intergroup competition and attitudes toward immigrants and immigration: an instrumental model of...

Journtrl ojSociul Issues, Vol. 54, No. 4. 1998, pi'. 699-724

Intergroup Competition and Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration: An Instrumental Model of Group Conflict

Victoria M. Esses* University of Western Onturio

Lynne M. Jackson Wilfrid Luurirr University

Tamara L. Armstrong University of Western Onturio

High levels of worldwide migration paired with increasingly negative attitudes toward immigrants and immigration in host countries indicate that it is crucial to gain an understanding of the bases of these attitudes. This article discusses one determinant of negative attitudes toward immigrants and immigration: perceived competition for resources. We present our instrumental model of group conflict, which suggests that competition for resources, and attempts to remove this competition, are importunt determinants of intergroup attitudes and behaviol: We then review relevant research on perceived competition and attitudes toward immigrants and immigration. We conclude by discussing the implications of this research for attempts to alleviate tension between immigrants and members of host populations, and for our more general model of group conflict.

The research presented in this article was supported by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canadagrant to the first author. We would like to thank Bob Altemeyer for collecting the data for the second study described in this article, Jack Dovidio and Gordon Hodson for helpful comments and discussion, and Michele Alexander, Shana Levin, Felicia Pratto, and an anonymous reviewer for useful comments on an earlier version of this article. Portions of this article were presented at the 1998 meeting of The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

"Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Victoria M. Esses, Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2 (e-mail: vesses@ julian.uwo.ca).

699

0 1998 The Society for the Psychological Sludy oSSocial Issues

700 Esses, Jackson, and Armstrong

Traveling to the SPSSI conference in Ann Arbor this year, one of us had a very telling experience. The woman next to her on the shuttle bus struck up a conversa- tion and asked where she was going and what she was planning to do there. The author began to explain that she was giving apresentation on attitudes toward immigrants and immigration, but was quickly interrupted. The woman was very keen to express her views on immigration. For the next 10 minutes, the woman explained why the large number of immigrants currently in the United States is aproblem, and described how her sister had lost her job in the computer industry to highly skilled immigrants who are willing to work for lower wages. The attitudes expressed by this woman were, ironically, the focus of our presentation at the SPSSI meeting, and of this article. In particular, this article presents evidence that the perceived threat of competition for economic and power resources strongly influences current attitudes toward immigrants and immigration.

Attitudes toward immigrants and immigration are important for several reasons. First, the rate of migration has increased substantially within the last few dec- ades, due to such factors as changes in the global economy, ethnic and political conflict, and increased availability of communication and transportation networks (Government of Canada, 1995). At the same time, immigration into developed countries has met with some resistance, and tension between members of host populations and immigrants is not uncommon. For example, a recent Gallup poll in the United States indicated that 50% of the American public support a 5-year freeze on legal immigration (Saad, 1996). In addition, arecent Newsweek poll found that 52% of Americans are more likely to agree that “immigrants are a burden on our country because they take jobs, housing, and health care” than that “immigrants today strengthen our country because of their hard work and talents” (Adler & Waldman, 1995). Similarly, in Canada, a recent Angus Reid poll found that 44% of the Cana- dian public believe that there are too many immigrants coming to Canada, and 49% believe that immigration increases unemployment among people already living here (data collected by Angus Reid Group on behalf of Citizenship and Immigration Canada: D.L. Palmer, personal communication, May 28, 1998). The increase in worldwide migration paired with negative attitudes toward immigrants and immigration in host countries indicates that understanding the bases of these negative attitudes is of crucial importance.

We begin our discussion of this issue by briefly presenting the theory of realistic group conflict (Campbell, 1965; LeVine & Campbell, 1972; Sherif, 1966), which forms the basis of our theorizing in this area. Then, we present our instrumental model of group conflict, which builds from this theory. Next, we review research on attitudes toward immigrants and immigration that is relevant to the model. In particular, we review the correlational research suggesting that perceived competition for resources, such as jobs, is indeed related to unfavorable attitudes toward immigrants and immigration. We also describe the research from our laboratory, which focuses on the causal relations between competition for resources and attitudes

Instrumental Model of Group Conflict 701

toward immigrants and immigration. This research takes both a situational and an individual difference approach to the issue. We conclude by describing avenues for future research and discussing the implications of this work at both a theoretical and practical level.

Realistic Group Conflict Theory

Realistic group conflict theory proposes that prejudice and discrimination are often based on conflicts of interest between groups (LeVine &Campbell, 1972). In a survey of theories in social psychology, sociology, and anthropology, Campbell (1965) noted the seeming importance of group conflicts in determining intergroup attitudes and behavior. A common theme seeming to run across theorizing in the various disciplines was that intergroup attitudes and behavior reflect group interests, and are based, at least in part, on the nature of and the compatibility of group goals. When group goals are compatible, positive relations are likely to exist, whereas when group goals are incompatible, conflict and negative intergroup attitudes and behavior result. Campbell labeled this perspective realistic group conflict to indicate that some group conflicts are realistic in being based on real competition for scarce resources.

The most relevant premises of this theory to the present discussion are as fol- lows. First, it has been proposed that intergroup threat and conflict increase as the perceived competition for resources increases between groups, and as the conflict- ing groups have more to gain from succeeding. Second, it has been suggested that the greater the intergroup threat and conflict, the more hostility is expressed toward the source of the threat. This hostility helps justify the conflict and the unfavorable treatment of outgroup members. Finally, it has been proposed that when competition over resources is present, proximity and contact increase intergroup hostility, rather than decreasing it (LeVine & Campbell, 1972). Considerable research evidence supports these premises (e.g., Brewer, 1986; LeVine & Campbell: Sherif, 1966; Sherif & Sherif, 1953, 1979; for reviews see Brown, 1995; Jackson, 1993; Taylor & Moghaddam, 1994).

It is important to note that the basic premises of this theory do not require that actual competition over resources exists. Rather, it is the perception of competition that leads to conflict and intergroup hostility. It is also important to note that group conflict is assumed to occur at the group level rather than at the individual level. That is, it is the group’s interests that are at stake and group interests that are being protected, rather than solely the interests of individual members of the group (i.e., oneself).

Realistic group conflict theory can be contrasted with other theories of intergroup relations in its emphasis on threats to tangible resources and its premise that hostility is directed toward the source of these threats. In contrast, the theory of symbolic racism (Sears, 1988) posits that negative attitudes toward Blacks in the United


States are based in part on a threat to Protestant work ethic values, presumably important values for many Americans. Similarly, social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) proposes that positive group identity and self-esteem are at stake, rather than resources such as money and power. Finally, the scapegoat theory of prejudice (Zawadzki, 1948) suggests that, although threats to tangible resources may cause hostility, this hostility is redirected to a safe-to-target, weak outgroup, rather than necessarily to the source of the threat. Despite the distinctions among them, it is important to note that the processes proposed by these theories are not necessarily incompatible, and may have complementary roles to play in determining intergroup relations.

