No abstract

The acceptance of migrant populations and the definition of an "appropriate" migrant are controversial issues in many countries. The present research focuses on the ideological determinants of how newcomers are evaluated by a host population in a Western country with a strongly rooted meritocratic ideology. We carried out two studies to examine how the expression of meritocratic beliefs by a male potential migrant affects the way he is evaluated by the host population. We measured the host population's perception of the potential migrant's ability to integrate into society, his tendency to adopt the host country's culture, and the general desirability of his world vision for all newcomers. We also noted the host population's judgments of the target's agency and communality. The results showed that a potential newcomer who expresses a strong (vs. weak) belief in a just world (Study 1) or an internal (vs. external) locus of control (Study 2) is evaluated more favorably by the host population. In addition, judgments of the target's integration capacity were only mediated by his perceived agency. We discuss these results in the light of work on the meritocratic ideology and intercultural relations.

The aim of the present research was to show that the level of linguistic abstraction used when describing group behaviors affects inferences about the speaker’s degree of bias toward that group. Participants used a speaker’s description of a group to judge that person’s communicative intentions (Study 1) and attitudes (Study 2) toward the group. The results show that speakers who use abstract terms are perceived as more biased than speakers who use concrete terms.

The present research investigated whether the impact of the Linguistic Intergroup Bias (LIB; Maass, 1999) is related to the effects of linguistic abstraction on social attribution (Yzerbyt & Rogier, 2001). We did this by assessing the impact of abstract descriptions versus concrete descriptions on the generalization of a group member's behaviors to the whole group. A target's behaviors were more attributed to the group when the description was abstract than when it was concrete, and this effect of language abstraction was stronger when the description was positive than when it was negative. Our results provide an insight into how the LIB is involved in the perpetuation of intergroup bias.