A major stream of attitudinal research focuses on social or group identity theories, which generally imply that identifying with a group, or distinguishing between one’s own group and other groups, can lead to in-group favouritism and, consequently, out-group stereotypes (Glynn et al., 2004) or perceptions of threat (Krysan, 2000; Quillian, 1995; Raijman et al., 2003). According to Fussell (2014), research on attitudes towards immigrants and immigration policy is rooted, generally speaking, in Allport’s (1954) perspective on prejudice. Allport (1954) claimed that in-groups are “psychologically primary” and thus that “the familiar is preferred” to anything alien (Allport, 1954, p. 42). Negative attitudes towards out-groups, including immigrants, can be reinforced by, for example, the desire to maintain hierarchical relationships and power differences between groups, as social dominance theory claims (Pratto et al., 1994; Sidanius & Pratto, 2004), or to ensure conformity to in- group norms and values, as right-wing authoritarian orientation theory claims (see for example, Altemeyer, 1988, 1996; Duckitt, 1989, 2001; Duckitt et al., 2002; Thomsen et al., 2008).
At the same time, and also building on Allport’s (1954) research, Brewer (1999) suggests that “ingroup love [an attachment to one’s own group] is not a necessary precursor of outgroup hate” (1999). That is, an in-group preference does not necessarily lead to negative attitudes towards out-groups. Moreover, as Card et
23
al. (2005) indicate, pursuit of social identity can lead to positive attitudes towards out-groups, “if the native [locally-born] group’s identity is strongly linked to notions of fairness, equality, or social justice” (2005, p. 10). Social and group identity theories are associated with contact and group threat theories, and cultural marginality theory.
Contact theory was originally proposed by Allport (1954) to describe how personal interaction between individuals from one group with individuals from an alien group will likely have the tendency to decrease negative feelings, and reduce prejudice, towards the latter group. Allport claimed that individuals can hold
misconceptions about others “based on a faulty and inflexible generalization” (1954, p. 9) resulting from a lack of contact. Consequently, interaction between different groups should lead to the formation of positive attitudes between the groups (see also Hood & Morris, 1997; McLaren, 2003). This is a well-developed approach and empirically supported (see Allport, 1954; Alvarez & Butterfield, 2000; Bittner & Tremblay, 2011; Burns & Gimpel, 2000; Campbell et al., 2006; Dovidio et al., 2005; Fetzer, 2000; Hawley, 2011; Hood & Morris, 1998; Hood et al., 1997; Jackman & Crane, 1986; McLaren, 2003; Quillian, 1995; Rustenbach, 2010). However, to have positive intergroup contact, certain conditions need to be met (Pettigrew, 1998). Berg (2015) stresses that although researchers have examined various conditions of
contact, the literature most often relies on four conditions identified by Allport (1954). Allport suggests that positive effects of intergroup contact occur if there is: equal-group status, common goals, intergroup cooperation, and institutional support (1954, esp. p. 281). Some scholars have argued, however, that even if positive effects occur, they may not be permanent. Examining these arguments in the context of immigration to Spain in 1991–2000, Escandell and Ceobanu (2009) found that
24
“over time, close contact with migrants becomes a weaker predictor of reduced foreigner exclusionism” (2009, p. 44). In a separate study, Fetzer (2000) developed the theory to suggest that if locally-born people come into contact with immigrants in a superficial way, without developing friendships or closer relationships, there will likely be increased suspicion and hostility (see also Rustenbach, 2010).