An Instrumental Model of Group Conflict

Building on the framework of realistic group conflict theory, we propose an Instrumental Model of Group Conflict, as shown in Figure 1. This model draws on the previous work on realistic group conflict cited above, as well as on related work on group conflict and cooperation (e.g., Ashmore & Del Boca, 1976; Blumer, 1958; Bobo, 1988b; Brewer, 1979; Chesler, 1976; Fiske & Ruscher, 1993; Gaertner, Dovidio, Anastasio, Bachevan, &Rust, 1993; Hughes, 1997; Jost & Banaji, 1991; Sidanius, Levin, & Pratto, 1996; Sidanius, Pratto, & Bobo, 1996; Smith & Tyler, 1996). The model suggests that the combination of resource stress and the salience of a potentially competitive outgroup leads to perceived group competition for resources. In turn, this perceived competition leads to attempts to remove the source of competition, using a variety of strategies.

We use the term resource stress to refer to any perception that, within a society, access to resources may be limited for certain groups. The resources involved may include economic resources, such as money and jobs, as well as power, which is in practice closely aligned with economic resources. As indicated in Figure 1, several factors may determine the degree of perceived resource stress. First, scarcity of resources, whether real or only perceived, will increase the chances that groups will perceive that access to resources is limited. For example, an economic depression, major crop failure, or the hoarding of resources by a few individuals may give the impression that there is not enough to go around. Second, the unequal distribution of resources among groups in a society will likely lead to the perception that at least for some groups, access to these resources is limited. Lower-status groups will feel that they now have limited access to the resources that the society has to offer. In contrast, higher-status groups may perceive that, if the hierarchy changes, they could move down the ladder and no longer have ready access to the resources they now possess. In either case, the unequal distribution of resources likely leads to the perception that there is not enough to go around. Third, the desire for an unequal distribution of resources among groups, which is an individual difference variable, will similarly be related to the perception that there is not enough to go around.


Individuals who desire a hierarchical structure in society likely believe that resources that are limited are most worth having and of greatest value. By definition, then, some groups will have limited access to these resources. In all three cases- scarcity, unequal distribution of resources, and desire for unequal distribution of resources-what is crucial is the perception that resources are under stress and potentially not available to all groups in sufficient quantitics.

We are proposing that resource stress may precipitate competition for resources among groups. However, some groups are more likely to be perceived as competitors than are others. First, outgroups that are salient and distinct from one’s own group are more likely to stand out as potential competitors. Salience and dis- tinctiveness may be determined by factors such as large or increasing size of the group and novel appearance and behavior. However, potential competitors must also be similar to the ingroup on dimensions that make them likely to take resources, that is, they must be interested in similar resources and in a position potentially to obtain these resources. Thus, whether similar or dissimilar outgroups are seen as potential competitors depends on the dimension in question. For dimensions relevant to obtaining resources (e.g., skills), groups that are similar to the ingroup are more likely to be seen as competitors. For irrelevant dimensions (e.g., ethnicity or national origin), groups that are distinct from the ingroup are more likely to be seen as competitors. Thus, perceived competition from a particular outgroup may be a function of similarity and dissimilarity of relevant and irrelevant dimensions, as well as the interaction between them. In addition, groups who are very skilled in the domain in question, who have external support for obtaining resources, and who are organized and willing to fight to obtain resources are more likely to be seen as potential competitors because of their enhanced ability to take resources.

The combination of resource stress and the presence of a relevant outgroup that can potentially take resources leads to perceived group competition. We suggest that perceived group competition has both cognitive and affective underpinnings. The cognitions associated with group competition involve zero-sum beliefs: beliefs that the more the other group obtains, the less is available for one’s own group. There is a perception that any gains that the other group might make must be at the expense of one’s own group. The emotions accompanying these beliefs may include anxiety and fear.

We consider our model to be an instrumental model of group conflict because we propose that attitudes and behavior toward the competitor outgroup reflect attempts to remove the source of the competition. Our model presents three general strategies that may be undertaken toward this end, though other strategies may certainly exist. First, a group may attempt to decrease the other group’s competitiveness. This may take the form of expressing negative attitudes and attributions about members of the other group (including negative traits and values), in an attempt to convince both one’s own group and other groups of the competitor’s lack of worth. As a result, members of one’s own group may feel less of a sense of competition


from the group and, in fact, the group may come to fulfill this prophecy and come to be less competitive. Attempts to decrease the other group’s competitiveness may also entail overt discriminatory behavior toward group members, as well as opposition to social programs that may help to increase the other group’s competitiveness. Another strategy that may be used to remove the source of the competition is to attempt to increase either the actual or perceived competitiveness of one’s own group. In modern society this may take the form of improving group members’ skills in the relevant domain (e.g., advanced job training) or merely self- aggrandizement at the group level, in an attempt to convince one’s own group and other groups of the ingroup’s entitlement to the resources in question. Finally, a third possible strategy for reducing competition with another group is to avoid that group by decreasing proximity. A group may deny other groups access to its territo- ries (e.g., deny immigration) or may itself move to a different location (e.g., move to another part of town). In either case, the Competition, or the salience of the competition, may be reduced.

Because the enactment of these strategies takes place within a larger social context, the specific strategies utilized depend on both the perceived likelihood of suc- cess, and the perceived costs and benefits associated with each strategy within the larger context. This may explain why intergroup attitudes and behavior may be seen to change over time against a backdrop of consistent group competition. In addition, it is possible that the use of these strategies occurs in a relatively non-self-reflective manner, and that, at times, the nature of the motivation is obscured by more egalitarian-seeming justifications. Finally, it is important to note that other processes such as those involved in enhancing group identity and self-esteem may be operating in conjunction with those used to reduce competition for more tangible resources.

The instrumental model of group conflict is compatible with some theorizing regarding the nature of contemporary relations between Whites and Blacks in the United States. Current conflicts between Whites and Blacks have been described as being based on perceived incompatibility of group interests and objectives, and competition over power, wealth, and status (Ashmore & Del Boca, 1976; Bobo, 1988b; Chesler, 1976; Sidanius, Levin, & Pratto, 1996; Sidanius, Pratto, & Bobo, 1996). In particular, it has been suggested that, as Blacks make gains in the United States, they are more likely to be seen as a competitive threat to Whites, who are attempting to protect their group interests. This competition is especially likely to occur over resources such as jobs, material resources, and political power (Ashmore & Del Boca, 1976; Bobo, 1988b; Chesler, 1976). Much of the research support for this perspective is evident in opposition to racial policies that may be seen as bene- fitting Blacks, rather than in overt forms of prejudice and discrimination (e.g., Bobo, 1983, 1988a, 1988b; Sidanius, Levin, & Pratto, 1996; Sidanius, Pratto, & Bobo, 1996). This is compatible with our model because we assume that the social context and associated costs and benefits determine the particular strategies used to reduce competition. In brief, it has been suggested that Cold War politics and Soviet


criticism of White Americans’ treatment of Black Americans made it advantageous for White Americans to promote racial equality, or at least the appearance of equality (Dudziak, 1988). This has become the norm in much of American society, so that attempts to reduce competition from Blacks may now predominantly take the form of opposition to policies that increase their competitiveness in economic and political domains.

