Do We Stand Together? The Role of Perceived Personal and Group Threats in Predicting the Majority's (Un)willingness to Confront Injustice on Behalf of a Minority

Purpose: By utilizing data from Estonia, Finland, and Norway, this study explores how the perceptions of personal and group realistic threats, namely perceived ethnic discrimination and economic insecurity among national majorities, predict their unwillingness to confront injustice on behalf of Russian-speaking minority groups.

Background: Previous research on collective action to promote minorities’ rights and social standing has focused either on minorities’ own actions or factors promoting the willingness of majority group members to engage in collective action on behalf of minorities. In contrast, factors explaining the reluctance of majority group members to engage in collective action on behalf of minority groups have remained less explored. For example, studies have then ignored that the majority members may also feel threatened and may be economically insecure. Furthermore, the possible discrepancy between perceived personal vs. in-group’s situation may influence majority group members’ (un)willingness to confront injustice on behalf of a minority group.

Method: We employed polynomial regression with response surface analysis to analyze data gathered among national majority members in three countries (N = 1,341).

Results: Perceived personal and group realistic threats were associated with heightened unwillingness to confront injustice on behalf of the Russian-speaking minority. Furthermore, participants were more unwilling to confront injustice when they perceived more group than personal threat.

Conclusion: We found that majority group members’ (un)willingness to confront injustice on behalf of the minority is related to how secure they perceive their own and their group status. Our results contribute to previous research by pointing out the important drawbacks of majorities’ support for minorities’ wish for social change.

The “ironic” fair process effect: A perceived fair naturalization procedure spurs anti-immigration attitudes through increased host national identification among naturalized citizens

A growing body of research has shown that naturalized citizens’ attitudes towards immigration worsen following citizenship acquisition. Accordingly, these socially mobile individuals tend to distance themselves from their former immigrant ingroup. The present contribution explains such self–group distancing coping strategy in terms of an “ironic” procedural fairness effect. Study 1 ( N = 566), a survey conducted among naturalized Swiss citizens, showed that fairness perceptions with respect to the naturalization process were indeed associated with stronger anti-immigration attitudes, and that this relationship was mediated by identification with the host nation. Next, two experiments were conducted to demonstrate the causality of the hypothesized mediation model. In Study 2 (Experiment 1; N = 248), fairness of the admission procedure (accurate vs. inaccurate) increased identification with a desirable group. In Study 3 (Experiment 2; N = 141), administration of a national identity prime evoked stronger anti-immigration attitudes. Taken together, our findings highlight a somewhat “dark side” of procedural fairness.

Citizenship and socio-political integration: A person-oriented analysis among Russian-speaking minorities in Estonia, Finland and Norway

This survey study utilized a person-oriented approach to explore the patterns of socio-political integration among Russian-speaking minority group members in three neighboring countries in the Baltic area: Estonia (n = 482), Finland (n = 252), and Norway (n = 215). Three profiles were obtained in all countries: critical integration, separation, and assimilation. In the whole sample, critical integration was the most common acculturation profile. After the profiles were established, they were examined vis-à-vis citizenship and integration context to see, whether and to what extent, the objective (i.e., citizenship) and subjective (i.e., perceived social status and sense of belonging) socio-political integration of Russian-speakers corresponded with each other. Critical integration and separation were the most common profiles among participants holding national citizenship of the country of residence, while foreign citizenship was not related to any specific profile. Separation was rare among participants holding dual citizenship, but it was the most common profile among participants with undetermined citizenship. Also, intergroup context was associated with socio-political integration: critical integration and separation were the most common profiles of Russian-speakers in Estonia, critical integration and assimilation profiles in Finland, and assimilation profile in Norway. The results are discussed in relation to previous variable-oriented research and official integration policies of the countries studied.