Psychological research essay: How Social Identity Theory & Integrated Threat Theory Explains Prejudice against Refugees & Other Migrants

Written By: Stella Kemp

Introduction

In the 21st century, the global refugee crisis has become a highly controversial topic in media and public discussion. The United Nations defines a refugee as ‘someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion’ (UNHCR 2011). In this essay, ‘other migrants’ refers to any person who has moved -or is attempting to move - from one country to another (including migrants and asylum seekers). One major challenge in societies is reducing prejudice to achieve social cohesion and encourage migration in an increasingly globalised world. Prejudice is defined as ‘a hostile attitude or feeling toward a person solely because he or she belongs to a group to which one has assigned objectionable qualities’ (Allport, Clark & Pettigrew 1954). Hence, research on attitudes toward movements of people is vital to understanding how prejudice is formed and can be prevented. Social identity theory (SIT) and integrated threat theory (ITT) are two psychological theories that could be used to examine prejudice against refugees and other migrants.

Social Identity Theory 

Hogg (2016) describes SIT as an “interactionist social psychological theory of the role of self-conception and associated cognitive processes and social beliefs in group processes and intergroup relations.” Pattern-seeking behaviour leads to social categorisation of others into in-groups, who are ‘like us’, and out-groups, who are ‘unlike us’ (Cuhadar & Dayton 2011). Self-concept is influenced by membership in social groups, which is tied to self-esteem (Genkova & Groesdonk 2021). The social construct of group separation can lead to intergroup bias: positively favouring in-groups and prejudice toward out-groups. Those with higher identification with the in-group, and thus a stronger level of social identity, tend to have higher levels of prejudice (Genkova & Groesdonk 2021).

Ethnic & National Identity

One factor of social identity is ethnic identity, which involves feelings and perceptions about individuals’ ethnic belonging – which do not always coincide with their actual ethnicity (Schwartz et al. 2006). Strongly related to this is national identity, the extent individuals identify with their nationalities. Stronger identification with the ethnic in-group is associated with stronger prejudiced views (Verkuyten & Zaremba 2005; Pettigrew & Meertens 1995). Similarly, those who strongly identify with their nationalities (i.e. right-wing populist groups) exhibit hostility toward asylum seekers (Nickerson & Louis 2008). 

Religious Identity

Religion as a social category is the strongest predictors of intergroup bias, particularly regarding attitudes toward refugees and other immigrants (Rowatt 2019). There is an association between religiosity and negative attitudes toward migrants (Zemoitel-Piotrowska, Piotrowski & Sawicki 2021), yet even stronger negative attitudes toward refugees (Deslandes & Anderson 2019). In a study by Smith & Minescu (2021), the Australian in-group held stronger prejudicial attitudes against Muslim refugees, indicating negative attitudes are higher when the perceived religion of the outgroup is different from the perceiver. 

Human Identity

One aspect of identification useful in understanding favourable attitudes toward refugees and asylum seekers is identifying with the concept of humanity, thus allowing for individuals of a national identity to view refugees, migrants, and asylum seekers as the same in-group (Nickerson & Louis 2008). Nickerson & Louis (2008) found that individuals who strongly identified, first and foremost, as human beings were also more positive in their attitudes, feelings, and behaviours toward asylum seekers. Their findings also indicated that individuals who identified with their (Australian) nationality had positive responses toward asylum seekers when they also strongly identified with humankind. This provides evidence in support of the idea that when subgroup and superordinate identities (i.e. nationality) co-exist with a strong human identity, prejudice is reduced. However, as this is a highly inclusive level of identity there is limited research as it is a difficult construct to measure. Future research to be done to determine the out-groups for human identity, or otherwise, the implications if there are no out-groups for this identity.

Limitations

Korte (2007) identifies issues in defining ‘identity’ as an issue of semantics, noting theorists do not always examine the details of identity construction. The use of identity as a concept to examine social phenomena is a weakness as the term is sometimes used too broadly, indicating issues of validity. It also is limitated in exploring multiple systemic barriers and factors, including economic, legal, political, societal, and local (Korte 2007).  In addition, much of the research relies on correlational data; hence, it is difficult to prove a causational relationship. 