In the present article, we focus on applying our group conflict model to contemporary attitudes toward immigrants and immigration. In particular, skilled immigrants who can successfully compete for jobs and other resources may be seen as competing with members of a host population for resources. Skilled immigrants may be seen as quite able to obtain power, wealth, and status, at the potential expense of those currently holding these resources. In addition to this competitive ability, immigrants may also be quite salient and distinctive in terms of their increasing numbers in many host countries and their often distinctive appearance and behavior. As a result of these two factors, group competition may be experienced, and competition-removing strategies may be utilized (e.g., opposition to immigration). Because there does not seem to be a norm of equality for immigrants in many host countries, both covert and overt strategies for reducing competition may be utilized.

Previous Research on the Relation Between Perceived Competition for Resources and Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration

Several correlational studies have been conducted to examine the potential link between perceived competition for resources and attitudes toward immigrants and immigration. Some of these studies assessed perceived competition directly through self-report measures. Others assessed possible determinants of group competition through indices of unemployment rates and economic conditions in a region and, in some cases, the salience of immigrant groups.

Attitudes Toward Immigrants

A series of studies by Stephan and his colleagues (Stephan, Ybarra, & Bach- man, 1998; Stephan, Ybarra, Martinez, Schwarzwald, & Tur-Kaspa, 1998) used several types of perceived threat to predict attitudes toward immigrants. Of particular relevance, the assessment of realistic threat included perceived job loss and social assistance redirection to immigrants. This realistic threat was found to be a strong predictor of unfavorable attitudes toward immigrants in three locations in the United States (Florida, New Mexico, and Hawaii; Stephan, Ybarra, & Bachman) and in Spain (Stephan, Ybarra, Martinez, Schwarzwald, & Tur-Kaspa). Realistic threat was not a significant unique predictor of attitudes toward immigrants in


Israel, however, perhaps because of a sense of religious entitlement for Jewish immigrants to Israel (Stephan, Ybarra, Martinez, Schwarzwald, & Tur-Kaspa).

Using a rather different methodology, Quillian (1 995) analyzed data from the Eurobarometer, a large-scale survey conducted in the 12 countries constituting the European Economic Community (EEC), to determine whether perceived economic competition predicted attitudes toward immigrants. In this study, perceived economic competition and threat were considered to be a joint function of the current economic situation in a country and the relative size of the immigrant group. The 5-year gross domestic product per capitain each country was used as the index of its economic situation, and the percentage of the population of each country that were not citizens of EEC countries was used as the index of the relative size of the immigrant group. Results indicated that the combination of poorer economic conditions in a country and a larger immigrant group predicted anti-immigrant attitudes in that country.

Attitudes Toward Immigration

Espenshade and Hempstead (1 996) examined trends over time in the relation between the annual U S . unemployment rate and poll data on Americans’ attitudes toward immigration to the United States. The analyses revealed that between 1946 and 1993, higher annual unemployment rates strongly predicted greater opposition to immigration. In addition, in an analysis of poll data collected in 1993, Espenshade and Hempstead found that respondents who believed that the U.S. economy was get- ting worse were especially likely to believe that immigration to the United States should be decreased. In contrast, respondents who believed that the US . economy was in good condition and that the United States would be an economic superpower in the 21st century were especially likely to support higher levels of immigration.

In an analysis of data collected in Canada between 1975 and 1995, Palmer (1996) also found a strong correlation between higher annual unemployment rates and endorsement of the view that immigration to Canada should be decreased. In addition, more recently, as the unemployment rate in Canada has declined between 1996 and 1998, the percentage of the population supporting a decrease in immigration has similarly decreased (Palmer, 1998). In other words, as unemployment has become less of a problem, opposition to immigration has decreased. Palmer (1998) also found that the perception that immigration increases unemployment among people already living in Canada strongly predicted support for a decrease in immigration.

The Causal Relation Between Group Competition and Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration

The correlational findings suggest that the perception that immigrants are competing for resources, particularly jobs, may strongly determine attitudes toward


immigrants and immigration. However, the correlational studies were not specifically designed to test the various components of our model. In addition, correlational data do not provide definitive information about the causal direction of effects. An alternative interpretation of the correlations is that the opposite direction of effect is operating: Preexisting unfavorable attitudes toward immigrants and immigration may be rationalized by appealing to the belief that immigrants are in economic competition with the host population. This rationalization may be especially likely when economic conditions are poor and the unemployment rate is high, because it is then most credible. Alternatively, a third variable, such as political instability, may cause both poor economic conditions and unfavorable attitudes toward immigrants and immigration.

To begin to test our model, while addressing the issue of whether perceived competition for resources causes unfavorable attitudes toward immigrants and immigration, we conducted three studies. These studies included experimental manipulations of factors that we have proposed lead to group competition, as well as individual difference measures that might be relevant to these factors (see Figure 1). In the first study, we manipulated the perception thatjobs are scarce and that skilled immigrants are able to successfully compete for these jobs, and we examined the effect on attitudes toward immigrants and immigration, and on willingness to help immigrants. We also looked at whether individual differences in right-wing authoritarianism (Altemeyer, 1982,1988), which might relate to adesirefor group inequality, would predict attitudes toward immigrants and immigration and willingness to help immigrants. In the second study, we determined whether the experimental findings of the first study would replicate with a new population of participants. We also included an additional individual difference variable, social dominance orientation (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994), which more directly taps into a desire for group inequality. In the final study, we examined further the relation between social dominance orientation and attitudes toward immigrants and immigration. In particular, in addition to determining whether the observed relation between social dominance orientation and attitudes would replicate, we included a zero-sum resources measure in the study, designed to assess the extent to which individuals tend to see relations with immigrants in terms of zero-sum outcomes (i.e., “more for immigrants means less for us”). In line with our instrumental model of group conflict, we examined whether zero-sum beliefs mediate the relation between social dominance orientation and attitudes.

The Basic Effect: Perceived Group Competition

Does the perception that jobs are scarce, and that skilled immigrants can successfully compete for these jobs, influence attitudes toward immigrants and immigration and willingness to help immigrants? To begin to answer this question, we conducted an experiment in which we manipulated the presentation of information


about immigrants and immigration (Esses, Jackson, Nolan, & Armstrong, in press). Sixty-four undergraduates at the University of Western Ontario in London, Canada, were randomly assigned to read one of two magazine editorials on immigration, which we had designed specifically for this study. Both editorials contained a discussion of immigration issues in general (the manipulation) followed by an identical passage that described the recent immigration of a new, fictitious immigrant group.