Fetzer’s theory is sometimes referred to as group position theory or group threat theory(Blumer, 1958; Quillian, 1995), whichsuggests that different
demographic groups “in close contact with each other tend to exhibit higher levels of hostility toward each other because of their [real or imagined] competition for scarce resources”(Hawley, 2011, p. 405). Real or imagined competition between groups, and perceived threats (Alba et al., 2005), can lead to generalisations about groups, including prejudice (Blumer, 1958; Quillian, 1995) and, subsequently, to negative attitudes towards immigration (Burns & Gimpel, 2000; Lee & Ottati, 2002; Pearson, 2010; Pehrson & Green, 2010; Pichler, 2010). Perceived group threat theory, then, is associated with a ‘power threat hypothesis’ (Blalock, 1967), which suggests that the threat increases with the size of an out-group. It is also connected to what has been referred to as a ‘politicised places hypothesis’. Developed by Hopkins (2010), this hypothesis suggests that attitudes differ based on the speed with which immigrants arrive and whether this change is accompanied by significant national discussion about immigrants. Hopkins observes that “when communities are undergoing sudden demographic changes at the same time that salient national rhetoric politicizes immigration, immigrants can quickly become the targets of local political hostility” (2010, p. 40).
Perceived group threat can be associated with rhetoric used by political elites and the media. Hainmueller and Hopkins (2014) argue that “[c]hanging elite and
25
media rhetoric provides a source of dynamic variation for theoretical approaches that might otherwise yield static predictions”(2014, p. 10). In order to test the effects of changed rhetoric and to identify a relationship between anxiety concerning migrant groups with immigration more generally, Brader et al. (2008) conducted a survey experiment that manipulated the tone of a newspaper article and the presentation of immigrant groups in the United States. Their findings suggest that when immigrants are presented in a negative light, respondents display more anxiety and become more concerned about immigration as a consequence compared to those in the control group. Along similar lines, Gadarian and Albertson (2014) found that people disproportionately recall threatening information about migrants, which has the potential to raise anxiety. Further, Maio’s (1994) research demonstrates that
individuals cued with positive information express more positive attitudes compared to respondents who were exposed to negative information.
According to Berg (2015), group threat perspectives appear “to be the most well supported theory in the literature, both in the United States and in Europe” (Berg, 2015, p. 26; Ceobanu & Escandell, 2010; Fussell, 2014). Both group threat theory and contact theory attempt to explain attitudes of one group towards another, but, as Fussell (2014) stresses, they “differ in their conceptualization of what causes prejudice” and how prejudice is understood (see also Allport 1954; Blumer 1958). These theories have been tested empirically with varying results (Alvarez & Butterfield, 2000; Burns & Gimpel, 2000; Campbell et al., 2006; Hood & Morris, 1998), and self-selection bias into surveys studying these phenomenon is considered to be a major criticism of these theories (Berg, 2009; McPherson et al., 2001).
Another prominent theory, which operates on perceptions of difference, is cultural marginality theory, sometimes known as cultural threat theory (Buckler et
26
al., 2009; Chandler & Tsai, 2001; Espenshade & Hempstead, 1996; Hood et al., 1997; Rustenbach, 2010). This theory suggests that the locally-born population will more likely have negative attitudes towards immigrants who they cannot relate to as a result of having different cultures (Buckler et al., 2009; Chandler & Tsai, 2001; Espenshade & Hempstead, 1996; Hood et al., 1997; Rustenbach, 2010). Drawing attention to the significance of cultural factors, Lucassen and Lubbers (2012) argue that perceived threats to cultural identity “are more likely to evoke exclusionary reactions than those [related] to economic well-being” (2012, p. 547); see also Sniderman et al. (2004).
While perceived threats may result from distinct values, norms, religions, languages, traditions or experiences, difference can also result owing to affinity, or sympathy, between groups. That is, cultural affinity can exist between immigrants and those members of a society who themselves belong to culturally marginalised groups. In this vein, Hayes and Dowds (2006) suggest that individuals from
culturally marginalised groups are more likely to hold favourable attitudes towards immigrants (see also Espenshade & Calhoun, 1993; 2006, p. 466).
As can be seen, there are many theories dealing with attitudes relating to perceptions of threat and hostility. With such wide ranging theories, many of which have been empirically tested many times, I will focus on socioeconomic and political theories, where it is possible to make a contribution to the literature. Below, I discuss in more detail those theories that attempt to provide socioeconomic and political explanations in relation to immigration attitude formation, and which are tested in the Australian context further in the thesis. I discuss both prevalent approaches, i.e. human capital theory and economic competition theory, and the understudied (and underdeveloped) political affiliation theory.
27