Prejudice-Relevant Correlates of Attitudes Towards Refugees: A Meta-Analysis

Abstract

<p>This paper meta-analyses the available data on attitudes towards refugees and asylum seekers, with the aim of estimating effect sizes for the relationships between these attitudes and prejudice-relevant correlates. Seventy studies (Ntotal = 13,720) were located using systematic database searches and calls for unpublished data. In the case of demographic factors, being male, religious, nationally identified, politically conservative, and less educated were associated with negative attitudes (Fisher’s zs = 0.11, 0.17, 0.18, 0.21, &amp;amp; -0.16, respectively). For ideological factors, increases in right-wing authoritarianism and social-dominance orientations correlated with negative attitudes, while the endorsement of macro (but not micro) justice principles were associated with positive attitudes (Fisher’s zs = 0.50, 0.50, -0.29, &amp;amp; 0.00 respectively). Perceptions of refugees as symbolic and realistic threats were the strongest correlates of negative attitudes (Fisher’s zs = 0.98, &amp;amp; 1.11, respectively). These findings have contributed to the growing body of knowledge that endeavors to understand the antecedents of refugee-specific prejudice, and are discussed in light of the global refugee crisis.</p>

The role of perceived threat in Australians’ endorsement of asylum-seeker policies

“…The results of the hierarchical multiple regression analyses revealed that realistic threat was the strongest ITT predictor of attitudes toward asylum-seeker policies, followed closely by symbolic threat. These findings corroborate those of Schweitzer et al (2005) and Cowling et al (2019), who found that realistic threat and symbolic threat were both significant predictors of prejudicial attitudes toward refugees, but that realistic threat was the stronger of the two.…”

“…Murray and Marx (2013) assessed attitudes toward immigrants and refugees in the United States and found that higher realistic threat scores were significant predictors of prejudicial attitudes. A recent Australian meta-analysis investigated prejudice-relevant correlates of attitudes toward refugees and asylum seekers (Cowling, Anderson, & Ferguson, 2019). In line with previous studies, the findings revealed that perceived symbolic and realistic threats were the strongest correlates of refugee prejudice.…”

Classical and Modern Prejudice toward Asylum Seekers: The Mediating Role of Intergroup Anxiety in a Sample of Italians

“…Intergroup anxiety (Stephan 2014) provides an appropriate conceptual model to investigate Italian public attitudes toward asylum seekers. Previous studies found that asylum seekers are perceived and represented as posing a threat in terms of job opportunities as well as an existential threat to social values, customs, and national identity (Cowling et al 2019;Koc and Anderson 2018). Thus, the present research tested a mediational model in which intergroup anxiety is conceptualized as a mediator of the predicted relationships between antecedent variables (national identification) and attitudes toward asylum seekers as outcomes (classical and modern prejudice).…”

“…This means that people perceive immigration as a bad condition for the national interest. Previous studies have also shown that the Australian media and federal government have collectively framed asylum seekers as the "other", whose entry into the country poses a threat to national identity (Anderson and Ferguson 2018;Cowling et al 2019). By emphasizing differences rather than commonalities, people may be more willing to endorse the exclusionary policies that safeguard the values, norms, and beliefs of many Australians (Mckay et al 2012).…”

“…Intergroup anxiety (Stephan 2014) provides an appropriate conceptual model to investigate Italian public attitudes toward asylum seekers. Previous studies found that asylum seekers are perceived and represented as posing a threat in terms of job opportunities as well as an existential threat to social values, customs, and national identity (Cowling et al 2019;Koc and Anderson 2018).…”