Ambivalent Prejudice toward Immigrants: The Role of Social Contact and Ethnic Origin
Hisako Matsuo, Kevin McIntyre, Ajlina
Karamehic-Muratovic, Wai Hsien Cheah,
Lisa Willoughby, & John Clements
1 Emma Lazarus’ famous poem engraved at the base of the Statue of Liberty.
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore
--Emma Lazarus, “The New Colossus”
2 Immigrants to the US in the past (1880-)
Irish and Italians Prejudice and discrimination toward Catholics
Chinese and Japanese Chinese Exclusion Act, Alien Land Act Japanese internment during WWII
3 WWII through 1970’s: A positive environment with a demand for laborers. Immigrants were welcomed.
1970-1990: Oil crisis, followed by economic globalization. Immigrants were seen as threat to US economy. e.g. Killing of Vincent Chen
4 1990-2000: Immigrants from Eastern Europe after the break down of the former Soviet Union
2001- : Immigrants from Middle East
5 Ambivalent Attitude toward Immigrants
The sympathy and antipathy that individuals express toward these groups is hypothesized to be due to two strong, but conflicting American values (Biernat, et al., 1996; Katz & Haas, 1988).
Egalitarianism and Protestant Work Ethic
6 Americans value egalitarianism, characterized by social equality, social justice, and concern for others in need.
Americans also value the Protestant Work Ethic (PWE), an individualistic belief in hard work, self-discipline, and individual achievement.
e.g. Protestant Work Ethic and Development of Capitalism (Max Weber)
7 Egalitarianism is negatively associated with all forms of prejudice, whereas adherence to the PWE is positively associated with prejudice toward those outgroups viewed to violate the PWE (Biernat et al.1996) .
8 Immigrants are viewed as low in warmth, perceived to be hostile to and in direct competition with the ingroup (Lee & Fiske, 2006).
These perceptions of warmth and competence vary across immigrants of different nationalities, with most immigrant groups are perceived ambivalently by the ingroup. e.g. Asian immigrants (cold but hard-working people).
9 Theoretical Background
Examines whether immigrant nationality moderates the relationship between egalitarianism, PWE, and attitudes toward immigrants.
Different immigrant groups (e.g., African immigrants, European immigrants) are perceived differently whether upholding or threatening social values (Lee & Fiske, 2006; Sue & Kitano, 1973).
10 Contact Hypothesis: one way in which individuals may come to reduce prejudice is through direct social contact (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew, 1998; Wagner et al., 2006).
Prejudice originates from unfamiliarity and separation between groups and that contact among the groups will lead to more positive intergroup attitudes (Brewer & Gaertner, 2001)
11 Four conditions for positive relationship: Intergroup contact must be socially supported, personal, cooperative, and among individuals of equal status (Allport, 1954; Brewer & Gaertner, 2001; Pettigrew, 1998; Stephan, 1987).
12 Cross-group friendship potentially addresses all four conditions of the contact hypothesis, and thereby represents the optimal situation for prejudice reduction Pettigrew (1998) .
Personal contact with individual outgroup members may generalize, thereby making attitudes toward outgroups more positive (Hewstone & Brown, 1986; Pettigrew, 1997).
13 Impersonal contact may actually lead to more negative attitudes toward outgroups in that these interactions may be difficult, such as when individuals speak different languages (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003; Hewstone & Brown, 1986). e.g. Presence of a large number of exchange students on campus.
14 Setting of the Study
St. Louis Missouri: Ethnically diverse city with many refugees and immigrants.
Census data indicates that the number of immigrants in St. Louis rose by 65% from 1990 to 2000 (Mitchell, 2003).
The number of immigrants living in the city of St. Louis and their American-born children is close to 100,000, about one- third of the population of the city, making the area one of the most ethnically diverse cities in the Midwest (International
15 City of St Louis
North St Louis primarily a Black population
Central Corridor Area where the mixed Black & Bosnian White population population is concentrated. Referred to as “Little Bosnia” South St Louis primarily a White population
16 Sample
Participants were 194 (70 male and 124 female) undergraduate students. 165 Whites, 10 Blacks, 8 Asians, 7 Latinos, and 3 classifying themselves as “other.” Mean age of the sample was 20.83 (SD = 3.96), and 180 of the participants were born in the United States (14 were foreign born).
17 Measures
Social Contact. Participants first completed a 10-item social contact scale based on a revision of a previous scale devised by the first author (Matsuo, 1992) (Cronbach’s α = .877). Personal (e.g., “How many of your close friends are immigrants?”) and impersonal contact (e.g., “How many immigrants do you encounter at work or school?”).
18 Attitudes toward Specific Ethnic Groups. Participants reported their attitudes toward Asian, African, Middle Eastern, Bosnian, and European immigrants by completing semantic differential items.
Six bipolar ratings for each immigrant group on 7-point scales for the following dimensions: cold-warm, negative-positive, unfriendly-friendly, disrespectful- respectful, uncomfortable-comfortable, unwelcoming-welcoming (modified from Voci & Hewstone, 2003).
19 General Attitudes toward Immigrants. Participants were asked to report their attitudes toward immigrants in general by completing a modified version of the 10- item scale used by Starr and Roberts (1982).
“St. Louis has too many immigrants,” “It would be better if immigrants settle in another city or country,” and “Americans should feel obligated to help immigrants.” A 5-point scale with endpoints ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). (Cronbach’s α = .867).
20 Egalitarianism / Protestant Work Ethic Scale. This 21-item scale was developed by Katz & Haas (1988).
Responses to each item are made on a 6- point scale, ranging from -3 (Strongly Disagree) to 3 (Strongly Agree). Items were then summed to form an Egalitarian Scale and a Protestant Work Ethic scale (see Katz & Haas, 1988). Cronbach’s Alphas, 0.836 and 0.754 respectively).
