Social psychological research has analyzed immigration attitudes mostly from the perspective of natives without an immigrant background. Nevertheless, an increasing number of migrants obtain national citizenship and take a stance towards immigration policies. By studying immigration policy attitudes reported by naturalized citizens, this article develops a dual‐pathway model of immigrant political incorporation featuring pathways of either absorption or transformation. Based on a unique sample of immigrants who just accomplished the naturalization procedure (N = 566), we investigate participants' preferences for permissive or restrictive immigration policies as a function of their naturalization motives and expectations about how immigrants should acculturate in the receiving society (i.e., acculturation orientations). Our findings provide evidence for both processes of political absorption and transformation. On the one hand, belongingness motives underlying naturalization were connected to orientations towards host culture adoption, which in turn predicted support for restrictive immigration policies. On the other hand, instrumental motives were connected to orientations towards heritage culture maintenance, which in turn predicted support for permissive immigration policies. To conclude, we discuss the social psychological dynamics involved in the transition from national outsiders to national insiders and highlight the effects of naturalization on power relations between national majority and immigrant minority groups.

Empirical findings suggest that members of socially disadvantaged groups who join a better-valued group through individual achievement tend to express low concern for their disadvantaged ingroup (e.g., denial of collective discrimination, low intent to initiate collective action). In the present research, we investigated whether this tendency occurs solely for individuals who have already engaged in social mobility, or also for individuals who psychologically prepare themselves, that is ‘anticipate’, social mobility. Moreover, we examined the role of group identification in this process. In two studies, we looked at the case of ‘frontier workers’, that is people who cross a national border every day to work in another country where the salaries are higher thereby achieving a better socio-economic status than in their home-country. Study 1 (N = 176) examined attitudes of French nationals (both the socially mobile and the non-mobile) and of Swiss nationals toward the non-mobile group. As expected, results showed that the mobile French had more negative attitudes than their non-mobile counterparts, but less negative attitudes than the Swiss. In Study 2 (N = 216), we examined ingroup concern at different stages of the social mobility process by comparing the attitudes of French people who worked in Switzerland (mobile individuals), with those who envisioned (anticipators), or not (non-anticipators), to work in Switzerland. The findings revealed that anticipators’ motivation to get personally involved in collective action for their French ingroup was lower than the non-anticipators’, but higher than the mobile individuals’. Moreover, we found that the decrease in ingroup concern across the different stages of social mobility was accounted for by a lower identification with the inherited ingroup. These findings corroborate the deleterious impact of social mobility on attitudes toward a low-status ingroup, and show that the decrease in ingroup concern already occurs among individuals who anticipate moving up the hierarchy. The discussion focuses on the role of the discounting of inherited identities in both the anticipation and the achievement of a higher-status identity.

Women's lower economic power is one of the symptoms of a hierarchical organization of societies. Creating economic gender equality needs to be a core interest of policies and research as it is a key to better well-being for other social groups and has advantages for society at large. This chapter first presents current trends in the understanding of unequal distribution of economic resources and specifically the gender pay gap based on several structural and psychological factors. It then takes a different angle on these individual differences approaches and analyzes the contributions and moderating forces in the social context which reinforce or inhibit both structural and psychological reasons for economic inequalities. Social psychological findings help to understand how stereotypes and social norms affect bias in pay allocators, the differential valuation of job content when stereotyped as feminine or masculine, and the gender variance in pay receivers' preferences and behaviors. In the concluding remarks three contextual keys for efficient interventions are advanced aiming at changing the social reality and thereby attenuating gender bias of individuals: The increase of female representation in positions of power, combined with diversity friendly societal and organizational climates, and transparency of the distribution of economic power.

This research examined the role of ingroup status in the relationship between ingroup identification and self-ingroup similarity. Studies 1a-1b showed that this relationship was stronger in lowstatus groups than in high-status groups, suggesting that high identifiers from the low-status group seek collective support by assimilating to the ingroup, whereas low identifiers get rid of the unsatisfactory group membership by distancing themselves from the ingroup. Two further studies showed that the identificationsimilarity relationship vanished when the low-status group members were given the opportunity to rely on a social creativity strategy (group affirmation in Study 2, alternative dimension of intergroup comparison in Study 3). Finally, Study 4 showed that the identification-similarity relationship was weaker in the highstatus group than in both low-status and status-unspecified groups, providing stronger support for an identity motive explanation than for an identity threat explanation.

Inequalities in health behaviours (i.e., the tendency of socially disadvantaged people, compared to more advantaged people, to engage in fewer healthy behaviours) have been mostly accounted for by individual and environmental factors. The