Although research has revealed a trend toward liberalization of ttitudes toward homosexuality in Western countries, acceptance of homosexuality differs remarkably among individuals and across countries. We examine the roles of individual value priorities and of national laws regarding homosexuality and the interaction between them in explaining approval of homosexuality. Data are drawn from the European Social Survey (ESS) and include representative national samples of 27 European countries in 2010. As hypothesized, individuals who prioritized openness to change and universalism values approved of homosexuality more whereas those who prioritized conservation and power values exhibited more disapproval. Approval was greater in countries whose laws regarding homosexuality were more progressive. In addition, legal regulation of homosexuality moderated the associations of individual value priorities. In countries with more progressive laws, both the positive effect of openness to change values and the negative effect of conservation values on approval of homosexuality were weaker. However, the positive effect of universalism values and the negative effect of power values did not vary as a function of national laws regarding homosexuality.

Theories on intergroup relations suggest that negative attitudes toward immigrants tend to rise when economic conditions deteriorate. However, these arguments were mostly tested during times of economic prosperity in Europe. We put this theoretical expectation to test by analyzing two rounds of the European Social Survey (ESS) with data from 14 West European immigration countries before (2006) and after (2010) the peak of the European economic crisis. Results show that anti-immigrant sentiments increased in countries where perceptions of economic insecurity also increased. Anti-immigrant sentiments decreased in countries where perceptions of economic insecurity declined. In contrast, changes in objective economic conditions (i.e. unemployment rates) during the same period of time did not display the expected effects in a similarly robust way.

Findings from previous studies corroborate the hypothesis that universalism and conservation values are associated with negative attitudes toward immigration. In the current study we examine whether universalism and conservation values also play a critical role in the explanation of attitudes toward other minority groups. Drawing on previous research on group-focused enmity, we explore its relations with universalism and conservation values in a German sample. Employing structural equation modeling, we find that individuals who prioritize universalism values approve of various minorities more whereas those who prioritize conservation values exhibit more disapproval. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. Findings from previous studies corroborate the hypothesis that universalism and conservation values are associated with negative attitudes toward immigration. In the current study we examine whether universalism and conservation values also play a critical role in the explanation of attitudes toward other minority groups. Drawing on previous research on group-focused enmity, we explore its relations with universalism and conservation values in a German sample. Employing structural equation modeling, we find that individuals who prioritize universalism values approve of various minorities more whereas those who prioritize conservation values exhibit more disapproval.

It is necessary to test for equivalence of measurements across groups to guarantee that comparisons of regression coefficients or mean scores of a latent factor are meaningful. Unfortunately, when tested, many scales display non-equivalence. Several researchers have suggested that non-equivalence may be used as a useful source of information as to why equivalence is biased and proposed employing a multilevel structural equation modeling (MLSEM) approach to explain why equivalence is not given. This method can consider a latent between-level factor and/or single contextual variables and use them to explain items' non-equivalence. In the current study we show that this method may also be useful for social science studies in general and for survey research and sociological comparative studies in particular when one fails to establish cross-group equivalence. We utilize data from the International Social Survey Program (ISSP) national identity module (2003) to test for the cross-country equivalence of a scale measuring attitudes toward granting citizenship rights to immigrants. As expected, the scale fails to achieve scalar equivalence. However, we explain a significant part of the most non-equivalent intercept by a latent between-level factor and one contextual variable, namely, the percentage of foreigners in the country relying on group threat theory. We show that the method does not necessarily rectify non-equivalence but it can help to explain why it is absent. It is necessary to test for equivalence of measurements across groups to guarantee that comparisons of regression coefficients or mean scores of a latent factor are meaningful.Unfortunately, when tested, many scales display non-equivalence. Several researchers have suggested that non-equivalence may be used as a useful source of information as to why equivalence is biased and proposed employing a multilevel structural equation modeling (MLSEM) approach to explain why equivalence is not given. This method can consider a latent between-level factor and/or single contextual variables and use them to explain items' non-equivalence. In the current study we show that this method may also be useful for social science studies in general and for survey research and sociological comparative studies in particular when one fails to establish cross-group equivalence. We utilize data from the International Social Survey Program (ISSP) national identity module (2003) to test for the cross-country equivalence of a scale measuring attitudes toward granting citizenship rights to immigrants. As expected, the scale fails to achieve scalar equivalence. However, we explain a significant part of the most non-equivalent intercept by a latent between-level factor and one contextual variable, namely, the percentage of foreigners in the country relying on group threat theory. We show that the method does not necessarily rectify non-equivalence but it can help to explain why it is absent.

No abstract