17310.1177/1368430213510569Group Processes & Intergroup RelationsAydin et al. 5105692013 View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Universität München: Elektronischen Publikationen G Group Processes & P Intergroup Relations I Article R Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 2014, Vol. 17(3) 371–387 Social exclusion and © The Author(s) 2013 Reprints and permissions: xenophobia: Intolerant attitudes sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1368430213510569 toward ethnic and religious gpir.sagepub.com minorities Nilüfer Aydin,1 Joachim I. Krueger,2 Dieter Frey,1 Andreas Kastenmüller,3 and Peter Fischer3 Abstract The present research investigates the effects of social exclusion on attitudes toward ethnic and religious minorities. Native-born German participants who were socially excluded rather than included reported greater approval for stricter legislation regarding the naturalization of immigrants (Study 1), reported greater prejudice against openly observant Muslims (Studies 2 and 3), and stronger agreement with the view that immigrants are financial burdens to the state (Study 4). Social exclusion threatens the sense of personal control, which in turn leads to stronger rejection of stigmatized outgroups (Study 3). When perceived control was experimentally enhanced, the social exclusion effect disappeared (Study 4). The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed. Keywords loss of personal control, outgroup intolerance, prejudice, social exclusion, xenophobia Paper received 2 July 2012; revised version accepted 19 September 2013. Attitudes among native-born Germans toward detrimental outcomes (Spiegel Online Interna- ethnic and religious minority groups have hard- tional, 2012). Economic uncertainties fuel fears ened since the mid-1990s (ALLBUS, 2010). of financial decline and loss of social status. As One possible cause of this trend is that eco- ethnic minorities are highly visible in everyday nomic uncertainties and fears of social decline, especially among middle-class individuals, lead 1 Ludwig-Maximilians-University München (LMU Munich), to scapegoating and displaced aggression (Heit- Germany meyer, 2006, 2007). Individuals who fear future 2Brown University, USA societal exclusion are more prone to ethnicizing; 3University of Regensburg, Germany they become more likely to perceive their social world through the lens of ethnic or racial catego- Corresponding author: Nilüfer Aydin, LMU München, Leopoldstr. 13, 80802 ries. Current economic conditions in developed Munich, Germany. European countries provide a context for socially Email: [email protected] 372 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 17(3) life, they are a readily available target for discrimi- 2003). More specifically, being reminded of the nation (Zick, Küpper, & Hövermann, 2011). dangers of terrorism releases prejudice and out- Given the presence of suggestive field data, the group derogation (Canetti-Nisim, Halperin, task of experimental work is to address the causal Sharvit, & Hobfoll, 2009), as does the contempla- process directly. Hence we ask: Does the threat tion of one’s own death more generally (Cohen, of social exclusion have a negative effect on atti- Ogilvie, Solomon, Greenberg, & Pyszczynski, tudes about ethno-religious minorities? 2005). In this research, we view social exclusion A psychological perspective can address the as a form of “social death” (Williams, 2007) and processes operating at the level of the individual. ask whether the threat of social exclusion In this research, we ask whether an experimen- strengthens outgroup prejudice. If so, we ask tally induced state of social exclusion makes indi- whether the expression of prejudice can be viduals less tolerant of minority groups. Further, understood as an effort to restore a sense of per- can such tendencies be understood as an attempt sonal control. to cope with the experience of exclusion? Our Our approach was to measure anti-immigrant hypothesis is that, compared with individuals and anti-Muslim attitudes after creating a situa- who are not excluded, socially excluded individu- tion of social exclusion in the laboratory. By als are less tolerant of immigrants and Muslim measuring the postexclusion deprivation of fun- immigrants in particular. We predict this effect damental needs, particularly control beliefs because social exclusion threatens the human (Williams, 2009), we sought to hone in on the need of being a valued member of a group. We intervening psychological mechanisms. further predict that the need to exercise control over one’s social immediate world links the expe- rience of social exclusion to outgroup prejudice Social Exclusion: A Metaphor (Williams, 2007, 2009). Specifically, we assume for Social Death that socially excluded