Suchergebnisse

This article demonstrates the analytical advantages of studying not only the degree to which people oppose immigration in a country, but also the character of their opposition. Using Latent Class Analysis and data from the European Social Survey, Nordic patterns and trends are examined with the aim of identifying different kinds of immigration attitudes and how they develop in different national contexts. The Nordic countries are interesting to compare as, while they are similar in many respects, they also diverge significantly from each other in areas theoretically considered important to the formation of attitudes towards immigration. Studying the character of immigration opposition reveals five different types of immigration attitudes. These are differently distributed between the Nordic countries as well as over time, and include nativist opposition (opposition only towards immigrants of ethnic/racial groups other than that of the majority population) and economic opposition (opposition that entails a separation between immigrants considered to be an economic resource and an economic burden). By demonstrating how immigration opposition in the Nordic countries varies not only in degree but also in character, the article contributes to a deeper understanding of the nature of immigration opposition as well as of how different attitudinal profiles evolve under different contextual circumstances.

This study examines whether political frames influence anti-immigrant attitudes among native populations in 21 European countries, and if this relationship is somehow moderated by personal experiences of intergroup contact. Using data from the Comparative Manifesto Project and European Social Survey, two indicators of intergroup contact are tested: immigrant friends and immigrant colleagues, to see whether they can counter the effect of nationalistic political framing. The analysis reveals a positive relationship between nationalistic frames and anti-immigrant attitudes that is moderated by experiences of intergroup contact. In this sense, extensive contact with immigrants seems to inoculate individuals against political influences. The results contribute to a better understanding of both the role of political contexts and of the consequences of intergroup contact.

Background. This thesis directs attention to how attitudes towards immigrants evolve under different contextual circumstances. Unlike previous research that primarily focuses on contextual factors related to the availability of material resources, the included studies explore the influence of less tangible aspects of our surroundings, brought together under the term immaterial contexts. Three kinds of immaterial contexts are in focus: political representatives' use of nationalistic rhetoric, the parliamentary presence of the extreme right, and the religious context. The studies examine the direct effects of these contexts, but also how individuals' beliefs, loyalties, and experiences interact with the contextual factors to shape peoples' attitudes. Methods. The thesis takes a comparative approach where countries serve as the main contextual unit. Data on attitudes and other individual features are gathered from the European Social Survey 2002-2012. To be able to analyze these data in the same model as used for country-level data, the thesis applies multi-level models. Results. The findings support a theoretical expectation that immaterial contexts influence anti-immigrant attitudes. How people perceive immigrants and immigration can be traced to political and religious aspects of their surroundings. Also, it is found that individuals are not passive recipients of contextual influences as their reactions depend on their preferences and experiences. While political representatives influence anti-immigrant attitudes, these effects are strongly conditional both on features of the representatives themselves, and on characteristics and experiences of individuals. For example, individuals respond to political rhetoric by traditional political parties but are not influenced by the same kind of message if conveyed by a party belonging to the extreme right. Conclusion. The thesis is an attempt to widen the very notion of contexts in empirical research, and as such, it is a contribution to the literature on anti-immigrant attitudes. It shows that anti-immigrant attitudes depend not only on material circumstances, but also on immaterial circumstances tied to the political and religious arena. Further, the thesis demonstrates how combining the theoretical perspectives of group threat theory and framing theory implies greater possibilities to conceive of the link between contexts and attitudes, as well as improved theoretical tools to understand when and why such effects do not occur. It signals that research on immaterial contexts is necessary to further advance the comparative scholarship on anti-immigrant attitudes and reach a deeper understanding of how such attitudes emerge and evolve.

This article examines how political factors influence anti-immigrant attitudes by focusing on political articulation performed by political parties active at the national level in 26 European countries. Multi-level analysis reveals a significant positive association between general party articulation and anti-immigrant attitudes. In particular, it seems to be when traditional right- or left-wing parties articulate that attitudes towards immigrants turn increasingly negative. Left-leaning individuals are particularly influenced when parties belonging to the political left raise these issues, which indicates that the ideological position of the individual functions as a mediating factor in this regard. The results contribute to a broader understanding of the role of political factors and underscore the importance of their inclusion in cross-national studies of anti-immigrant attitudes.

