Suchergebnisse

AbstractThe present research examines the relationship between national identity, perceived group threats, and immigration policy. Across two studies, we examine how patriotism (an arguably critical form of national identity) and nationalism (an ethnocentric and dominance‐oriented form of national identity) predict strong stances on immigration policy (Studies 1 and 2). Furthermore, does the inclusion of symbolic threat (Studies 1 and 2) and realistic threat (Study 2) decrease the relationship between different forms of national identity and immigration policy? One of the key findings across the two studies is that symbolic threat reduces the relationship between nationalism and immigration policy but not between patriotism and immigration policy. The findings extend previous research by providing evidence that symbolic threat (e.g., immigrants are changing what it means to be American) underpins the relationship between nationalism and immigration policy.

Abstract. Five studies demonstrate that athletic praise can ironically lead to infrahumanization. College athletes were seen as less agentic than college debaters (Studies 1 and 2). College athletes praised for their bodies were also seen as less agentic than college athletes praised for their minds (Study 3), and this effect was driven by bodily admiration (Study 4). These effects occurred equally for White and Black athletes (Study 1) and did not depend on dualistic beliefs about the mind and body (Study 2), failing to provide support for assumptions in the literature. Participants perceived mind and body descriptions of both athletes and debaters as equally high in praise (Study 5), demonstrating that infrahumanization may be induced even if descriptions of targets are positively valenced. Additionally, decreased perceptions of agency led to decreased support for college athletes' rights (Study 3).

Why are people motivated to support social systems that claim to distribute resources based on hard work and effort, even when those systems seem unfair? Recent research on compensatory control shows that lowered perceptions of personal control motivate a greater endorsement of external systems (e.g., God, government) that compensate for a lack of personal control. The present studies demonstrate that U.S. citizens' faith in a popular economic ideology, namely the belief that hard work guarantees success (i.e., meritocracy), similarly increases under conditions of decreased personal control. We found that a threat to personal control increased participants' endorsement of meritocracy (Studies 1 and 2). Additionally, lowered perceptions of control led to increased feelings of anxiety regarding the future, but the subsequent endorsement of (Study 2) or exposure to (Study 3) meritocracy attenuated this effect. While the compensatory use of meritocracy may be a phenomenon unique to the United States of America, these studies provide important insight into the appeal and persistence of ideologies in general. ; peerReviewed ; publishedVersion

Why are people motivated to support social systems that claim to distribute resources based on hard work and effort, even when those systems seem unfair? Recent research on compensatory control shows that lowered perceptions of personal control motivate a greater endorsement of external systems (e.g., God, government) that compensate for a lack of personal control. The present studies demonstrate that U.S. citizens' faith in a popular economic ideology, namely the belief that hard work guarantees success (i.e., meritocracy), similarly increases under conditions of decreased personal control. We found that a threat to personal control increased participants' endorsement of meritocracy (Studies 1 and 2). Additionally, lowered perceptions of control led to increased feelings of anxiety regarding the future, but the subsequent endorsement of (Study 2) or exposure to (Study 3) meritocracy attenuated this effect. While the compensatory use of meritocracy may be a phenomenon unique to the United States of America, these studies provide important insight into the appeal and persistence of ideologies in general.

Does support for tough policies against undocumented immigration reflect anti-immigrant sentiments or a neutral concern about upholding laws? This study addresses the question by examining the relationship between different expressions of national identification and ethnocentric enforcement bias-that is, support for punishment of law-breaking immigrants but not law-breaking American employers who knowingly hire undocumented immigrants. Results revealed an association of this enforcement bias with nationalism (an ethnocentric engagement with national identity) but not with patriotism (a more critical engagement with national identity). A moderation analysis indicated that the relationship between nationalism and ethnocentric enforcement bias was most evident among participants who endorsed a "culture"-based construction of American identity in terms of American citizenship and ability to speak English. Discussion focuses on policy developments that reflect a symbolic threat to culture-based constructions of American identity and on the implications for fair and just enforcement of immigration policy. Adapted from the source document.

Does support for tough policies against undocumented immigration reflect anti‐immigrant sentiments or a neutral concern about upholding laws? This study addresses the question by examining the relationship between different expressions of national identification and ethnocentric enforcement bias—that is, support for punishment of law‐breaking immigrants but not law‐breaking American employers who knowingly hire undocumented immigrants. Results revealed an association of this enforcement bias with nationalism (an ethnocentric engagement with national identity) but not with patriotism (a more critical engagement with national identity). A moderation analysis indicated that the relationship between nationalism and ethnocentric enforcement bias was most evident among participants who endorsed a "culture"‐based construction of American identity in terms of American citizenship and ability to speak English. Discussion focuses on policy developments that reflect a symbolic threat to culture‐based constructions of American identity and on the implications for fair and just enforcement of immigration policy.

Why are people motivated to support social systems that claim to distribute resources based on hard work and effort, even when those systems seem unfair? Recent research on compensatory control shows that lowered perceptions of personal control motivate a greater endorsement of external systems (e.g., God, government) that compensate for a lack of personal control. The present studies demonstrate that U.S. citizens' faith in a popular economic ideology, namely the belief that hard work guarantees success (i.e., meritocracy), similarly increases under conditions of decreased personal control. We found that a threat to personal control increased participants' endorsement of meritocracy (Studies 1 and 2). Additionally, lowered perceptions of control led to increased feelings of anxiety regarding the future, but the subsequent endorsement of (Study 2) or exposure to (Study 3) meritocracy attenuated this effect. While the compensatory use of meritocracy may be a phenomenon unique to the United States of America, these studies provide important insight into the appeal and persistence of ideologies in general.

Using data from the International Social Survey Programme, this research investigated asymmetric attitudes of ethnic minorities and majorities towards their country and explored the impact of human development, ethnic diversity, and social inequality as country-level moderators of national attitudes. In line with the general hypothesis of ethnic asymmetry, we found that ethnic, linguistic, and religious majorities were more identified with the nation and more strongly endorsed nationalist ideology than minorities (H1, 33 countries). Multilevel analyses revealed that this pattern of asymmetry was moderated by country-level characteristics: the difference between minorities and majorities was greatest in ethnically diverse countries and in egalitarian, low inequality contexts. We also observed a larger positive correlation between ethnic subgroup identification and both national identification and nationalism for majorities than for minorities (H2, 20 countries). A stronger overall relationship between ethnic and national identification was observed in countries with a low level of human development. The greatest minority-majority differences in the relationship between ethnic identification and national attitudes were found in egalitarian countries with a strong welfare state tradition. Adapted from the source document.