In the competition condition, the general discussion of immigration focused on the scarcity of jobs in Canada and on the successful participation of skilled immigrants in the Canadian job market. In the no-competition condition, the general discussion of immigration included vague statements about immigrants and immigration and did not mention the job market. The subsequent discussion of the fictitious immigrant group, “Sandirians,” was identical in both conditions. Sandir- ians were said to be immigrating to Canada because of a recent natural disaster in Sandir. Sandirian people were described in positive terms: They were described as ambitious, hardworking, smart, family-oriented, spiritual, and religious. In addition, Sandirian people were said to be likely to fit in well and to prosper in Canada.

To determine whether the manipulation was successful in eliciting a sense of group competition, we asked participants to indicate the extent to which they believed that immigration decreases or increases the number of jobs available to people already living in Canada. As is evident in Table 1, participants in the competition condition were significantly more likely to indicate that immigration decreases the number of jobs available to people already living in Canada.

Attitudes Toward Immigrants

To determine whether perceived competition affected participants’ attitudes toward the fictitious group, Sandirians, we first examined participants’ willingness to ascribe stereotypes to the group and their interpretation of the stereotypes. We assumed that participants would base their impressions of Sandirians on the information provided in the editorials. Therefore, we expected that participants in both conditions, who had read identical passages about Sandirians, would indicate that the six key traits described Sandirians, and that they would not differ in these perceptions. As is evident in Table 1, this expectation was supported. The six traits listed in the editorials were rated as very descriptive of Sandirians in both conditions. In contrast, we expected that the experimental manipulation would affect the interpretation of the traits, in terms of their perceived favorability. In particular, we expected that when competition from immigrants in general was experienced, the relatively positive characteristics of a relevant immigrant group would be construed less favorably. The data supported this expectation; participants in the competition condition construed the traits used to describe Sandirians less favorably (see Table 1).


Table 1. Effects of Competition Manipulation on Immigration Attitudes: Studies I and 2

Study 1 Study 2

No No Competition Competition Significance Competition Competition Significance

Effect of immigration on jobs (-2 to +2) Descriptiveness of Sandirian traits (0 to 7) Favorability of Sandirian traits (-3 to +3) Attitudes toward Sandirians (0 to 100) Attitudes toward immigrants in general (-2 to +2) Sandirian immigration (4 to +4) Immigration in general (-2 to +2) Direct assistance ( 1 to7) Empowerment ( 1 to7)

-.03

5.74

2.24

75.32

1 .oo

1.94

.I3

3.30

5.03

-.70

5.68

I .xx

69.09

.27

3 6

-.73

3.10

4.54

p < .05

t1s

p < .05

ns

/ I < .01

p<.OI

p < ,001

tzs

p < .05

-.32

-

-

73.97

.52

I .33

-.09

-

-

-.5X p < .06

- -

- -

66.92 p < .0S

.5s ns

.53 p < .O1

-.36 p < .05

- -

- -

~~

Note: For Study I , numbers in columns 1 and 2 are mean responses as a function of condition. Column 3 indicates the significance levels of comparisons between these means using two-tailed r-tests. For Study 2, numbers in columns 4 and 5 are mean responses as a function of condition. Column 6 indicates the significance levels of comparisons between these means using two-tailed r-tests. In all cases, higher numbers indicate more favorable attitudes.

In addition to the closed-ended measures, we included an open-ended measure that asked participants to indicate any additional thoughts they might have about Sandirians. In both conditions, very few participants speculated about the ethnic or geographic origins of Sandirians. Thus, they did not seem to be associating Sandir- ians with a specific ethnic group. However, their thoughts did provide additional evidence that participants in the competition condition construed the stereotypes of Sandirians in a negative light. After reading the editorial designed to elicit group competition, 10 participants listed negative thoughts about Sandirians, whereas after reading the no-competition editorial, no participants did so,p < .01. The negative thoughts listed in the competition condition often involved negative


interpretations of Sandirian traits, such as, “Since they are family-oriented, very spiritual and religious, hard-working, there is no room for fun. I think they are like robots. Robots aren’t fun. I wouldn’t want a robot for a neighbour,” and “Since they are family-oriented, they are probably not too accepting of others outside the family (don’t welcome others in).”

This finding supports the assertion that stereotypes may differ in meaning, and particularly in perceived favorability, depending on the context (see also Esses, Haddock, & Zanna, 1993, 1994; Esses, Jackson, & Nolan, 1996). In the present case, relatively positive traits such as hardworking and family-oriented were interpreted as less favorable when possessed by people perceived as potentially competing for resources (i.e., jobs). In fact, possessing these positive characteristics might have made Sandirians seem particularly threatening because these characteristics would make Sandirians especially likely to succeed. As a result, participants in the competition condition interpreted these characteristics in a way that denigrated Sandirians.

We also looked at whether the manipulation affected overall attitudes toward Sandirians and toward immigrants in general. We found that participants in the competition condition tended to express less favorable overall attitudes toward Sandirians, though this difference was not statistically significant. As shown in Table I , a stronger effect was evident in attitudes toward immigrants in general: participants in the competition condition expressed significantly less favorable attitudes toward immigrants in general than did participants in the no-competition condition.

Attitudes Townrd Immigration

In addition to attitudes toward immigrants, we examined attitudes toward the immigration of Sandirians and toward overall immigration to Canada. As shown in Table 1, support for Sandirian immigration to Canada was significantly weaker in the competition condition than in the no-competition condition. This finding is noteworthy because Sandirians were described as immigrating for reasons beyond their control: a natural disaster in their country of origin. Despite any sympathy that participants might have felt for Sandirians and their plight, they did not support Sandirian immigration to Canada when competition from immigrants was experienced. In addition, as is evident in Table 1, support for immigration in general was significantly weaker in the competition condition.

Attitudes Toward Helping Immigrants

We also looked at whether the experimental manipulation would affect participants’ willingness to endorse social programs to help immigrants adjust to life in a new country. Two types of help were assessed (see also Jackson & Esses, 1997).


Direct assistance involves active attempts to help by providing assistance, whereas empowerment involves empowering people to help themselves. As shown in Table 1, the experimental manipulation influenced the endorsement of empowerment but not of direct assistance. In particular, participants were less willing to endorse working for the empowerment of immigrants when competition from immigrants was experienced. This finding is noteworthy because it indicates that participants in the competition condition were not simply less willing to endorse programs for immigrants that cost money. Rather, it seems that they were less willing to endorse programs that might increase immigrants’ ability to stand on their own and possibly compete with nonimmigrants.

The Role of Individual Differences: Right- Wing Authoritarianism

In this study, we looked at whether individual differences in right-wing authoritarianism (Altemeyer, 1982, 1988, 1996) predict attitudes toward immigrants and immigration, and willingness to help immigrants. Those high in right-wing authoritarianism tend to be threatened by outgroups and to hold relatively negative attitudes toward several groups (e.g., Altemeyer, 1982, 1988, 1993, 1996; Esses et al., 1993; McFarland & Adelson, 1996). Thus, they might be especially likely to desire group inequality, which we suggest leads to group competition and to the use of competition-reducing strategies.