21 Results
Showed different perceptions according various ethnic origins.
Egalitarianism had a positive impact and PWE a negative impact on attitude toward immigrants.
Personal contact had a positive impact and impersonal contact a negative impact attitude toward immigrants.
22 Table 1. Perceptions of immigrants by ethnic origin: results from repeated measures ANOVA Asian African Bosnian European Middle Eastern Immigrants Immigrants Immigrants Immigrants Immigrants F-statistics
Cold-Warm M 4.76 4.94 4.51 5.16 4.37 15.595*** SD 1.38 1.47 1.38 1.26 1.45 Negative-Positive M 4.84 4.89 4.50 5.12 4.40 10.630*** SD 1.34 1.46 1.37 1.26 1.45 Unfriendly-Friendly M 4.80 4.98 4.52 5.17 4.40 11.074*** SD 1.41 1.46 1.41 1.28 1.48 Disrespectful-Respectful M 5.23 4.78 4.56 5.15 4.60 1.128 SD 1.41 1.46 1.44 1.28 1.43 Uncomfortable-Comfortable M 4.70 4.78 4.46 5.17 4.25 20.823*** SD 1.37 1.43 1.33 1.31 1.48 Unwelcome-Welcome M 4.81 4.86 4.50 5.11 4.37 6.518* SD 1.46 1.44 1.42 1.33 1.47 23 Table 2. Attitudes Toward Immigrants by Race, Age, Gender, American Values and Social Contact
General Asian African Bosnian Middle European Eastern Race -1.419 -1.488 1.625 -1.138 -1.847 -2.509 (1=white, (-.087) (-.073) (.072) (-.054) (-.085) (-.129) 0=non-white) Age .188 -.025 .046 .186 .109 -.150 (.147) (-.016) (.026) (.116) (.065) (-.101) Gender 1.441 -.426 -1.798 -1.210 -.758 -.781 (1=Male, (.109) (-.026) (-.100) (-.069) (-.044) (-.050) 0=Female) Religion -2.182 .916 -.447 .595 1.598 .837 (1=non- (-.129) (.044) (-.020) (-.027) (.721) (.417) Christian, 0=Christian) Egalitarian .310*** .251** .220* .204* .203* .093 (.404) (.261) (.211) (.204) (.200) (.103) Protestant WE -1.21† -.092 -.267** -.020 -.114 -.049 (-.161) (-.099) (-.258) (-.020) (-.115) (-.056) Personal- .418*** -.128 -.010 .212 .121 .255 Contact (.333) (-.083) (-.006) (.132) (.073) (.173) Impersonal- -.197* -.085 -.531 -.410 -.266 -.243 Contact (1.107) (-.038) (-.215) (-.176) (-.111) (-.113)
Constant 30.930***29.634***32.100***20.018***25.071***34.584*** R2 .321 .094 .153 .091 .080 .051 F Statistic 6.214*** 1.323 2.321* 1.214 1.113 0.694
Note: Standardized Beta coefficients are reported in parentheses. †p=.057, *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001.
24 Demographic variables (e.g., race, age, gender, religion) were not significantly predictive of general attitudes toward immigrants.
Egalitarianism had a significant positive effect on (B = 0.310, p < 0.001), such that as participants who reported more egalitarian values had more favorable attitudes regarding immigrants.
PWE had a near significant negative impact on general attitudes (B = -0.121, p = 0.057), such that greater adherence to the PWE was associated with more negative attitudes toward immigrants in general.
Personal social contact had a significant positive impact on general attitudes (B = 0.418, p < 0.001), such that greater personal contact was associated with more positive attitudes; whereas high amounts of impersonal social contact had a significant
25 For all five immigrant nationalities except European immigrants, egalitarianism was a significant predictor of attitudes toward immigrants (B = .251, p < 0.01 for Asians, B= 0.220, p < 0.05 for Africans, B = 0.204, p < 0.05 for Bosnians, B = 0.203, p < 0.05 for Middle Easterners, and B = 0.093, p > 0.05 for European immigrants).
PWE had a negative impact on attitudes toward African immigrants (B = -.267, p < . 01), such that as adherence to the PWE increased, perceptions of African immigrants became more negative.
26 Discussions
In general, adherence to egalitarianism was associated with more favorable attitudes toward immigrants, whereas adherence to PWE was associated with more unfavorable attitudes.
Interplay between egalitarianism and PWE is dependent on the nationality of the immigrant group. Specifically, whereas PWE predicted negative attitudes toward African immigrants, this relationship did not hold for other specific immigrant groups.
These results may provide a preliminary explanation for why prejudice toward some immigrant groups has diminished substantially over the last fifty years, while prejudice towards other groups remains unchanged. Further research is needed to test this assertion more explicitly.
27 Contact with outgroup members plays an important role in determining attitudes toward immigrants, but only when that contact is personal, it will lead to less prejedice.
28 Attitudes toward immigrants, as was shown in this study, are ambivalent, and therefore addressing only one aspect of the ambivalence may not be sufficient to promote prejudice reduction. Programs designed to reduce prejudice (diversity programs at higher educations, for example) should not only promote egalitarian values, but may also benefit by suggesting that immigrants are hard- working, contributing members of
29 Only when social contact is personal and cooperative, prejudice reduction occurs.
Impersonal contact negatively impacts individuals perceptions of immigrants.
Integration of various ethnicities may not serve to reduce prejudice without additional work to ensure that personal and close contact occurs.
30 Questions and Comments to be addressed to:
Hisako Matsuo, Ph.D. Department of Research Methodology Saint Louis University [email protected]
31