Integrated Threat Theory 

First officially proposed by Stephan & Stephan in 2000, ITT notes four prejudice predictors: realistic threats, symbolic threats, intergroup anxiety, and negative stereotypes. Many studies have found each of these threats to influence intergroup bias, thus proving useful in analysing prejudice against refugees and other migrants (Stephan et al. 2008; Bizman & Yinon 2001; Stephan et al. 1998). 

Realistic & Symbolic Threat

Symbolic threat refers to “perceiving group differences in morals, values, norms, standards, beliefs, and attitudes” (Stephan & Stephan 1996). Out-groups with different world views than in-groups (e.g. cultural differences) can hold prejudicial attitudes and act discriminatively toward them (Schweitzer et al. 2005). An example of this is Australians who oppose the development of mosques in their neighbourhoods (Poynting et al. 2021).

Realistic threats, as defined by Bizman & Yinon (2001, p. 191), are threats stemming from fears that the out-group is ‘endangering the existence, political or economic power, or physical well-being of the in-group’. Some examples of these include beliefs about competition over scarce resources; for instance, the belief migrants are taking jobs and land. These biases can worsen when there is a rapid increase of refugees in an area, as it can increase feelings of threat (Schweitzer et al. 2005). In these scenarios, in-groups are more likely to experience long-lasting hostility against the out-group and refugees in general, as well as Muslim minorities (Hangartner, Dinas, Marbach, Matakos, and Xefteris 2019). This prejudice serves to justify the discriminative practice of material and resource inequalities that disfavours migrants (Cuhadar & Dayton 2011). 

Intergroup anxiety

Intergroup anxiety involves feelings of threat and anxiety during social interactions with out-group members, because of ‘concerns about negative outcomes for the self, such as being rejected, embarrassed and ridiculed’ (Stephan & Stephan 1985, p. 158). Positive extended contact experiences, intergroup attitudes, and behaviour are associated with reduced intergroup anxiety in future interactions (Wolfer et al. 2019). Dissimilarity, antagonism, and prior contact with the out-group also related to intergroup anxiety (Schweitzer et al. 2005). For instance, Stephan et al. (2000) found favourable and high-quality intergroup contacts to be closely associated with reduced intergroup anxiety, thus having a direct and indirect effect on attitudes.

Negative Stereotypes

Negative stereotypes are ‘implied threats to the in-group that lead in-group members to fear negative consequences will befall them in the course of intergroup interaction’ (Stephan, Diaz-Loving & Duran 2000). Negative stereotypes create expectations of negative behaviours that can generate feelings of threat (Stephan et al. 2000).  Negative contact experiences and other prior relations between groups have been found integral to creating, confirming, and increasing negative stereotypes (Stephan & Stephan 1996). 

Limitations

Studies are inconsistent in finding each of the constructs to predict prejudice. Stephan, Diaz-Loving & Duran (2000) found that Mexican attitudes toward Americans were predicted by intergroup anxiety, negative stereotypes, and symbolic threats, while realistic threats were not as significant. Rather, positive and high-quality interactions strongly predicted reduced feelings of all four threats, and thus reduced prejudice. This corroborates with Stephan et al. (2000) who found intergroup anxiety not to be a significant predictor of prejudice at all.

Further, some studies have indicated issues in the definition of intergroup anxiety, in that it is defined too similarly to prejudice itself (Schweitzer et al. 2005). Hence, it is difficult to determine if they are highly related but separate or indeed the same concept. Thus, research in support of this theory is indefinite.

Conclusion

Both SIT and ITT are useful mechanisms that illustrate psychology can be used to understand and address prejudice against refugees and other migrants. While SIT focuses on aspects of identity, including sub-identities of religiosity, ethnicity, nationality, and how individuals perceive refugees and other migrants to be part of an out-group, leading to prejudice, whereas identification with humanity may serve as a preventative tool against prejudice. There are some limitations to SIT, however, including that the definition of ‘identity’ may be too broad, thus creating research issues, as well as the complexity of the construct, which makes it difficult to address a range of other factors (e.g. economic, educational, health). Researchers who look at prejudice from an ITT lens have found perceived threats from the out-group to be a strong predictor of prejudice. However, the research is inconsistent in finding all four threats to always predict prejudice, as well as issues with definitions of the threats. Both theories rely on correlational data, which creates difficulty in proving a causational relationship.

References

Allport, G. W., Clark, K., & Pettigrew, T. (1954). The nature of prejudice.