We did not find strong evidence of a relation between right-wing authoritarianism and immigration attitudes. Right-wing authoritarianism was directly related to only one of the immigration measures: support for Sandirian immigration to Canada; those high in right-wing authoritarianism were less likely to support this immigration. In addition, right-wing authoritarianism moderated the effect of the experimental manipulation on one measure: attitudes toward immigrants in general. As will be evident shortly, however, neither of these effects replicated in the second study.

Replication and Extension: Group Competition and Social Dominance Orientation

The second study was conducted to determine whether the results of Study 1 would replicate with a new sample of participants, 180 undergraduates at the Univer- sity of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Most of the materials used in this study were identical to those used in the first study, including the editorials and a subset of the dependent measures. We also included an additional individual difference measure in this study, social dominance orientation (Pratto et al., 1994), which more directly assesses a desire for group inequality. In particular, social dominance orientation is a personality measure designed to assess individual differences in belief in inequality and preference for hierarchically structured social systems (Pratto et al., 1994; Sidanius, Levin, & Pratto, 1996). Individuals who score high in social dominance


orientation believe that unequal social outcomes and social hierarchies are appropri- ate and express negative attitudes toward minority groups (e.g., Altenieyer, 1998; McFarland & Adelson, 1996; Pratto et al., 1994; Sidanius, Levin, & Pratto, 1996).

Effects ($the Manipulation of Group Competition

Study 2 replicated many of our previous findings. First, as shown in Table 1, following the manipulation of information about immigration, participants in the competition condition were especially likely to indicate that immigration decreases the number ofjobs available to people already living in Canada. In addition, participants in the competition condition expressed less favorable overall attitudes toward Sandirians though, in this study, an effect on attitudes toward immigrants in general was not obtained. Participants in the competition condition were also less supportive of Sandirian immigration and were more likely to endorse a reduction in the overall level of immigration to Canada.

The Role of Individual Differences: Right- Wing Authoritarianisnz and Social Dominance Orientation

This study replicated the finding that right-wing authoritarianism does not have substantial direct or moderating effects on attitudes toward immigrants and immigration. In fact, neither of the significant findings of the first study were replicated. We found only one significant effect for right-wing authoritarianism in this study. Right-wing authoritarianism predicted attitudes toward immigrants in general; individuals higher in right-wing authoritarianism expressed less favorable attitudes toward immigrants in general.

Social dominance orientation was significantly correlated with right-wing authoritarianism, p < .O 1. However, the relation between social dominance orientation and immigration attitudes differed considerably from that between right-wing authoritarianism and immigration attitudes. In particular, social dominance orientation was highly predictive of each of the immigration attitudes assessed (see also Sidanius, Pratto, & Bobo, 1994). As shown in Table 2, social dominance orientation was significantly correlated with the belief that immigration decreases the number of jobs available to people already living in Canada, with high social dominance- oriented people especially likely to hold this belief. Social dominance orientation was also highly predictive of attitudes toward Sandirians and toward immigrants in general. High social dominance-oriented people expressed less favorable attitudes toward Sandirians and toward immigrants in general. And finally, social dominance orientation strongly predicted attitudes toward Sandirian immigration and toward immigration to Canada in general. High social dominance-oriented people were less supportive of Sandirian immigration and endorsed a reduction in the overall level of immigration to Canada.


Table 2. Relations Between Social Dominance Orientation and Immigration Attitudes: Study 2

r(178) Low High

Effect of immigration on jobs (-2 to +2) -37 -.I2 -.79 p < ,001

Attitudes toward Sandirians (0 to 100) -39 75.38 65.44 p < ,001

Attitudes toward immigrants in general (-2 to +2) -.45 .93 . I2 p < ,001

Sandirian immigration (4 to +4)

Immigration in general (-2 to +2)

-.3 1 1.35 .5 1 p < ,001

-.32 p < .oo I

.02 -.48

Note: Numbers in columns 2 and 3 are mean responses of low versus high social dominance+xiented individuals, as determined by a median split of the sample. In all cases, higher numbers indicate more favorable attitudes.

Two additional findings are noteworthy. First, no significant interactions between social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism were evident. Thus, there was no evidence that the combination of high social dominance orientation and high right-wing authoritarianism led to especially negative attitudes (cf. Altemeyer, 1998). Second, there was no evidence that social dominance orientation moderated the effect of the competition manipulation on attitudes. That is, we found no evidence that high social dominance-oriented people were especially likely to react negatively to the salience of competition from immigrants, or that low social dominance-oriented people became equivalent to high social dominance-oriented people when competition was made salient. Rather, social dominance orientation produced effects that paralleled those of the competition manipulation (including an effect on perceptions of the influence of immigration on jobs). This is compatible with our model in that both the experimental manipulation and the measure of social dominance orientation are suggested to tap into resource stress and, thus, have additive effects on immigration attitudes.

Understanding the Phenomenon: Zero-Sum Beliefs

The final study focused on the individual difference variables, especially social dominance orientation. In particular, we looked at whether our model was correct in indicating that zero-sum beliefs mediate the relation between desire for group inequality (as assessed using social dominance orientation) and immigration attitudes. People high in social dominance orientation have been described as seeing the world as a competitive place (Altemeyer, 1998). In addition, they have been described as holding the view that outcomes in society follow a zero-sum game (Sidanius et al.,


1994), though there is no previous empirical support for this position. Sidanius et al. suggest that high social dominance orientation involves “a view of human existence as zero-sum and relentless competition between groups” (1994, p. 999).

To determine whether zero-sum beliefs mediate the relation between social dominance orientation and attitudes toward immigrants and immigration, we developed a measure of a belief in zero-sum resources. This measure was based on items included in a study by Bob0 and Hutchings (1996) that looked at perceptions of zero-sum competition among racial groups in Los Angeles County. We attempted to assess separately beliefs in zero-sum outcomes for two resources, economics and power, but found that these beliefs were very highly correlated. Therefore, our 14- item measure of a belief in zero-sum outcomes includes both economic and power resources. In particular, the measure as applied to the present context assesses the tendency to see immigrants’ economic and power gains as directly reducing nonimmigrants’ economic and power resources (see Table 3).

Participants in this study, 110 undergraduates at the University of Western Ontario, were not presented with an editorial on immigration. Instead, they immedi- ately indicated their attitudes toward immigrants and immigration in general and

Table 3. Zero-Sum Resources Measure

When immigrants make economic gains, Canadians already living here lose out economically.

Immigrants tend to open up small businesses, which means that there are fewer business opportunities available to Canadians already living here.

Money spent on social services for immigrants means less money for services for Canadians already living here.

The more power immigrants obtain in Canada, the more difficult it is for Canadians already living here.

As immigrants take advantage of Canadian education, there are fewer spots and opportunities available for Canadian students already living here.

Immigrants are taking our jobs.

Allowing immigrants to decide on political issues means that Canadians already living here have less say in how the country is run.

More immigrants in positions of power means fewer opportunities for Canadians already living here.

The more immigrants Canada accepts, the harder it is for Canadians already living here to get ahead.

