No abstract

This study aims at disentangling the effects of status generalization and social identity processes on ability perceptions among early adolescents. Double standards theory predicts that people use different standards for making inferences about others' abilities based on social status. Social identity processes, however, imply that people evaluate in-group members more positively than out-group members. We analyze cross-sectional dyadic peer nomination data from 21 primary school classes in Hungary (N = 392, X age = 13 years) with exponential random graph models. Next to ethnic selfidentification, we use dyadic ethnic perceptions as a novel way of measuring ethnicity in the analysis. Our findings are mostly in line with social identity theory: Students are more likely to nominate in-group peers as clever compared with classmates from the out-group, in terms of both gender and ethnicity. Nonetheless, ethnic and gender biases in ability perceptions differ in some important ways.

This paper investigates the moderating role of public discourse in the effects of labeling asylum seekers (as “immigrants” vs. “refugees”) on attitudes toward asylum policy. The study relies on a series of survey experiments conducted in Hungary, in a period when asylum policy suddenly became a highly salient issue there. Originally, respondents were much more solidaristic toward “refugees” than “immigrants,” but the public discussion on asylum policy suppressed this wording effect—mainly by contaminating the concept of “refugee.” By using data on news reports and respondents’ media use, the analysis also looks at the roots of these changes. In particular, it presents evidence on the moderating role of converging connotations of different labels on the effect of wording.