Attitudes Toward Separating Immigrant Families at the United States–Mexico Border

Abstract

Mexico border and to identify psychological variables that account for variability in attitudes toward immigrant family separation. In Study 1, a sample designed to be representative of Americans in the United States responded to a question about the zero-tolerance policy that resulted in immigrant family separation. In Study 2, participants in two convenience samples completed online surveys with measures of perceived threat posed by immigrants, dehumanization, social dominance, political ideology, religiosity, and immigrant family separation. Across samples, the majority of respondents opposed separating immigrant families. Conservative political ideology was a consistent correlate of support for immigrant family separation. Dehumanization of immigrants and social dominance orientation also accounted for unique variability in support for immigrant family separation. Given the potentially harmful effects of extended parent-child separation caused by the zero-tolerance policy, it is important to understand the roles of dehumanization, social dominance, and ideology in attitudes toward immigration policies. Predictors of support for restrictive policies could be targets of individual or community-level interventions designed to reduce immigrant prejudice. Directions for future research and implications for U.S. communities and policies affecting immigrants are discussed.

Dimensions of religiousness and their connection to racial, ethnic, and atheist prejudices

“…Perceived political ideology of target groups predicts prejudices among Americans [ 25 ] and conservative ideology predicts dehumanization of immigrants [ 26 ]. More broadly, religion appears to function like other system-justifying ideologies [ 27 , 28 ].…”

“…In U.S. samples, religiosity-immigrant prejudice associations were negligible when conservative political ideology was statistically controlled [ 44 ]; but there is an indirect effect of religiosity on immigrant prejudice through conservative ideology. Dehumanization, perceived threat posed by immigrants [ 26 ], and value dissimilarity further predicts anti-immigrant sentiment [ 45 ]. Religious complexity and social identity complexity are also important constructs to consider when attempting to predict intergroup bias [ 46 • ].…”

The good ol’ days: White identity, racial nostalgia, and the perpetuation of racial extremism

“…In all of the studies, we control for political ideology because political ideology is consistently a strong predictor of anti-immigrant attitudes and support for anti-immigrant policies (e.g., Brooks et al, 2016; Rowatt et al, 2020), and might be related to White identity (Petrow et al, 2018) and collective nostalgia (Lammers & Baldwin, 2018, 2020). Therefore, in order to distinguish the relationships between racial nostalgia and our other key variables from their common associations with political ideology, we controlled for ideology in all of our studies.…”

“…The present research examines a novel manifestation of collective nostalgia—racial nostalgia—and its associations with negative beliefs about immigrants, endorsement of strict anti-immigrant policies (defined as either controversial, reversed by court order, and/or opposed by a majority of Americans; e.g., Rowatt et al, 2020), and White nationalist ideologies. We extend prior research to propose that in the context of White extremism, racial nostalgia is used as an ideological tool to contextualize White grievances in terms of threat and loss, and promote support for harsh immigration policies and White nationalist beliefs.…”

Empathy, Dehumanization, and Misperceptions: A Media Intervention Humanizes Migrants and Increases Empathy for Their Plight but Only if Misinformation About Migrants Is Also Corrected

“…One potential driver of anti-migrant policy support is dehumanization. Dehumanization is associated with unwillingness to help others, including immigrants (Bruneau et al, 2018;Esses et al, 2013;Rowatt et al, 2020), and an increased willingness to support punishment and harm (Bruneau & Kteily, 2017;Haslam, 2006;Kteily et al, 2015;Utych, 2018), especially toward those deemed harm-worthy (Haslam et al, 2012). By contrast, empathy increases the desire to help and reduces support for causes of suffering (Batson, 2009;Batson & Ahmad, 2009;Stephan & Finlay, 1999).…”