While classmates have been identified as important socializing agents in relation to adolescents' prejudice, there is limited understanding of how popularity status plays into classroom transmission of prejudicial attitudes. Drawing on theories of social influence, we used a three-wave panel of Swedish adolescents (N = 941, aged 13–15) to examine the role of sociometric and prestige popular classmates in the development of adolescents' anti-immigrant attitudes. Multilevel repeated measurement models revealed positive relationships between popular and individual prejudice; between sociometric prejudice and the level and rate of change; and between prestige prejudice and wave-to-wave shifts in individual prejudice. Overall, we found sociometrically popular classmates to be more influential in relation to adolescents' prejudice. Additionally, we found the effect of sociometric prejudice to be more pronounced if political issues were frequently discussed in the classroom.

AbstractThis article synthesizes research on political outcomes associated with increasing immigration, with an emphasis on cross‐national studies of European countries, where immigration is a relatively newer phenomenon compared to the United States and other traditional immigrant destinations. We begin with explanations of and research on anti‐immigrant sentiment, not a political phenomenon in itself but considered an important precursor to other relevant political attitudes. Next, we review scholarship on the relationship between immigration and support for the welfare state, as well as exclusionary attitudes regarding immigrants' rights to welfare benefits. Then, we review research on immigration and political party preferences, in particular radical right parties, whose platforms often combine anti‐immigration and welfare chauvinistic positions. We conclude by discussing how these processes may ultimately shape social policies, which may in turn influence immigration itself.

Research on prejudice has shown that with whom we surround ourselves matters for intergroup attitudes, but these studies have paid little attention to the content of those interactions. Studies on political socialization and deliberation have focused on the content of interaction by examining the transmission of norms as well as the direct consequences of political discussion on attitudes and behavior. However, this literature has not focused on prejudice as a potential consequence. In this study, we combine these approaches to examine if political discussions with peers during adolescence matter for prejudice. We rely on five waves of a Swedish panel of adolescents, ages 13–22. Results show an association between political discussion and prejudice over time, and that this relationship increases as adolescents grow older. Results also demonstrate that the effect of political discussions depends on the level of prejudice in one's peer network. Discussion with low prejudice friends is associated with lower levels of prejudice over time, while political discussion with high prejudice peers is not significantly related to attitudes.

Research on prejudice has shown that with whom we surround ourselves matters for intergroup attitudes, but these studies have paid little attention to the content of those interactions. Studies on political socialization and deliberation have focused on the content of interaction by examining the transmission of norms as well as the direct consequences of political discussion on attitudes and behavior. However, this literature has not focused on prejudice as a potential consequence. In this study, we combine these approaches to examine if political discussions with peers during adolescence matter for prejudice. We rely on five waves of a Swedish panel of adolescents, ages 13-22. Results show an association between political discussion and prejudice over time, and that this relationship increases as adolescents grow older. Results also demonstrate that the effect of political discussions depends on the level of prejudice in one's peer network. Discussion with low prejudice friends is associated with lower levels of prejudice over time, while political discussion with high prejudice peers is not significantly related to attitudes.

This study explores how researchers' analytical choices affect the reliability of scientific findings. Most discussions of reliability problems in science focus on systematic biases. We broaden the lens to emphasize the idiosyncrasy of conscious and unconscious decisions that researchers make during data analysis. We coordinated 161 researchers in 73 research teams and observed their research decisions as they used the same data to independently test the same prominent social science hypothesis: that greater immigration reduces support for social policies among the public. In this typical case of social science research, research teams reported both widely diverging numerical findings and substantive conclusions despite identical start conditions. Researchers' expertise, prior beliefs, and expectations barely predict the wide variation in research outcomes. More than 95% of the total variance in numerical results remains unexplained even after qualitative coding of all identifiable decisions in each team's workflow. This reveals a universe of uncertainty that remains hidden when considering a single study in isolation. The idiosyncratic nature of how researchers' results and conclusions varied is a previously underappreciated explanation for why many scientific hypotheses remain contested. These results call for greater epistemic humility and clarity in reporting scientific findings.