The role of perceived threat in Australians’ endorsement of asylum-seeker policies

Pandemic and prejudice: Revisiting Bogardus’s social distance concept in a time of COVID-19

This study examined when the realistic threat of COVID-19 leads to prejudicial social distancing. American participants reported social distancing preferences from Chinese or Italian people (out-group target) after viewing increasing or decreasing COVID-19 case numbers (threat level) in China or Italy (threat relevance). On the Bogardus Social Distance Scale, there was support for a disease avoidance hypothesis: greater social distancing preferences were expressed under higher than under lower relevant threats. Responses on a bespoke COVID-19 Social Distance Scale, however, supported an a priori prejudice hypothesis: greater social distancing preferences were expressed toward a Chinese than toward an Italian out-group. Moreover, responses on a separate bespoke Modern Social Distance Scale supported a complex prejudice hypothesis: greater social distancing preferences were expressed toward Chinese than toward Italian out-groups under higher than under lower threat, regardless of threat relevance. These findings suggest that the threat of COVID-19 may enable prejudice expression accompanied by the rationale of disease avoidance.

The Role of Intergroup Threat in Support of Punitive Policies Toward Mexican Immigrants

The present research examined the degree to which symbolic and realistic threat perceptions of documented and undocumented Mexican immigrants predicted support for willingness to provide basic resources (e.g., food, water) in detention centers and agreement with policies that restrict Mexican immigration through detention and deportation. Our study recruited 191 participants online via Amazon Mechanical Turk. Results showed that undocumented immigrants were more realistically, but not symbolically threatening than their documented counterparts. Intergroup threat predicted lower willingness to provide basic resources in detention centers and greater support of punitive policies. This finding was not moderated by whether participants evaluated documented or undocumented immigrants. Once we accounted for social dominance orientation (SDO), political attitudes, and contact with Mexican immigrants, only SDO remained a significant predictor of attitudes toward resources in detention centers, while all variables predicted more support for punitive policies. These findings highlight the roles of symbolic and realistic threats, SDO, political attitudes, and intergroup contact in endorsing punitive immigration policies.