Immigrants have too much say about political matters.

Immigrants have been trying to get ahead economically, at the expense of Canadians already living here.*

More good jobs for immigrants means fewer good jobs for Canadians already living here.*

Financial aid to immigrants hurts Canadians already living here.

Canadians already living here may no longer have a say in how the country is run because immigrants are trying to take control.

Nore: Items marked with an asterisk were adapted from Bob0 and Hutchings ( I 996). Scale alpha = .96.


their willingness to endorse social programs to help immigrants adjust to life in a new country (direct assistance and empowerment, as in Study I), and completed the individual difference measures of social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. The social dominance orientation measure used in this study was slightly different from that used in the second study, in that we used the explicitly group-oriented version of the scale that is now widely utilized (e.g., Levin & Sidanius, 1997; Pratto et al., 1994). Importantly, participants also completed the new measure of belief in zero-sum resources.

In this study, right-wing authoritarianism was not significantly predictive of any of the criterion measures, including the belief in zero-sum resources. In addition, right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation were not significantly correlated. However, as in Study 2, social dominance orientation strongly predicted attitudes toward immigrants and immigration in general (see Figure 2). Social dominance orientation also predicted willingness to empower immigrants to help them adjust to life in a new country (see Figure 2), but did not predict direct assistance. This finding is reminiscent of that obtained in Study 1, in which perceived competition with immigrants influenced the endorsement of empowerment but not of direct assistance. As in Study 2, there were no significant interactions between social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism.

Having found that social dominance orientation strongly predicted attitudes toward immigrants, immigration, and empowerment, we determined whether the zero-sum beliefs were mediating these relations, using the procedure outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986; see Figure 2). That is, we determined whether high social dominance-oriented people hold less favorable attitudes because they believe that any gains that immigrants might make are at their expense,

Social dominance orientation strongly predicted the belief in zero-sum competition with immigrants; high social dominance-oriented people were more likely to indicate that gains for immigrants result in losses for nonimmigrants. In addition, the belief in zero-sum resources predicted each of the criterion attitudes. Of greatest interest, when social dominance orientation and the belief in zero-sum resources were used together to predict the criterion attitudes, the expected mediations were demonstrated (see Figure 2). In terms of attitudes toward immigrants, the effect of social dominance orientation was reduced considerably and the effect of zero-sum beliefs remained strong, indicating that zero-sum beliefs at least partially mediate the relation between social dominance orientation and attitudes toward immigrants. In terms of attitudes toward immigration and empowerment, the mediational evidence is even stronger; in both cases, the effect of social dominance orientation was reduced to nonsignificance, whereas the effect of zero-sum beliefs remained strong. These findings support the contention that the relation between high social dominance orientation and relatively unfavorable attitudes toward immigrants, immigration, and empowerment are due to the perception that relations with immigrants have zero-sum outcomes. Moreover, the alternative possibility, that zero-

Attitudes Toward Immigrants Attitudes

SDO

ZemSum ReSOUrceS

Attitudes Toward lmmlgratlon

Attitudes SDO

Resources

Empowerment

SDo ~ -.P ( -.o :/...' Empowerment

- .56" (= A")

ZeroSum Resources

Fig. 2. Mediational analyses of relations among social dominance orientation (SDO), belief in zero-sum resources, and immigration attitudes. Pearson correlations are indicated on figure paths. Where applica- ble, partial correlations are indicated in parentheses *p<.O5. **p<.Ol.***p<.001.


sum beliefs are merely used as post hoc justifications for attitudes, was not indicated. Mediational analyses that tested the possibility that attitudes mediate the relation between social dominance orientation and zero-sum beliefs were not supported.

Implications and Future Research Directions

At a theoretical level, the findings of this research are consistent with our instrumental model of group conflict, and thus provide initial support for its viabil- ity. First, we demonstrated that two proposed sources of resource stress-scarcity and desire for unequal distribution of resources (as assessed using a measure of social dominance orientation)-had parallel effects on attitudes toward immigrants and immigration and on willingness to endorse help for immigrants (effects on empowerment but not direct assistance). Second, we demonstrated that zero-sum beliefs mediate the relation between one source of resource stress-desire for unequal distribution of resources-and these attitudes. We would suggest that our situational manipulation of perceived competition with immigrants similarly produced such beliefs. In fact, in Studies 1 and 2, we found that the manipulation increased participants’ likelihood of indicating that immigration decreases the number of jobs available to Canadians, suggesting that zero-sum beliefs may similarly play a role in this regard. Finally, the effects on the set of immigration attitudes assessed provide suggestive evidence that they may be operating as attempts to reduce competition. The consistent finding that perceived competition for resources affected endorsement of empowerment but not direct assistance is especially suggestive in this regard. Empowerment and direct assistance are both means of helping immigrants, but empowerment is likely to increase immigrants’ ability to stand on their own and compete with nonimmigrants, whereas direct assistance may help immigrants while ensuring that they remain dependent. Thus, the rejection of empowerment in particular suggests that participants may be attempting to eliminate competition from immigrants. In addition, as discussed earlier, the expression of unfavorable attitudes and unfavorable stereotypes of immigrants may serve to reduce the actual or perceived competition from immigrants, and opposition to immigration may be a means of avoiding the competition altogether. The findings are certainly only suggestive in this regard, and further research is required to test these assumptions, as well as other components of our model (e.g., the emotional component of group competition).

It will also be necessary to determine whether the findings obtained for immigrants apply to other intergroup relations. Indeed, previous research in the United States indicates that a desire to protect group interests to some extent influences Whites’ support for racial policies (e.g., Bobo, 1983, 1988a, 1988b; Hughes, 1997; Sidanius, Levin, & Pratto, 1996; Sidanius, Pratto, & Bobo, 1996). Thus, we are currently examining whether the belief in zero-sum resources plays a role in this


regard, particularly in determining current attitudes of Whites toward Blacks and Asians in the United States. In addition, our model eventually will need to be expanded to include intergroup processes used to enhance positive identity and self-esteem and to defend value systems. As mentioned earlier, we see these processes as complementing those currently included in our instrumental model of group conflict, rather than contradicting them.

The findings of this research also have important practical implications for understanding when unfavorable attitudes toward immigrants and immigration are most likely to arise. As the previous correlational data have suggested, unfavorable attitudes toward immigrants and immigration are most likely to be present when a country is experiencing poor economic conditions and high levels of unemployment. In addition, as our research has demonstrated, media coverage of immigration can influence the strength of these effects. In particular, when the scarcity of resources is publicized and, ironically, when immigrants are described as faring well, these effects are likely to be exacerbated. As has been suggested elsewhere, the media are an important source of information on immigration, with the potential to have widespread influences on attitudes (Fraser Institute, 1993a, 1993b).

The findings regarding the individual difference variables are also of importance in understanding the types of people most likely to hold unfavorable attitudes, irrespective of the availability of resources. Based on our research, we would iden- tify high social dominance-oriented people (not those high in right-wing authoritarianism) to be especially problematic in this regard. By knowing the situational and personality variables most likely to produce unfavorable attitudes toward immigrants and immigration, we can perhaps work to eliminate them.

