What is threatening about refugees? Identifying different types of threat and their association with emotional responses and attitudes towards refugee migration

Abstract

Threat is one of the most important predictors for attitudes towards refugees and migration. The current research addresses the role of different threat types and emotional reactions in the context of refugee migration with a multi‐method approach. Using qualitative (Study 1, N = 202) and quantitative (Studies 2–4, N = 873) methods, we identified six types of threat that majority group members in Germany experience in the face of refugee migration: Concerns about cultural differences (symbolic threat), financial strain (realistic threat), criminal acts (safety threat), conflicts within society (cohesion threat), increasing xenophobia (prejudice threat), and refugee care (altruistic threat). All these threat types elicited negative emotions and were associated with negative attitudes towards refugees and support for restrictive migration policies. Paradoxically, concerns about refugee care predicted support for restrictive migration policies particularly well (altruistic threat paradox), which can be explained by a lack of emotional responses to this type of threat. Based on these findings, we propose a bidirectional model of intergroup threat.

Mapping Ethnic Stereotypes and Their Antecedents in Russia: The Stereotype Content Model

“…In general, the differences in the share of the explained variance and the importance of various predictors for the considered groups fit the differentiated threat approach (Cottrell and Neuberg, 2005; Meuleman et al, 2018; Landmann et al, 2019) and emphasizes the importance of macro-social factors—such as historical, political, geographical, and social—in explaining stereotypes.…”

“…In addition, the selection of other target groups (ethnic and social) could also help further develop the obtained results. For example, the fruitfulness of the differentiated threat approach to attitudes toward refugees was shown in the recent study in Germany (see Landmann et al, 2019). Moreover, this research did not fully reveal the potential of social ecology in explaining of stereotype content (in the future, Linssen and Hagendoorn (1994) could provide comparative perspective).…”

“…Competition can cover some threats, and the SCM includes both tangible (resource) and symbolic (value) threats (Kervyn et al, 2015), consistent with the Intergroup Threat Theory (Stephan and Mealy, 2011). However, considering the threats separately, one can form a consistent threat profile for each target group (Cottrell and Neuberg, 2005; Meuleman et al, 2018; Landmann et al, 2019). That is, groups believed to pose qualitatively distinct threats to ingroup resources, values, or processes would elicit qualitatively distinct and functionally relevant reactions.…”

Special Issue on “The Social Psychology of Forced Migration and Refugee Integration” in the European Journal of Social Psychology

“…Threats experienced by residents are expanded beyond established threat types (symbolic, realistic) to include threats that are specific to the refugee context (e.g., safety threat, cohesion threat, altruistic threat; Landmann, Gaschler, & Rohmann, ). Residents’ willingness to participate in collective action against refugees is predicted by their autochthony beliefs, that is, their sense of entitlement to defend their homeland against the influx of refugees (Hasbún López et al., ).…”

Personal Value Preferences, Threat-Benefit Appraisal of Immigrants and Levels of Social Contact: Looking Through the Lens of the Stereotype Content Model

“…Research in Britain ( Hellwig and Sinno, 2017 ) and Germany ( Jedinger and Eisentraut, 2020 ) suggests that the threats that members of the majority group may feel toward different immigrant or minority groups differ, in line with perceived characteristics of the immigrant group (e.g., cultural, religious, economic). In addition, recent research in Germany ( Landmann et al, 2019 ) also suggests that there may be particular threats that relate to refugee groups (e.g., safety, cohesion, prejudice, and altruistic threats) over and above the more traditionally conceived symbolic and realistic threats ( Stephan et al, 2000 ). Moreover, research also suggests that these different threat perceptions may lead to different behaviors ( De Rooij et al, 2018 ), making it important to examine how the particular relationships between values, immigrant appraisal, and social contact may differ across groups.…”