From Stigmatized Immigrants to Radical Right Voting: A Multilevel Study on the Role of Threat and Contact

Abstract

This study examines the interplay between presence of stigmatized immigrants, threat, and intergroup contact that underlies radical right voting (voting propensity and actual district‐level vote results). On the one hand, low‐status immigrants are often stigmatized and depicted as threats. Thus, presence of stigmatized immigrants should heighten threat perceptions, thereby increasing radical right voting. On the other hand, as positive contact with stigmatized immigrants is known to reduce anti‐immigrant prejudice, it should also attenuate radical right voting. As predicted, multilevel path analyses with the Swiss Election Studies 2011 data (N = 1,736 respondents in 136 districts) revealed that the proportion of stigmatized immigrants (from former Yugoslavia and Albania) in districts heightened perceived threat. Threat perceptions, in turn, increased propensity to vote for the Swiss People's Party, the major radical right party. In contrast, experiencing positive, everyday contact with former Yugoslav and Albanian immigrants reduced voting propensity through attenuated threat perceptions. Contact and threat perceptions were also related to the actual vote through voting propensity.

Negative Intergroup Contact and Radical Right‐Wing Voting: The Moderating Roles of Personal and Collective Self‐Efficacy

“…This is consistent with research showing that negative intergroup contact is an important antecedent of both sociotropic and egocentric threat (Aberson & Gaffney, ; Corenblum & Stephan, ; Stephan et al, ). Moreover, the findings are in line with studies demonstrating that people who experience realistic and symbolic threat are more likely to vote for radical right‐wing parties (Green et al, ; Lucassen & Lubbers, ; Werts et al, ).…”

“…To answer the “why” question, we tested whether perceived threat to the self (“egocentric threat”) and to the ingroup (“sociotropic threat”) mediate the effect of negative contact on the intention to vote for a radical right‐wing party. Negative intergroup contact is a central determinant of feelings of ethnic threat (Aberson & Gaffney, ; Corenblum & Stephan, ; Stephan, ; Stephan et al, ), and radical right‐wing parties present themselves as protecting the native population against immigrants and ethnic minorities (Green, Sarrasin, Baur, & Fasel, ; Lubbers & Scheepers, ; Lucassen & Lubbers, ; Werts, Scheepers, & Lubbers, ).…”

“…Radical right‐wing parties present themselves as protecting people against threats from immigrants, and they claim to serve the interest of the native population (Lucassen & Lubbers, ). They link immigrants to a variety of societal problems (Werts et al, ), and their campaigns and discourse depict immigrants as a threat to the nation’s economy, culture, and security (Green et al, ). These parties present migration restriction as a solution to the problems people face and therefore are attractive for people who feel threatened by immigrants.…”

Right‐wing populism as a social representation: A comparison across four European countries

“…It is also at odds with a generational value conflict explanation (Inglehart & Norris, ). At the same time, other research has also uncovered this effect (see Golder, ; Green et al, ). Many recent (and not necessarily right‐wing populist) political developments have been explained by a strong involvement of disillusioned young generations, for example, the Labour Party success in the 2017 U.K. General Election (Young, ) or the 2017 electoral success of the far‐right Austrian People's party under the leadership of 31‐year‐old Sebastian Kurz.…”

Tuberculosis, human rights and ethics considerations along the route of a highly vulnerable migrant from sub-Saharan Africa to Europe

“…At the core of their approach lies the assumption that social justice is the foundational moral justification of public health. 61,65–67 Powers and Faden identify six fundamental dimensions of well-being that are essential for any human being at any time: health, personal security, reasoning, respect, attachment and self-determination. 68 Justice in their view requires sufficiency of every dimension.…”