Xenophobia and immigrant contact: French public attitudes toward immigration

Xenophobic societal attitudes in a “new” South Africanism: Governance of public perceptions, national identities and citizenship

“…The argument assumes that in the processes of interactions of the in-group and the out-group who are in pursuit of common goals, the cultural, ethnic and xenophobic stereotypes would be undermined whilst fostering "understanding, integration, and peaceable relations", notwithstanding the disparate nature of such groups (Jolly & DiGiusto, 2014: 465). Contact theory emphasizes the common humanity and similarities of the in-group and the out-group, rather than disparities as well as "relative status and goals" which drive anxiety, suspicion, skepticism, "distorted images" and "negative stereotypes" that precipitate xenophobic conflict and violence (Brown & Lopez, 2001;Jennings, 2009;Ha, 2010;Hopkins, 2010;Jolly & DiGiusto, 2014). However, self-interest theory relates to individuals' personal socio-economic circumstances, which may be superseded by collective threat perceptions.…”

“…Equally, contact between in-group and out-group can equally "undermine" xenophobic tendencies and "exacerbate" tensions (Jolly & DiGiusto, 2014: 471). Interactions, especially where both groups are driven by the pursuit of common goals, could potentially undermine negative stereotypes, distorted images and foster understanding, integration and peaceable relations between out-group and in-group (Hainmueller & Hiscox, 2007;Vincent, 2008;Jennings, 2009;Ha, 2010;Hopkins, 2010;Jolly & DiGiusto, 2014). Paradoxically, contact can trigger threat perceptions, which may as well be objectively absent, and subjective perception of vulnerability, with the resultant prejudicial attitudes, animosities and violent abuses of the out-group immigrants.…”

“…There exist a plethora of theoretical and philosophical engagements that have sought to determine the causes of xenophobic societal and public attitudes. Whereas contact and threat theories are diametrically on opposite sides of the argument about the causes of societal attitudes and public perceptions that drive animosities, hostilities, antagonism and violence against the immigrant out-groups, a meticulous scan and analysis of contextual variables will suggest that they both have variable applicability depended on the geographic scale and dominant factors precipitating xenophobia (Hainmueller & Hiscox, 2007Hopkins, 2010Hopkins, , 2011De Sante, 2013;Jolly & DiGiusto, 2014). Further, it is tenable to assert that in a democratic South Africa violent abuses of the African out-group immigrants in 2008 and 2015 cannot be leisurely dissociated from the argument that xenophobic expressions have intricately become unintended strategy for national citizenship self-reassurance which occurred "after intensive phases of modernization" that failed to keep up with the promises of social welfare state and a better life for all (Hjerm, 2009;Ha, 2010;Hopkins, 2011;Adjai & Lazaridis, 2013;De Sante, 2013;Chinomona & Maziriri, 2015).…”

Immigration, Attitudes and the Rise of the Political Right: The Role of Cultural and Economic Concerns Over Immigration

“…Chandler and Tsai (2001), Sides and Citrin (2007), Facchini and Mayda (2008), and Jolly and DiGiusto (2014) find that opposition to immigration is associated with conservative or rightwing ideologies, and Billet and De Witte (1995) and Lubbers et al (2002) show as well that opposition to immigration is associated with the propensity to vote for rightwing political parties. However, these papers employ general or composite measures of attitudes toward immigration and, thus, fail to specifically address the role of cultural concerns over immigration or to distinguish between the 3 roles of cultural and economic concerns over immigration in support for rightwing political parties and ideologies.…”

“…In contrast, studies employing cross-sectional data from a single point in time, such as Quillian (1995), Espenshade et al (1996), Evans and Need (2002), Sides and Citrin (2007), Semyonov et al (2008), Strabac andListhaug (2008), andCeobanu (2010), cannot address the how attitudes toward immigrants respond to changes in share or composition of the immigrant population, nor can they effectively control for omitted country-level variables that may be correlated with macroeconomic indicators, such as unemployment or the immigrant population share. Similarly, studies that employ national panel data, such as Dustmann and Preston (2001), Semyonov et al (2004), Wilkes andCorrigall-Brown (2011), andJolly andDiGiusto (2014), are unable to investigate the determinants of international differences in the sensitivity of attitudes toward immigrants, including various dimensions of national culture.…”