Bizman, A., & Yinon, Y. (2001). Intergroup and interpersonal threats as determinants of prejudice: The moderating role of in-group identification. Basic and applied social psychology, 23(3), 191-196.

Carlson, M. M., McElroy, S. E., Aten, J. D., Davis, E. B., Van Tongeren, D., Hook, J. N., & Davis, D. E. (2019). We welcome refugees? Understanding the relationship between religious orientation, religious commitment, personality, and prejudicial attitudes toward Syrian refugees. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 29(2), 94-107.

Cuhadar, & Dayton, B. (2011). The Social Psychology of Identity and Inter-group Conflict: From Theory to Practice. International Studies Perspectives, 12(3), 273–293. 

Deslandes, C., & Anderson, J. R. (2019). Religion and prejudice toward immigrants and refugees: A meta-analytic review. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 29(2), 128-145.

         Genkova, & Groesdonk, A. (2021). Intercultural Attitudes as Predictors of Student’s Prejudices Towards Refugees. Journal of International Migration and Integration. 

Hangartner, D., Dinas, E., Marbach, M., Matakos, K., & Xefteris, D. (2019). Does exposure to the refugee crisis make natives more hostile?. American political science review, 113(2), 442-455.

Korte, R. F. (2007). A review of social identity theory with implications for training and development. Journal of European industrial training.

Nickerson, A. M., & Louis, W. R. (2008). Nationality Versus Humanity? Personality, Identity, and Norms in Relation to Attitudes Toward Asylum Seekers 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(3), 796-817.

Nickerson, A. M., & Louis, W. R. (2008). Nationality Versus Humanity? Personality, Identity, and Norms in Relation to Attitudes Toward Asylum Seekers 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(3), 796-817.

Pettigrew, T. F., & Meertens, R. W. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western Europe. European journal of social psychology, 25(1), 57-75.

Schwartz, S. (2006). A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and applications. Comparative sociology, 5(2-3), 137-182.

Poynting, S., Iner, D., Mason, G., Asquith, N., & Mason, R. (2021). Violence and hatred against Australian mosques widespread according to new research [Review of Violence and hatred against Australian mosques widespread according to new research]. Charles Sturt University.

Schweitzer, R., Perkoulidis, S., Krome, S., Ludlow, C., & Ryan, M. (2005). Attitudes towards refugees: The dark side of prejudice in Australia. Australian Journal of Psychology, 57(3), 170-179.

Smith, E. M., & Minescu, A. (2021). Comparing normative influence from multiple groups: Beyond family, religious ingroup norms predict children’s prejudice towards refugees. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 81, 54-67.

Stephan, C. W., Stephan, W. C., Demitrakis, K. M., Yamada, A. M., & Clason, D. L. (2000). Women's Attitudes Toward Men An Integrated Threat Theory Approach. Psychology of women Quarterly, 24(1), 63-73.

Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of social issues, 41(3), 157-175.

Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1996). Predicting prejudice. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20(3-4), 409-426.

Stephan, W. G., Diaz-Loving, R., & Duran, A. (2000). Integrated threat theory and intercultural attitudes: Mexico and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(2), 240-249.

Stephan, W. G., Diaz-Loving, R., & Duran, A. (2000). Integrated threat theory and intercultural attitudes: Mexico and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(2), 240-249.

Stephan, W. G., Renfro, C., & Davis, M. D. (2008). The role of threat in intergroup relations.

Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., Martnez, C. M., Schwarzwald, J., & Tur-Kaspa, M. (1998). Prejudice toward immigrants to Spain and Israel: An integrated threat theory analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(4), 559-576.

UNHCR. (2011). The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. Retrieved from https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/about-us/background/4ec262df9/1951-convention-relating-status-refugees-its-1967-protocol.html

Verkuyten, M., & Zaremba, K. (2005). Interethnic relations in a changing political context. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(4), 375-386.

Wölfer, R., Christ, O., Schmid, K., Tausch, N., Buchallik, F. M., Vertovec, S., & Hewstone, M. (2019). Indirect contact predicts direct contact: Longitudinal evidence and the mediating role of intergroup anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(2), 277.

 Żemojtel-Piotrowska, Piotrowski, J., & Sawicki, A. (2021). Religiosity, spirituality, national narcissism, and prejudice toward refugees and sexual minorities in Poland. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality.