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

Abstract

Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers continues to polarise public debate. The present study sought to investigate the factors that may influence an individual’s endorsement of deterrence-based government policies. Using the integrated threat theory of prejudice, the present study examined the role of perceived threat in shaping Australian voters’ political attitudes toward asylum seekers. A total of 255 Australian citizens completed an online questionnaire that assessed their support for aspects of government policy and their perceptions of asylum seekers as a threat. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were used to examine the combined and unique influences of perceived threat and sociodemographic factors on overall and individual government policy endorsement. Results indicated that various types of threat (realistic, symbolic, and negative stereotypes) were significant predictors of policy support. Practical implications regarding the development of anti-discriminatory strategies and directions for future research are discussed.

Pandemic and prejudice: Revisiting Bogardus’s social distance concept in a time of COVID-19

“…Empirical evidence confirms the role of realistic threat as a predictor of negative intergroup attitudes. For example, Australians (Pattison & Davidson, 2019) and Americans (Zárate et al, 2004) who perceived realistic threats from immigrants also expressed relatively negative attitudes toward them. In another study, domestic students who perceived a threat to their academic success expressed less favorable attitudes toward international students than those who did not perceive such a threat (Harrison & Peacock, 2009).…”

The Role of Intergroup Threat in Support of Punitive Policies Toward Mexican Immigrants

“…According to Intergroup Threat Theory, which aims to explain negative attitudes toward immigrants (Rios et al, 2018; Rowatt et al, 2020), prejudice takes on four distinct forms: symbolic threat, realistic threat, intergroup anxiety, and negative stereotypes. Among these four components, symbolic and realistic threats are particularly strong predictors of views on immigration policies (Pattison & Davidson, 2019; Rowatt et al, 2020). Symbolic threats are those posed to the dominant group’s religion, values, or belief system.…”

“…Symbolic and realistic threats are associated with support for actions that “defend” local populations, such as prioritizing security interests and maintaining the dominant culture (Tartakovsky & Walsh, 2016). Australians’ symbolic and realistic threat perceptions of asylum-seekers correlate with endorsing harsher government policies (Pattison & Davidson, 2019). Though empirical work on intergroup threat and attitudes toward Mexican immigration to the U.S. is not extensive, it does suggest that threat predicts support for punitive policies.…”

“…His exclusionary views on immigration included building a wall to prevent “illegal” Mexicans from entering the U.S. and restricting visas to Mexicans, just to name a few (Kteily & Bruneau, 2017). Given the established links between intergroup threat and policy attitudes (Pattison & Davidson, 2019; Rowatt et al, 2020), we argue that it is important to assess the degree to which intergroup threat predicts support for the restrictive policies made salient in the wake of Trump’s presidency.…”

“…Children and adults suffer from poor living conditions and inadequate or no access to soap, toothpaste, or water for washing hands and showering (Joung, 2019). Symbolic and realistic threats have been shown to predict support for offshore detention and processing (Pattison & Davidson, 2019). Admittedly, that research was conducted in Australia and was not specific to the U.S. or Mexican immigration.…”