Intergroup Perception and Proactive Majority Integration Attitudes

Abstract

Few social psychological investigations have focused on the potential active role of the majority in integration. The present study examines the relationship between intergroup perception and majority attitudes toward the proactive integration of immigrant minorities in Norway. It assesses how and whether perceived entitativity of immigrants, endorsement of counterstereotypic portrayals of immigrants and metaperspectives along the appraisal dimensions of warmth/competence predict the integration attitudes of majority members in Norway as measured by the Majority Integration Efforts (MIE) scale. Correlational and multiple regression analysis yielded two strong (perceptions of positive immigrant integration intentions and perceived entitativity) and two moderate (perceptions of high immigrant competence in Norwegian society and metawarmth) predictors of these attitudes. Further analysis indicated that the main effect of perceived immigrant entitativity on MIE attitudes was partially mediated by perceptions of counterstereotypic intentions and competence. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed. We conclude by highlighting how the perception of immigrants’ positive integration intentions and their heterogeneity as a group may best promote majority support for proactive integration efforts.

Are people more prejudiced towards groups that are perceived as coherent? A meta‐analysis of the relationship between out‐group entitativity and prejudice

“…At the same time, the method combining both the essence‐based and agency‐based entitativity approaches is quite popular among researchers (Newheiser & Dovidio, ; Newheiser et al ., ; Ommundsen, Yakushko, Van der Veer, & Ulleberg, ; Phelps, Ommundsen, Türken, & Ulleberg, ; Roets & Van Hiel, ). In this case, the researchers use a set of characteristics from both views on entitativity.…”

Majority–minority acculturation preferences concordance as an antecedent of attitudes towards immigrants: The mediating role of perceived symbolic threat and metastereotypes

“…Some researchers have focused not only upon minority acculturation preferences, but also on majority expectations regarding those preferences, and on the degree of concordance between immigrants' and majority members' acculturation attitudes (Bourhis, Moïse, Perreault, & Senécal, 1997;Navas Luque, Rojas Tejada, & García Fernández, 2011;Phelps, Ommundsen, Türken, & Ulleberg, 2013;Piontkowski, Rohmann, & Florack, 2002;Zagefka & Brown, 2002). Intergroup attitudes do not form in a vacuum, but depend on the interplay between immigrants' preferences and majority group members' expectations about acculturation (Brown & Zagefka, 2011).…”

Are people more prejudiced toward groups that are perceived as coherent? A meta-analysis of the relationship between out-group entitativity and prejudice

“…The entitativity arises from the perception of the group characteristics, which can actualize different stereotypes and attitudes but to a lesser extent can associate with specific discriminatory behavior. In fact, previous studies have shown that entitativity (especially within the essence-based approach) significantly predicted one type of prejudices (e.g., the formation of stereotypes, attitudes towards the group (Crawford, Sherman, & Hamilton, 2002;Rydell et al, 2007;Spencer-Rodgers, Hamilton, et al, 2007) and discriminatory behaviors (Phelps et al, 2013)), while it was not always related to another types (e.g., emotions towards out-group (Agadullina, 2015;Effron, 2015;Effron & Knowles, 2015a)). These findings led us to the formulation of the fourth research question.…”

“…The ‗behavior (including the intended behavior) toward the group' category included measures of readiness for future interactions (e.g., willingness to support proactive integration) (Phelps et al, 2013) and of expectations from future interaction (e.g., attribution of responsibility and retribution) (Stenstrom et al, 2008), and motivation to be less prejudiced (Effron & Knowles, 2015a).…”

“…At the same time, the method combining both the essence-based and agencybased entitativity approaches is quite popular among researchers Newheiser et al, 2009;Ommundsen, Yakushko, Veer, & Ulleberg, 2013;Phelps, Ommundsen, Türken, & Ulleberg, 2013;Roets & Van Hiel, 2011). In this case, the researchers use a set of characteristics from both views on entitativity.…”