently in the media. In Western Europe, for example, exclusionary reactions toward Eastern European immigrants have become common at the level of both policy and public opinion since the recent expansions of the European Union in 2004 and 2007. Multiculturalism faces a new level of criticism even in contexts where it has

Much current research on collective victimhood acknowledges the role of rhetoric but does not fully address the implications for micro‐level variation in personal expressions of victimhood. The focus has tended to be on individual differences in collective victimhood construals where people may either see their group as the sole possessor of victim status or may incorporate other groups into an inclusive category. Although recent research sees a strategic element in some ‘inclusivity’, we argue that all claims of victimhood are strategic. By using a discursive approach, we show variability in the expression of victimhood and how this accomplishes different activities in conversations. Several focus groups consisting of victims from Northern Ireland were analysed to identify presentations of victimhood and their relation to the unfolding dynamics of the conversation. We demonstrate that presentation of victimhood is an interactional concern, link this to the concept of ‘needs’ and suggest implications this might have.

We examine experiences of collective self‐objectification (CSO) (or its failure) among participants in a ‘multicultural’ St Patrick's Day parade. A two‐stage interview study was carried out in which 10 parade participants (five each from ethnic majority and minority groups) were interviewed before and after the event. In pre‐event interviews, all participants understood the parade as an opportunity to enact social identities, but differed in the category definitions and relations they saw as relevant. Members of the white Irish majority saw the event as being primarily about representing Ireland in a positive, progressive, light, whereas members of minority groups saw it as an opportunity to have their groups' identities and belonging in Ireland recognized by others. Post‐event interviews revealed that, for the former group, the event succeeded in giving expression to their relevant category definitions. The latter group, on the other hand, cited features of the event such as inauthentic costume design and a segregated structure as reasons for why the event did not provide the group recognition they sought. The accounts revealed a variety of empowering and disempowering experiences corresponding to the extent of enactment. We consider the implications in terms of CSO, the performative nature of dual identities, as well as the notion of multicultural recognition.