Victoria M. Esses

The Immigration Dilemma: The Role of Perceived Group Competition, Ethnic Prejudice, and National Identity

In this article, we discuss the role of perceived competition for resources in determining negative attitudes toward immigrants and immigration in North America. We first provide background information on immigration policies and levels of immigration to Canada and the United States. Following an overview of our theoretical perspective, we then describe the research we have conducted in Canada and the United States indicating that perceived zero-sum competition between groups, whether situationally induced or a function of chronic belief in zero-sum relations among groups, is strongly implicated in negative immigration attitudes. In addition, we describe our recent attempts to improve attitudes toward immigrants and immigration through the targeting of zero-sum beliefs and through manipulations of the inclusiveness of national identity.

Values, stereotypes, and emotions as determinants of intergroup attitudes

Publisher Summary Researchers have long acknowledged the multifaceted nature of intergroup attitudes. However, depending on the theoretical framework in which they were operating, they have tended to focus on either the affective or cognitive underpinnings of these attitudes, rather than on the joint role of affect and cognition. Disparities in the measurement of intergroup attitudes have contributed to this rift. This chapter discusses the problem by providing a framework for thinking about the contribution of both affect and cognition in determining attitudes toward groups. It discusses how previous findings fit within this framework and it describes the recent research designed to examine the interplay between affect and cognition. In parallel with societal trends, research in this area has progressed from a focus on attitudes toward social groups at the level of ethnic groups (especially attitudes toward blacks in the United States) to a broader scope including attitudes toward groups based on such varied characteristics as sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation, and age.

The Need for Affect: Individual Differences in the Motivation to Approach or Avoid Emotions

The present research developed and tested a new individual-difference measure of the need for affect, which is the motivation to approach or avoid emotion-inducing situations. The first phase of the research developed the need for affect scale. The second phase revealed that the need for affect is related to a number of individual differences in cognitive processes (e.g., need for cognition, need for closure), emotional processes (e.g., affect intensity, repression-sensitization), behavioral inhibition and activation (e.g., sensation seeking), and aspects of personality (Big Five dimensions) in the expected directions, while not being redundant with them. The third phase of the research indicated that, compared to people low in the need for affect, people high in the need for affect are more likely to (a) possess extreme attitudes across a variety of issues, (b) choose to view emotional movies, and (c) become involved in an emotion-inducing event (the death of Princess Diana). Overall, the results indicate that the need for affect is an important construct in understanding emotion-related processes.

Perspective and Prejudice: Antecedents and Mediating Mechanisms

The present work investigated mechanisms by which Whites’ prejudice toward Blacks can be reduced (Study 1) and explored how creating a common ingroup identity can reduce prejudice by promoting these processes (Study 2). In Study 1, White participants who viewed a videotape depicting examples of racial discrimination and who imagined the victim’s feelings showed greater decreases in prejudice toward Blacks than did those in the objective and no instruction conditions. Among the potential mediating affective and cognitive variables examined, reductions in prejudice were mediated primarily by feelings associated with perceived injustice. In Study 2, an intervention designed to increase perceptions of a common group identity before viewing the videotape, reading that a terrorist threat was directed at all Americans versus directed just at White Americans, also reduced prejudice towardBlacks through increases in feelings of injustice.

The Role of Emotions in Determining Willingness to Engage in Intergroup Contact

This research explored the role of affect (i.e., emotions) and cognitions (i.e., stereotypes and symbolic beliefs) in Whites’ willingness to engage in contact with Blacks and, in a comparison behavior, endorsement of social policies for Blacks. Specifically, participants were instructed to focus on their feelings or on their thoughts while watching a video portraying discrimination toward Blacks or a comparison video. As predicted, participants who watched the discrimination video while focusing on their emotions showed greater willingness to engage in contact with Blacks than did participants in the other three conditions. Mediational analysis suggested that this effect was mediated by changes in emotions toward Blacks. In contrast, social policy endorsement and cognitions about Blacks were not affected by the focus manipulation. Results are discussed in terms of the importance of moving beyond assessing and attempting to change intergroup attitudes at a global level to examining the affective and cognitive bases of these attitudes.

