“Bands of Others”? Attitudes toward Muslims in Contemporary American Society

Kalkan, Kerem Ozan; Layman, Geoffrey C.; Uslaner, Eric M.

doi:10.1017/s0022381609090756

Cited by 289 publications

(225 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

213

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Echoes of nineteenth century nativist movements that rejected immigrants who did not match the country's Anglo-Saxon Protestant roots as unassimilable (Smith 1997) also persist in recent work on the ethnocentric and religious bases of anti-immigrant sentiment (e.g. Jacobs and Theiss-Morse 2013; Kalkan et al 2009;Kinder and Kam 2009;Knoll 2009). Along these lines, Brader et al (2008) find that anxiety over immigration is related to antiLatino sentiment, and several studies tie anti-Hispanic bias to hostility toward illegal immigration in particular (Masuoka and Junn 2013;Hartman et al 2014;Ramakrishnan et al 2010).…”

Section: Attribute-based Judgmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Attitudes Toward Immigration Policy Across the Legal/Illegal Divide: The Role of Categorical and Attribute-Based Decision-Making

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholars debate the relative strength of economic and 'socio-psychological' sources of anti-immigrant sentiment. However, the literature often fails to distinguish legal from illegal immigration and therefore overlooks a major instance in which this debate is moot. To address this issue, we develop a theory that recognizes two different modes of evaluating immigrants: ''attribute-based'' judgment, in which respondents weigh immigrants' desirability based on individual characteristics-human capital, race, language ability, and so on-and ''categorical'' judgment, which disregards these altogether. Categorical judgments arise when a policy issue triggers blanket considerations of justice or principle that obviate considerations about putative beneficiaries' individual merits, instead evoking overriding beliefs about the desirability of the policy as a whole or casting the entire category as uniformly deserving or undeserving. We use experimental evidence from two national surveys to show that the principal distinction between attitudes toward legal and illegal immigration is not in the relative weight of immigrants' attributes but the much greater prevalence of categorical assessments of illegal

show abstract

Section: Attribute-based Judgmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Attitudes Toward Immigration Policy Across the Legal/Illegal Divide: The Role of Categorical and Attribute-Based Decision-Making

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because these effects did not extend to another religious "out-group", orthodox Jews, this finding supports a stereotype view (Sides and Gross) rather than one of anti-Muslim as generalized ethnocentrism (Kinder & Kam 2009, Kalkan et al, 2009). …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 73%

“…Indeed, lines of research exist tracing attitudes about Muslims to perceived terrorist threat (Davis, 2007;Panagopolous, 2006;Traugott et al, 2002), general ethnocentrism (Kinder & Kam, 2011;Kalkan et al, 2009), authoritarianism (Sniderman et al 2004), and negative stereotypes of Muslims as violent and untrustworthy (Sides & Gross, forthcoming). Nevertheless, our emphasis here is unique in two critical ways.…”

Section: Multiculturalism and Tolerance Of Muslim Immigrantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Multiculturalism and Muslim Accommodation: What Reaction Among the Mainstream?

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…76 We are agnostic on the issue of authoritarian sensitivity to threat, but clearly the latter theories suggest that we may not find a relationship between authoritarianism and perceptions of the breadth of threats. 70 Sanquist, Mahy, and Morris 2008;Green 2009;Kalkan, Layman, and Uslaner 2009;Merolla and Zechmeister 2009;Aly and Green 2010;Croft 2012. 71 Greenberg et al 1990;McGregor et al 1998;Pyszczynski, Solomon, and Greenberg 2002;Landau et al 2004;Burke, Kosloff, and Landau 2013. 72 For example, Greenberg et al 1990;Canetti-Nisim et al 2009.…”

Section: Theorizing About the Origins And Consequences Of Threatsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Citizens and Security Threats: Issues, Perceptions and Consequences Beyond the National Frame

Stevens¹,

Vaughan‐Williams²

2014

Brit. J. Polit. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citizens are now central to national security strategies, yet governments readily admit that little is known about public opinion on security. This article presents a unique and timely examination of public perceptions of security threats. By focusing on the breadth of security threats that citizens identify, their psychological origins, how they vary from personal to global levels, and the relationships between perceptions of threats and other political attitudes and behaviours, the article makes several new contributions to the literature. These include extending the levels at which threats are perceived from the national versus personal dichotomy to a continuum spanning the individual, family, community, nation and globe, and showing the extent to which perceptions of threat at each level have different causes, as well as different effects on political attitudes and behaviour. These findings are also relevant to policy communities' understanding of what it means for a public to feel secure.The international political landscape in which Britain and other nations operate has been transformed dramatically since the Cold War.1 No longer are interests at home and abroad under threat from particular states, but rather from a complex web of security threats said to include international terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, conflict and failed states, pandemics and transnational crime. After 9/11, governments in Britain and America in particular pledged not only to develop a resilient security architecture designed to identify and mitigate against the effects of these threats but, as key objectives, to reassure their publics, heighten collective levels of security among the population and reduce subjective feelings of being 'threatened'. Importantly, they also sought to achieve these objectives in part by what Jarvis and Lister characterize as 'conscripting ''ordinary'' citizens into the state's security apparatuses', 2 although there are obvious ambiguities in the effects of these new demands on citizens and the extent to which publics are reassured or made to feel more anxious as a result, as Jarvis and Lister, among others, acknowledge. 3The stakes in contemporary threat perceptions are high for governments and citizens alike. While liberal democracies attempt to balance civil liberties and security, a threatened public skews the trade-off toward the latter, tending to favour repression, intolerance, aggressive and exclusionist attitudes toward minorities and targets with different political ideologies, and to show a greater willingness to support war against

show abstract

“Bands of Others”? Attitudes toward Muslims in Contemporary American Society

Cited by 289 publications

References 29 publications

Public Attitudes Toward Immigration Policy Across the Legal/Illegal Divide: The Role of Categorical and Attribute-Based Decision-Making

Public Attitudes Toward Immigration Policy Across the Legal/Illegal Divide: The Role of Categorical and Attribute-Based Decision-Making

Multiculturalism and Muslim Accommodation: What Reaction Among the Mainstream?

Citizens and Security Threats: Issues, Perceptions and Consequences Beyond the National Frame

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About