Generalized and specific components of prejudice: The decomposition of intergroup context effects

Is There Such a Thing as a Hate Crime Paradigm? An Integrative Review of Bias-Motivated Violent Victimization and Offending, Its Effects and Underlying Mechanisms

Despite the growing number of bias-motivated violence studies, the evidence available remains limited, and there are several gaps in our understanding of the complex relationship between negative attitudes and biased violence. In addition, the literature on this topic has many facets and nuances and is often contradictory, so it is difficult to obtain a clear overall picture. Research has made good progress in this area, but it still suffers from a lack of systematization and from a highly segmented approach to victimization and offending. To contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the subject, this integrative narrative review provides a critical reappraisal of the theoretical, methodological, and empirical research from a systemic perspective. To this end, 134 academic publications on personality and social psychology, clinical psychology, sociology, criminology, and related disciplines were examined. The evidence suggests that although bias-motivated violence shares characteristics with other types of offensive behavior, it is actually a unique phenomenon due to its background rooted in prejudice, identity, and attitudes in which the intersection of individual, psychosocial, and ecological factors is especially relevant. The impact on the victim and their community is diverse, but it has a series of distinctive severe psychological consequences that significantly reduce the probability that incidents will be reported. Here, we present a series of findings and reflections on bias-motivated violence and provide recommendations for research, practice, and policy.

The rejection and acceptance of Muslim minority practices: A person-centered approach

In Western societies, generalized prejudice and anti-Muslim sentiments can be major drivers of the rejection of Muslim religious practices. However, people can also reject such practices for other reasons, such as concerns about civil liberties or the secular nature of the state. With national samples of German and Dutch majority members ( N = 3,703), we used a multiple-acts-multiple-actors design to simultaneously examine attitudes toward four religious practices of three religious groups. Latent profile analysis revealed a subgroup of people that used a double standard and more strongly rejected Muslims than Christians and Jews engaging in the same practices (discriminatory rejection, 16.3%). However, four other subgroups responded to the practices independently of religious group (equal acceptance, 18.3%; equally moderate, 35%; equal rejection, 17.3%; and partial equal rejection, 13.1%). The five subgroups differ on key psychological correlates and self-reported reasons for rejection. We conclude that a multiple-acts-multiple-actors design provides a more nuanced understanding of how majority members evaluate Muslim minority practices in Western nations.

Social dominance orientation, belief in a just world and intergroup contact as predictors of homeless stigmatisation

The purpose of this study was to explore individual and situational predictors of homeless stigmatization. The aim was to test if individual differences in Belief in a Just World (BJW) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) moderate the effect of quantity and quality of contact on stigmatization of the homeless. One hundred and eighty-seven participants completed measures of BJW, SDO, quality, and quantity of contact, as well as a measure of homeless stigmatization. Results showed that BJW and SDO correlated positively with stigmatization, while both quantity and quality of contact were negatively correlated with stigmatization. SDO was found to moderate the relationship between quantity of contact and stigmatization; more contact with the homeless was related to lower stigmatization for participants with low and moderate SDO scores but not those with high SDO. BJW did not moderate the relationship between contact and stigmatization. Implications regarding the interaction between SDO and contact are discussed.

Migration in the context: Perspectives, methodologies, and cultural issues

The present article introduces the issue migration in the context: perspectives, methodology, and cultural issues. International migrations and their changing patterns pose new challenges to community social psychologists and new questions to be explored. Community psychologists' attention is necessary to develop a perspective about migration more suitable to effective interventions in global and local communities. Therefore, methods aimed at study migration issues should be implemented at micro-system, community, and national levels. Through this series of papers, we aim to contribute to the debate about how social and community psychologists can engage in community development strategies aimed at improving migrant well-being too. Indeed, they can give relevant contributions to the deepening of migration issues through research, methodologies, and interventions in different contexts and at different levels of analysis.

Indirect Effects of Threat on the Contact–Prejudice Relationship

Abstract. This meta-analysis examines propositions derived from Intergroup Threat Theory (ITT; Stephan, Ybarra, & Morrison, 2009 ) regarding the role of symbolic and realistic threats on the relationship between contact and prejudice. Specifically, analyses examined whether threat has an indirect effect on the contact–prejudice relationship (aka mediation). Thirty-nine papers comprising 54 samples and over 25,000 participants provided 347 effects for analysis. Supporting ITT predictions, results clearly demonstrated the presence of an indirect effect. Tests of several moderators, including type of contact measure, type of threat, dimension of prejudice, and target of bias suggest that indirect effects are largely consistent across each domain of comparison. Findings are consistent with ITT’s propositions that contact influences threat and feelings of threat lead to prejudice.

Secondary transfer effect among children: The role of social dominance orientation and outgroup attitudes

Research has provided evidence that the effects of intergroup contact on prejudice reduction are not limited to the outgroup one has contact with (primary outgroup). Rather, they extend to secondary outgroups uninvolved in the contact situation (secondary transfer effect; Pettigrew, 2009, Social Psychology, 40, 55). We aimed to provide the first empirical evidence for the emergence of the secondary transfer effect among children. Majority (Italian) and minority (with an immigrant background) elementary schoolchildren were administered a questionnaire including measures of contact with the primary outgroup (minority children for the majority, majority children for the minority), prejudice towards the primary outgroup and towards a dissimilar secondary outgroup (disabled children), and social dominance orientation. Results revealed that among the majority group, contact with the primary outgroup had indirect associations with reduced prejudice towards the secondary outgroup. Specifically, we found evidence for sequential mediation by social dominance orientation and prejudice towards the primary outgroup. No secondary transfer effects emerged among minority group members. We discuss theoretical and practical implications of the findings, arguing for the importance of identifying the core processes driving the secondary transfer effect.

The Structure of Prejudice and Its Relation to Party Preferences in Belgium: Flanders and Wallonia Compared

We test two assumptions of the generalized prejudice literature. First, that the structure of generalized prejudice (i.e. how prejudices are interrelated) is dependent on the intergroup context. Second, that different types of prejudice have similar political consequences and run via the generalized prejudice component. We perform these tests in the two main regions of Belgium - Flanders and Wallonia - and investigate the influence of differences in the history of immigration, experience of the linguistic and autonomy conflict, and the separate party system and political discourse (i.e. the societal and intergroup context) on these premises. We make use of the Belgian Election Panel (BEP) data that included measures of prejudice toward multiple target groups (immigrants, Flemings, Walloons, homosexuals, and Jews) and voting propensities for the main political parties. Our results show that, regardless of the differences in intergroup experiences, the structure of prejudice is identical in Flanders and Wallonia. Flemings are, however, more tolerant toward homosexuals and immigrants than Walloons. The political context and the set of potential political outlets does play an important moderating role in the translation of prejudices to party preferences: While negative attitudes toward the other regional group seem to divide the electorate in Flanders, it does not affect voting intentions in Wallonia. Anti-immigrant prejudice is crucial in both regions, but affects voters in different ways at the right-side of the political spectrum.