Multiculturalism can be construed in different ways with different effects on majority members’ attitudes toward immigrant-origin groups. Thinking about why the broad goals of multiculturalism are important for society might reduce feelings of outgroup threat and less prejudicial attitudes. In contrast, thinking about how exactly these goals can be accomplished might evoke feelings of threat that lead to prejudice. The aim of this experimental research conducted in France and the Netherlands was to examine the effect of these two construals of multiculturalism of attitudes toward immigrants and whether these effects depend on perceived cultural distance. The findings show that a focus on why multiculturalism is important for society is more beneficial for attitudes toward immigrant-origin groups for people perceiving relatively high cultural distance. In contrast, a focus on how the goals of multiculturalism can be accomplished has a more detrimental effect on attitudes for people perceiving relatively low cultural distance.

After over 2 months of demonstration, 12 casualties, 3,142 people injured, and more than 5,000 people in custody, the question of why the Yellow Vest (YV) protests turned so violent remains. In line with a significance quest perspective on violent extremism (Kruglanski & Orehek, 2011), the present contribution assessed whether the motivation to restore a sense of control and purpose could explain why French citizens engage in violent YV extremism. We hypothesized that personal loss of significance should predict intentions to display YV violence through increased feelings of anomia. Cross-sectional (Study 1, N = 776, general population) and experimental (Study 2, N = 511, undergraduate students) mediation analyses corroborated this hypothesis, in addition to other known predictors of violent extremism. These results provide a first existential-motivational explanation of YV violence in France and highlight the key role of anomia as a predictor of violent extremism under loss of significance.

Worldwide, it is not uncommon to observe violent police reactions against social movements. These are often rationalized by decision makers as efficient ways to contain violence from protesters. In France for instance, the ongoing Yellow Vests protests have generated an unprecedented number of casualties, injuries, and convictions among protesters. But was this response efficient in diminishing violence stemming from the Yellow Vests? To this day, little is known about the psychological consequences of police violence in the context of protests. Combining insights from Significance Quest Theory and the Social Identity perspective on collective action, we predicted that exposure to police violence could “backfire” and lead to increased radicalization of protesters. A cross-sectional investigation of 523 Yellow Vests yielded evidence for this hypothesis. We found positive direct effects of exposure to police violence on intentions to attend future demonstrations and to self-sacrifice for the Yellow Vests. Moreover, these effects were serially mediated by perceived Loss of Significance and Identification with the Yellow Vests. Paradoxically, these results highlight for the first time the mechanism through which political repression may contribute to the formation of radical politicized identities. Thus, we recommend that decision makers privilege the use of de-escalation techniques in protest policing whenever possible.