Moderators of linear and nonlinear associations between religiosity, xenophobia, and tolerance toward immigrants in italy.

Abstract

Using secondary survey data from a national representative sample of Italian adult residents (N ϭ 5,863, age range ϭ 18 -74 years, 54% females), this study aimed to test linear and nonlinear associations between religiosity and attitudes toward immigrants (i.e., xenophobia and tolerance) and examine moderating mechanisms of sociodemographic variables (i.e., age, gender, education, birth country, parental birth country, and contact with immigrants). Psychological measures included religiosity, xenophobia, and tolerance toward immigrants. A restricted cubic spline regression model with 3 knots best fit the data to explain both xenophobia and tolerance outcomes. Analyses of interaction effects evidenced nonlinearity between religiosity with xenophobia and tolerance only among participants who had contact with immigrants. Higher antiimmigrant attitudes were observed at both extremes of religiosity. Results are discussed in light of the contact hypothesis.

Italian Adaptation and Psychometric Properties of the Prejudice Against Immigrants Scale (PAIS): Assessment of Validity, Reliability, and Measure Invariance

“…Construct validity: We expect to confirm the relationships found in previous studies between PAIS dimensions and ideological and dispositional variables such as religiosity ( Anderson, 2018 ; Piumatti and Russo, 2019 ), political orientation ( Greenhalgh and Watt, 2015 ), political interest ( Wylie and Forest, 1992 ), SDO ( Cohrs and Asbrock, 2009 ), RWA ( Asbrock et al, 2010 ), and NfC ( Roets and Van Hiel, 2011a ). Also, we explored the relationship sociodemographics ( Carvacho et al, 2013 ; Anderson and Ferguson, 2018 ; Salvati et al, 2019a ), Specifically, based on existing literature, male, older, and less-educated individuals would be more likely to report high prejudice against immigrants, than female, younger, and more-educated individuals.…”

“…Specifically, women scored significantly lower than did men in both classic prejudice and conditional prejudice. Such a difference is not surprising in light of previous literature showing that men are likely to report more negative attitudes toward immigrants compared to women (Turoy-Smith et al, 2013;Anderson, 2018;Piumatti and Russo, 2019). Regarding age, older participants scored significantly lower than did younger participants in their mean levels of classical prejudice.…”

“…The figure includes children born in Italy to foreign nationals but excludes both foreign nationals who have acquired Italian nationality and illegal migrants, whose numbers are difficult to determine. Second, in Italy, immigrants are subject to various degrees of discrimination in various contexts, such as workplace and housing markets (Ambrosini, 2013a;Piumatti and Russo, 2019). Third, several political parties' and ideological forces' key principles aim specifically to prevent migration and oppose promotion of immigrant-inclusive social policies (Ambrosini, 2013b).…”

“…The literature suggests that both individual-level and country-level factors may affect prejudice and negative attitudes toward immigrants ( Davidov et al, 2019 ). At the individual level, studies focusing on the sociodemographic correlates of prejudice against immigrants found that people who are socioeconomically disadvantaged or earn low income are unemployed, less educated, and with high levels of religiosity, as well as those who support political conservatism are more likely to display greater prejudice ( Hello et al, 2002 ; O’Rourke and Sinnott, 2006 ; Carvacho et al, 2013 ; Turoy-Smith et al, 2013 ; Anderson and Ferguson, 2018 ; Piumatti and Russo, 2019 ).…”

Contact With Gay Men and Lesbian Women Moderates the Negative Relationship Between Religiosity and Endorsement of Same-Sex Unions’ and Families’ Rights

“…Cronbach’s α for this measure was equal to .76. Using this same secondary data source, two previous studies have adopted this operationalization for the construct of religiosity (Piumatti, 2017; Piumatti & Russo, 2019), in line with the assumption that more religious people attend services more often and are more likely to self-rate religion as important in their lives (Allport & Ross, 1967; Batson, Schoenrade, & Ventis, 1993; Koenig & Büssing, 2010).…”