Multiple and Counterstereotypic Categorization of Immigrants: The Moderating Role of Political Orientation on Interventions to Reduce Prejudice

Abstract

Multiple and counterstereotypic categorization of outgroup members reduces prejudice towards them. The present research addresses, for the first time, the role of political orientation in moderating the impact of these strategies on prejudice reduction. Given that right-wingers have very likely a higher need for cognitive closure compared to left-wingers and thus may be less tolerant to social diversity, for them, increasing the complexity of outgroup members through counterstereotypic versus stereotypic or multiple versus simple categorizations should be a less effective strategy of prejudice reduction than it is for left-wingers and moderate individuals. Results using Romanians and immigrants as outgroup targets for Italian participants supported our prediction. Further, we found that the effect of prejudice reduction was explained by the sequential mediation of increased individuation of immigrants and reduced sense of threat from them. Implications of the interplay between multiple categorization and political orientation are discussed.

40 Years of Multiple Social Categorization: A Tool for Social Inclusivity

“…Personal orientation and contextual factors can influence the extent to which multiple categorization can overcome stereotypical and dehumanizing biases. Prati, Moscatelli, Pratto, and Rubini (2018) showed that political orientation and intergroup contact moderated the impact of multiple and counter-stereotypical categorization effects on outgroup bias. In a first study, Italian respondents were asked to think about and describe a counter-stereotypical (i.e., a Romanian manager) or a stereotypical (i.e., Romanian car-window cleaner) category combination of Romanians.…”

The surprising politics of anti‐immigrant prejudice: How political conservatism moderates the effect of immigrant race and religion on infrahumanization judgements

“…Those who identify as politically conservative (an ideology defined by 'resistance THE SURPRISING POLITICS OF ANTI-IMMIGRANT PREJUDICE 4 to change and [a] tendency to prefer safe, traditional and conventional forms of institution and behaviour'; Wilson, 1973c, p. 4) tend to harbour more negative attitudes towards immigrants (Varela, Gonzalez, Clark, Cramer, & Crosby, 2013), Black people (Lambert &Chasteen, 1997), andMuslims (De Zavala, Cisłak, &Wesołowska, 2010). Furthermore, highly conservative individuals are less likely to show reductions in prejudice when evaluating immigrants who share a social category with them (Prati, Moscatelli, Pratto, & Rubini, 2017). This demonstrates that conservative biases against immigrants are particularly strong.…”

Personal Contact with Refugees is Key to Welcoming Them: An Analysis of Politicians' and Citizens' Attitudes Towards Refugee Integration

“…While the world is “witnessing the highest levels of displacement on record” (UNHCR, 2019), the country representatives of the European Union (EU) decided to further strengthen the bloc's borders (Prati, Moscatelli, Pratto, & Rubini, 2018). With this “tough approach on immigration” (Pancevski & Pop, 2018), EU politicians mimic political leaders elsewhere (e.g., the United States and Australia) and contribute to antipathy towards immigrants and refugees amongst their voters by framing the debate about refugee integration in ethno‐nationalist tones (Elgenius & Rydgren, 2019; Esses, Hamilton, & Gaucher, 2017; Porter & Russell, 2018).…”

“…With a long research tradition and convincing meta‐analytical results (e.g., Lemmer & Wagner, 2015; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006, 2008), “the field of social psychology is understandably enthusiastic and optimistic about contact” (Hodson, 2011, p. 154) and provides policy implications that center on intergroup contact (Pettigrew et al, 2011). Indeed, several studies showed that personal contact reduces citizens' stereotypes or negative attitudes towards refugees or immigrants (e.g., Dhont & Van Hiel, 2009, 2011; Finseraas & Kotsadam, 2017; Prati et al, 2018). For example, in a qualitative study with Australian citizens, participants described personal contact with refugees as important when forming an opinion about members of this group (McKay, Thomas, & Kneebone, 2012).…”

“…Only a few of these studies, however, have looked into the interactive effect of political ideology and contact (Prati et al, 2018). One exception is a study by Dhont and Van Hiel (2011) that examined the effects of extended contact (i.e., knowing an ingroup member with close relationships to an outgroup member) on anti‐immigrant prejudice with a representative Dutch sample.…”