Effects of Perceived Economic Competition on People’s Willingness to Help Empower Immigrants

Based on models of intergroup competition and social dominance, we examined the impact of perceived economic competition with immigrants on support for empowering and non-empowering forms of assistance for immigrants. In Study 1, a manipulation of perceived economic competition with immigrants caused attenuated support for empowerment but not for non-empowering forms of help. In Study 2, people higher in social dominance orientation were less willing to endorse empowerment for immigrants than were people lower in social dominance orientation, and this relation was mediated by the belief that economic and power gains for immigrants result in economic and power losses for members of host populations. It is suggested that people’s desire to maintain a discrepancy in economic and power resources between immigrants and host populations undermines support for empowering forms of help for immigrants.

Of Scripture and Ascription: The Relation between Religious Fundamentalism and Intergroup Helping

Two studies examined the role of religion and perceived value threat in determining peoples approaches to solving problems faced by social groups. Individuals high in religious fundamentalism held the target groups homosexuals and single mothers responsible for an ostensible unemployment problem, and this relation was mediated by the perception that homosexuals and single mothers threatened their values. In contrast, individuals high in religious fundamentalism did not hold the nonthreatening target groups Native Canadians and students responsible for the same problem. Moreover, high attributions of responsibility for the problem predicted endorsement of the view that members of the target group should change themselves to solve the problem and rejection of involved forms of helping.

Ambivalence and Response Amplification: A Motivational Perspective

This research investigated whether ambivalence-induced response amplification occurs because of a motivation to reduce ambivalence. In Study 1, participants’ ambivalence toward Native people was assessed and they then read a positive or negative essay on Native land claims. As predicted, ambivalent participants displayed a significant difference between the positive and negative message conditions in their attitudes toward Native people, whereas nonambivalent participants did not. Study 2 followed the same procedure as Study 1 and also included motive manipulation essays designed to manipulate the motivation to reduce ambivalence. The negative motive essay emphasized the disadvantages of seeing both the good and the bad in another person or situation (i.e., ambivalence is negative), whereas the positive motive essay emphasized the advantages (i.e., ambivalence is positive). As predicted, ambivalent participants who received the negative motive manipulation displayed response amplification, whereas ambivalent participants who received the positive motive manipulation did not.

The developmentally handicapped witness

This study compared the ability of 30 developmentally handicapped (DH) and 30 nonhandicapped individuals in their ability to report on witnessed events. Participants watched a film clip and were asked to respond to five different types of questions about it. Misleading or leading questions were embedded in three of the question types Results indicated that in response to free recall and very general questions, DH participants did not provide as complete responses as did nonhandicapped participants, although the information provided by both groups tended to be quite accurate. Both groups, and particularly DH individuals, were less accurate in responding to more focused shortanswer recall questions. In response to correct leading specific and statement questions, requiring recognition of the information provided, DH and control participants were comparable in their performance. DH participants had greater difficulty with misleading recall questions and false leading specific and statement questions. Results are discussed in terms of optimizing eyewitness accuracy in DH individuals.

The role of attitudinal ambivalence in susceptibility to consensus information

The role of attitudinal ambivalence and 9 other attitude properties in determining responsiveness to consensus information were examined in this experiment. We expected attitude ambivalence, but not the other attitude properties, to moderate the effects of consensus information on final attitudes expressed. After completing initial measures of attitudes toward social welfare, participants watched a videotaped debate between a prosocial and an antisocial welfare debater. Participants then provided an initial evaluation of the debate, were exposed to debate evaluations from alleged fellow participants supporting either the prosocial or antisocial welfare debater, and reported their subsequent attitudes toward the debate and toward social welfare. As predicted, individuals who initially held ambivalent attitudes toward social welfare reported postconsensus welfare attitudes that were consistent with those of their supposed peers. Participants low in ambivalence reported attitudes contrary to the consensus information from peers. Similar effects were found only for 1 other attitude property, attitude embeddedness, and were reduced to nonsignificance when the effects of ambivalence and embeddedness were examined simultaneously. The role of attitudinal ambivalence in moderating responsiveness to consensus information is discussed in the context of media publication of poll results.