Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T14:53:48.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Research Note: The Differential Impact of Threats on Ethnic Prejudice Toward Three Minority Groups in Britain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 August 2017

Eline A. de Rooij Open the ORCID record for Eline A. de Rooij [Opens in a new window] ,
Matthew J. Goodwin  and
Mark Pickup
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this research note we replicate, update and expand innovative research by Sniderman et al. conducted in the Netherlands in the late 1990s, and ask whether the relative primacy of cultural compared with economic and safety threats in explaining ethnic prejudice remains true under markedly different national, economic and political contexts. Using two national British surveys conducted in 2011 and 2016, we examine the impact of threat on hostility toward three minority groups. Our results confirm the primacy of cultural threat as the strongest and most consistent predictor of hostility, while demonstrating the more context-specific effects of safety and economic concerns, with safety threats playing an overall more prominent role and increased economic concerns being related to less hostility post-Brexit.

Type
Replication
Information
Political Science Research and Methods , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , October 2018 , pp. 837 - 845
Copyright
© The European Political Science Association 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Eline A. de Rooij, Assistant Professor ([email protected]) and Mark Pickup, Associate Professor ([email protected]), Department of Political Science, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6. Matthew J. Goodwin, Professor, School of Politics and International Relations, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NZ ([email protected]). Financial support for this research was provided by the Integrating Global Society Group and the School of Politics and International Relations at the University of Nottingham, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Canada. The authors are also grateful to Joe Twyman, Laurence Janta-Lipinksi and Adam McDonnell at YouGov for their assistance with the survey data, and to the anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback. Replication data, code, and any additional materials required to replicate all analyses in this article are available on the Political Science Research and Methods (PSRM) Dataverse within the Harvard Dataverse Network at https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/AR8SLA. To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2017.24

References

Adida, Claire L., Laitin, David D., and Valfort, Marie-Anne. 2016. Why Muslim Integration Fails in Christian-Heritage Societies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ford, R. 2008. ‘Is Racial Prejudice Declining in Britain?’. British Journal of Sociology 59(4):609–636.Google Scholar
Freeman, Gary P., Givens, Terri I., and Leal, David L.. 2009. ‘Introduction: Terrorism and the Changing Politics of Immigration’. In Terri I. Givens, Gary P. Freeman and David L. Leal (eds), Immigration Policy and Security: U.S., European, and Commonwealth Perspectives, 1–10. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Judith L., and Peters, Margaret E.. 2014. ‘Nativism or Economic Threat: Attitudes Toward Immigrants During the Great Recession’. International Interactions 40(3):376–401.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Matthew J., and Heath, Oliver. 2016. ‘The 2016 Referendum, Brexit and the Left Behind: An Aggregate-Level Analysis of the Result’. Political Quarterly 87(3):323–332.Google Scholar
Hainmueller, Jens, and Hopkins, Daniel J.. 2015. ‘The Hidden American Immigration Consensus: A Conjoint Analysis of Attitudes Toward Immigrants’. American Journal of Political Science 59(3):529–548.Google Scholar
Hjorth, Frederik 2016. ‘Who Benefits? Welfare Chauvinism and National Stereotypes’. European Union Politics 17(1):3–24.Google Scholar
Ipsos-MORI. 2011. ‘Issues Index’. Available at https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/July11issuestopline.PDF, accessed 9 November 2016.Google Scholar
Kierzenkowski, Rafal, Pain, Nigel, Rusticelli, Elena, and Zwart, Sanne. 2016. ‘The Economic Consequences of Brexit: A Taxing Decision’. OECD Economic Policy Papers No. 16. OECD Publishing, Paris. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jm0lsvdkf6k-en, accessed 9 November 2016.Google Scholar
Lucassen, Geertje, and Lubbers, Marcel. 2012. ‘Who Fears What? Explaining Far Right-Wing Preference in Europe by Distinguishing Perceived Cultural and Economic Ethnic Threats’. Comparative Political Studies 45(5):547–574.Google Scholar
Malhotra, Neil, Margalit, Yotam, and Hyunjung Mo, Cecilia. 2013. ‘Economic Explanations for Opposition to Immigration: Distinguishing Between Prevalence and Conditional Impact’. American Journal of Political Science 57(2):391–410.Google Scholar
McLaren, Lauren M., and Johnson, Mark. 2007. ‘Resources, Group Conflict and Symbols: Explaining Anti-Immigrant Hostility in Britain’. Political Studies 55(4):709–732.Google Scholar
Messina, Anthony M. 2014. ‘Review Article: Securitizing Immigration in the Age of Terror’. World Politics 66(3):530–559.Google Scholar
Newman, Benjamin J., Hartman, Todd K., and Taber, Charles S.. 2012. ‘Foreign Language Exposure, Cultural Threat, and Opposition to Immigration’. Political Psychology 33(5):635–657.Google Scholar
Quillian, Lincoln 1995. ‘Prejudice as a Response to Perceived Group Threat: Population Composition and Anti-Immigrant and Racial Prejudice in Europe’. American Sociological Review 60(4):586–611.Google Scholar
Riek, Blake M., Mania, Eric W., and Gaertner, Samuel L.. 2006. ‘Intergroup Threat and Outgroup Attitudes: A Meta-Analytic Review’. Personality and Social Psychology Review 10(4):336–353.Google Scholar
Sides, John, and Citrin, Jack. 2007. ‘European Opinion About Immigration: The Role of Identities, Interests and Information’. British Journal of Political Science 37(3):477–504.Google Scholar
Sniderman, Paul M., Hagendoorn, Louk, and Prior, Markus. 2004. ‘Predisposing Factors and Situational Triggers: Exclusionary Reactions to Immigrant Minorities’. American Political Science Review 98(1):35–49.Google Scholar
Sniderman, Paul M., and Hagendoorn, Louk. 2007. When Ways of Life Collide: Multiculturalism and its Discontents in the Netherlands. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Stephan, Walter G., and Renfro, C. Lausanne. 2002. ‘The Role of Threat in Intergroup Relations’. In Diane M. Mackie and Eliot R. Smith (eds), From Prejudice to Intergroup Emotions: Differentiated Reactions to Social Groups, 191–207. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Stephan, Walter G., and Stephan, Cookie White. 2000. ‘An Integrated Threat Theory of Prejudice’. In Stuart Oskamp (ed), Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination (Claremont Symposium on Applied Social Psychology), 23–45. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Valentino, Nicholas A., Brader, Ted, and Jardina, Ashley E.. 2012. ‘Immigration Opposition Among U.S. Whites: General Ethnocentrism or Media Priming of Attitudes About Latinos?’. Political Psychology 34(2):149–166.Google Scholar
Velasco González, Karina, Verkuyten, Maykel, Weesie, Jeroen, and Poppe, Edwin. 2008. ‘Prejudice Towards Muslims in the Netherlands: Testing Integrated Threat Theory’. British Journal of Social Psychology 47(4):667–685.Google Scholar
YouGov. 2011. ‘YouGov Survey Methods’. Available at http://labs.yougov.co.uk/publicopinion/methodology, accessed 16 November 2011.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

de Rooij et al Dataset

Dataset

http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/AR8SLA
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

de Rooij et al supplementary material

de Rooij et al supplementary material 1

Download de Rooij et al supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 932.6 KB