individuals derogate stig- Social exclusion refers to formal or informal matized outgroups in order to restore their own practices such as ostracism or shunning, designed sense of control. In short, we suggest that expres- to punish individuals for violating group norms sions of xenophobia and ethnocentrism may (Williams, 2007). Social exclusion is a potent function as a compensation for experienced con- stressor for any social mammal, including trol loss by those who are socially excluded (see humans; it makes the individual vulnerable to also Agroskin & Jonas, 2010; Duckitt & Fisher, predation and accidents, and it compromises the 2003; Fritsche, Jonas, & Fankhänel, 2008). body’s immune system. Thereby, social exclusion becomes a risk factor for mortality (Sapolsky, Perceived Threat and 2001). In contemporary Western society, people may not depend as much as their ancestors on Derogation of Minorities social groups for physical survival, but they need Adorno and colleagues identified the sense of social ties as a protection against emotional dis- being personally threatened as one of the roots tress (Williams & Nida, 2011; Zadro, Williams, & of The Authoritarian Personality (Adorno, Frenkel- Richardson, 2004). Individuals can feel sad, angry, Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950). In this fearful, and even suicidal when facing the existen- tradition, research on the “uncertainty-threat tial threat of social death (Joiner, 2011). Hence, model” has linked political intolerance to ele- social exclusion is a source of anxiety, uncertainty, ments of personal threat, such as fear of death and negative affect (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). and system instability (Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Typically, socially excluded individuals seek to Sulloway, 2003). For example, the motive to repair the damage and return to the group. Some decrease perceived threat and uncertainty is asso- behave prosocially or seek out opportunities for ciated with political conservatism (Jost et al., affiliation (Maner, DeWall, & Baumeister, 2007; Aydin et al. 373 Pickett, Gardner, & Knowles, 2004). Others turn to likely because they seem to offer better prospects antisocial behavior (Williams, 2009) by, for exam- of returning to former levels of recognition and ple, displacing aggression (Twenge, Baumeister, control (Buckley, Winkel, & Leary, 2004; Leary Tice, & Stucke, 2001), withholding help (Twenge, et al., 2003). Williams (2009) argues that postex- Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco, & Bartels, 2007) or clusion aggression is an effort to reestablish empathy (DeWall & Baumeister, 2006), or by treat- power and control and thus regain a sense of per- ing others spitefully (e.g., allocating hot sauce to fel- sonal efficacy. Warburton, Williams, and Cairns low participants; Kirkpatrick, Waugh, Valencia, & (2006) exposed ostracized versus included par- Webster, 2002). Either type of response can be an ticipants to blasts of noise. Half the participants attempt to redress the pain of exclusion. In recent were allowed to control the onset of the noise, years, school shootings and rampage killings have whereas the other half had no such control. been traced to the experience of being ostracized Subsequently, the ostracized participants without or bullied (Leary, Kowalski, Smith, & Phillips, control treated others to more hot sauce than did 2003).1 If prosocial responses can overcome social nonostracized participants or out-of-control par- exclusion, it is puzzling to see that many individuals ticipants. When control was restored, ostracized opt to respond antisocially and thereby further participants were no more aggressive than par- damage rather than improve their inclusionary sta- ticipants in the inclusion conditions. tus in social groups. The impact of loss of control on aggression toward the social environment is not surprising. People have a basic need to control significant Determinants of Antisocial events in their lives (Lefcourt, 1982). However, Behavior After Social threats like social exclusion trigger feelings of unpredictability. To restore a sense of predictabil- Exclusion ity, people may seek opportunities to exercise Williams (2009) suggests that coping responses control. If control cannot be direct, they may depend on individual and situational factors, turn to ingroup bias or system-justifying attitudes although situational determinants appear to play (e.g., defending the legitimacy of political institu- a decisive role in postexclusion aggression tions and religious system that offer control; see (Williams & Nida, 2011). Initially, individuals face Kay, Gaucher, Napier, Callan, & Laurin, 2008; a decrease in their levels of belonging, self- Kay, Whitson, Gaucher, & Galinsky, 2009).