For example, one strategy that we are currently testing is to present participants with a message about immigration that specifically targets zero-sum beliefs (providing information that zero-sum beliefs are erroneous), as well as providing information on the positive impact of immigration on members of a host population (e.g., through job creation and provision of tax dollars). This may, in fact, be a relatively realistic portrayal of the consequences of immigration (e.g., Economic Council of Canada, 1991; Zavella, 1997). Just as we have demonstrated that the media can exacerbate negative attitudes toward immigrants and immigration, they can likely be used to improve these attitudes.

Is It Prejudice?

Do our findings indicate that intergroup competition leads to prejudice, in this case prejudice toward immigrant groups? In line with current theorizing in the area, we define prejudice as an overall unfavorable attitude toward members of a group that may be based on affective, cognitive, and/or past behavioral sources of information (Eagly, Mladinic, & Otto, 1994; Esses et al., 1993; Haddock, Zanna, & Esses, 1993; Stangor, Sullivan, & Ford, 1991). Because research on prejudice often


focuses on ethnic or racial prejudice, it might be argued that unfavorable attitudes toward immigrants in general, which are potentially independent of ethnic and racial issues, should not be defined as prejudice. That is, although immigrants may be most easily identifiable on the basis of ethnicity (though ethnicity certainly does not necessarily indicate immigrant status), in this case it is not ethnicity per se that is causing unfavorable attitudes, and so perhaps this is not prejudice. We would argue otherwise. In particular, prejudice is an overall unfavorable attitude toward members of a group, irrespective of the nature of the group (e.g., Eagly et al., 1994; Esses et al., 1993; Stangor et al., 1991). In this context, we would argue that unfavorable attitudes toward immigrants are a form of prejudice: prejudice toward a group of people based on their national origin or citizenship status, rather than ethnic or racial origin.

It might also be argued that unfavorable attitudes toward a group that are based on a perhaps rational protection of group interests should not be defined as prejudice because these attitudes are based on a ‘‘reasonable’’ set of beliefs and lack a strong affective basis. That is, unfavorable attitudes toward a group may not be considered prejudice if they have a logical, cognitive justification. We would dispute this assertion as well, on several grounds. First, as indicated above, current theorizing suggests that prejudiced attitudes may be based on affective, cognitive, and/or past behavioral sources of information; thus, unfavorable attitudes do not have to be based on antipathy in order to be defined as prejudice. In the current case, the cognitions driving the unfavorable attitudes toward immigrants are beliefs about intergroup competition. These cognitions may, in addition, come to be linked with negative affective reactions. For example, in Study 1, the affect-laden nature of the open-ended comments about Sandirians suggests that, in line with our model of group conflict, cognitions regarding competition for resources are quickly associated with similarly valenced affective reactions (e.g., “ I wouldn’t want a robot for a neighbour”; see also Fiske & Ruscher, 1993; Sherif, 1966). Similarly, whether the components of these unfavorable attitudes are conscious or unconscious, we would define them as prejudice (e.g., Devine, 1989: Dovidio, Kawakami, Johnson, John- son, & Howard, 1997; Fazio, Jackson, Dunton, & Williams, 1995).

It is also the case that, in our view, the argument that a logical justification for unfavorable attitudes makes them immune to being defined as prejudice is unten- able. Presumably, most people who hold unfavorable attitudes toward members of other groups believe that these attitudes are justified, whether they appeal to group characteristics, presumed value conflict, or conflict over resources as the basis of their attitudes (see also Jost & Banaji, 199 1). If lack ofjustification is used to define prejudice, who is to decide which justifications are legitimate and which are not? We would likely end up with a situation in which our own unfavorable attitudes toward other groups are never defined as prejudice because they are seemingly justified, whereas the unfavorable attitudes held by members of other groups are always defined as prejudice because they are not. For example, on this basis, the woman on

Instrumental Model of Group Conflict 72 1

the shuttle bus described at the beginning of this article would surely claim that she is not prejudiced, despite the fact that she is willing to state openly that she does not like immigrants. However, whether a justification for unfavorable attitudes is read- ily apparent or not, the end result is the same: unfavorable attitudes toward members of a group based on their group membership. A logical justification for one’s attitudes is not likely to reduce the negative impact of unfavorable attitudes on the target groups in question. Therefore, we suggest that unfavorable attitudes toward immigrants that are based on perceived competition for resources should indeed be defined as a form of prejudice.

Conclusions

In this article, we have presented an instrumental model of group conflict that suggests that group competition for resources, and attempts to remove the source of this competition, are relevant to understanding the nature of intergroup attitudes and behavior. In addition, we have applied this model to examining the basis of contemporary attitudes toward immigrants and immigration. It is our hope that future research in this area will provide answers as to how we might best learn to embrace the diversity of groups who share a common future in our society.

References

Adler, J., & Waldman, S. (1995, July 10). Sweet land of liberties. Nexwveek. pp. 18-23. Altemeyer, B. ( I 982). Right-wing u~lthoritcirianism. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press. Altemeyer, B. ( I 988). Enemies of’jreedon7: Ur&rsfmding right-wing nuthoritnriniiisni. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass. Altemeyer, B. (1993). Reducing prejudice in right-wing authoritarians. In M. P. Zanna & J . M . Olson

(Eds.), Thep.sychology ofprejudice: T/7e Or7tario Symposium (Vol. 7, pp. 131-148). Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum.

Altemeyer, B. (1996). The aurhorifciriurz specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Altemeyer, B. (1998). The “other authoritarian personality.“ In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances i n experi-

nierzral social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 47-92). San Diego: Academic Press. Ashmore. R. D., & Del Boca, F. K. (1976). Psychological approaches to understanding intergroup con-

flict. In P. A. Katz (Ed.), Towards theelimination ofracism (pp. 73-1 23). New York: Pergamon. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). Themoderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychologi-

cal research: Conceptual. strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal qfPersonnlit?, and&- ciol Psychology, 51, 1173-1 182.

Blumer, H. ( I 958). Race prejudice as a sense of group position. Pacific Sociologicrrl Review. I . 3-7. Bobo, L. ( 1 983). Whites’ opposition to busing: Symbolic racism or realistic group conflict’? Journal of

Personalit?, and Social Psychology, 45, 1 196- 12 10. Bobo, L. (1988a). Attitudes toward the Black political movement: Trends, meaning, and effects on ra-

cial policy preferences. Social Psychology Quarterly. 51, 287-302. Bobo, L. (1988b). Group conflict, prejudice, and the paradox of contemporary racial attitudes. In P. A.

Katz & D. A. Taylor (Eds.), Eliminczting rncismt Profiles in conrroversy (pp. 85-1 14). New York: Plenum.


Bobo, L.. & Hutchings, V. L. (1996). Perceptions of racial group competition: Extending Blumer's theory of group position to a multiracial social context. American Sociologicccl Review, 61, 95 1-972.

Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychologicd Bulletin, 86, 307-324.

Brewer, M. B. (1986). The role of ethnocentrism in intergroup conflict. In S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), The p.svchology of intergroup relutions (pp. 88-102). Chicago: Nelson.

Brown, R. ( 1 995). Prejudice: Its social psychology. Oxford: Blackwell. Campbell, D. T. (1965). Ethnocentric and other altruistic motives. In D. Levine (Ed.),Nebmska Svmpo-

siunt ti Motivutiori (Vol. 13, pp. 283-3 I I ) . Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Chesler, M. A. (1976). Contemporary sociological theories of racism. In P. A. Katz (Ed.), Towurds the

eliminution ifrucism (pp. 21-71). New York: Pergamon. Devine, P. G. ( I 989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of

Personnlity und Social Psychology, 56, 5-1 8. Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K.. Johnson, C., Johnson, B.. & Howard, A. (1997). On the nature of preju-

dice: Automatic and controlled processes. Journal of Experimentul Sociul Psychology, 33, 5 IOk540.

Dudziak, M. L. (1988). Desegregation as a cold war imperative. Star$ordLaM> Review, 41.61-120. Eagly, A. H., Mladinic, A., & Otto, S. (1994). Cognitive and affective bases of attitudes toward social

groups and social policies. JOWIZU~ qfExperimentd Social PsychokJgv, 30, 1 13-137. Economic Council of Canada. ( I 991). Economic und sociczl impacts of' immigration. Ottawa, Ontario:

Minister of Supply and Services Canada. Espenshade, T. J., & Hempstead, K. (1996). Contemporary American attitudes toward U.S. immigra-

tion. lnternutionul Migrution Review, 30, 535-570. Esses, V. M., Haddock, G., & Zanna, M. P. ( I 993). Values, stereotypes, and emotions as determinants of

intergroup attitudes. In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton (Eds.),Afect. cognirion andstereotyp ing: Inteructive processes in group perception (pp. 137-166). San Diego: Academic Press.

Esses, V. M., Haddock, G.. & Zanna, M. P. (1994). Mood and the expression of intergroup stereotypes. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Thepsychology ojprejudice: The OntarioSymposium (Vol. 7, pp. 77-101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Esses, V. M., Jackson, L. M., & Nolan, J. M. (1996, August). Stereotypeconstrual and intergroup behav- iour. In J. F. Dovidio (Chair), Stereotypes rind stereofyping. Symposium conducted at the Inter- national Congress of Psychology, Montreal, Canada.

Esses. V. M., Jackson. L. M.. Nolan. J. M.. & Armstrong, T. L. (in press). Economic threat and attitudes toward immigrants. In S. Halli & L. Drieger (Eds.). fmmigrctnt Cunuda: Demographic, economic and social chullenges. Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press.

Fazio, R. H.. Jackson, J. R., Dunton, B. C., & Williams, C. J. (1995). Variability in automatic activation as an unobtrusive measure of racial attitudes: A bona fide pipeline? Journctl of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1013-1027.

Fiske, S. T., & Ruscher. J. B. (1993). Negative interdependence and prejudice: Whence the affect? In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition cmd srereotyping: lnteractiveprocesses in group perception (pp. 239-268). San Diego: Academic Press.

Fraser Institute. (1993a). Immigration Part 1: The human interest story. On Balance, 6(3) . Fraser Institute. (1993b). Immigration Part 11: Television's attention to government policies. On Eal-

unce, 6(4). Gaertner, S., Dovidio, I. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachevan, B. A,, & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common in-

group identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.). European reiiew' of social psychologv (Vol. 4, pp. 1-26). Chichester, UK: John Wiley.

Government of Canada. ( 1995). Metropolis. [Brochure]. Ottawa, Ontario: Government of Canada. Haddock, G., Zanna, M. P., & Esses, V. M. (1993). Assessing the structure of prejudicial attitudes: The

case of attitudes toward homosexuals. Journal of Personality and Sociul Psychology, 65, 1105-1 118.

Hughes. M. ( 1997). Symbolic racism. old-fashioned racism, and Whites' opposition to affirmative action. In S. A. Tuch & J. K. Martin (Eds.), Racial artitudes in the 1990.7: Cunrinuity and change (pp. 45-75). Westport, CT: Praeger.


Jackson, J. W. (1993) Realistic group conflict theory: A review and evaluation of the theoretical and empirical literature. The Psychological Record, 43, 395-414.

Jackson, L. M., & Esses, V. M. (1 997). Of scripture and ascription: The relation between religious fun- damentalism and intergroup helping. Personalir?, and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23,893-906.

lost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1991). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1-27.

Levin, S., & Sidanius, J. (1997, October). Refining the construct of social dominance orientation: An analysis of its context-free and contexr-specific components. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Experimental Social Psychology, Toronto, Ontario.

LeVine, R. A,, & Campbell, D. T. ( I 972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of conjict. ethnic attitudes, and group behavior. New York: Wiley.

McFarland, S. G., & Adelson, S. (1996, July). An omnibus .stud.y ofpersorzality, values. andprejudice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Society for Political Psychology, Van- couver, British Columbia.

Palmer, D. L. (1996). Determinants of Canadian attitudes toward immigration: More than just racism? Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 28, 180-192.

Palmer, D. L. ( 1 998). A detailed regional analysis of perceptions of immigration in Canada. Unpub- lished manuscript, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personalir?, and Social Psy- chology, 67,74 1-763.

Quillian, L. (1995). Prejudice as a response to perceived group threat: Population composition and anti- immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe. American Sociological Review, 60,586-61 I .

Saad, L. (1996, May). Issues referendum reveals populist leanings. Gallup Poll Monthly. Princeton, NJ: The Gallup Poll.

Sears, D. 0. (1988). Symbolic racism. In P. A. Katz & D. A. Taylor (Eds.), Eliminating racism: Profiles in controversy (pp. 53-84). New York: Plenum.

Sherif, M. ( 1966). Group conflict and cooperation: Their social psychology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Sherif, M., & Sherif, C . W. (1953). Groups in harmony and tension: An inregration ofstudies on inrer- group relations. New York Harper.

Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1979). Research on intergroup relations. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The socialpsychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-32). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Sidanius, J., Levin, S., & Pratto, F. (1996). Consensual social dominance orientation and its correlates within the hierarchical structure of American society. Infernational Journal of Intercultural Re- lations, 20,385408.

Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Bobo, L. (1994). Social dominance orientation and the political psychology of gender: A case of invariance? Journal of Personalir?, and Social Psychology, 67,998-101 1.

Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Bobo, L. (1996). Racism, conservatism, affirmative action, and intellectual so- phistication: A matter of principled conservatism or group dominance? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70.476490.

Smith, H. J., &Tyler, T. R. (1996). Justice and power: When will justice concerns encourage the advan- taged to support policies which redistribute economic resources and the disadvantaged to will- ingly obey the law? European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 171-200.

Stangor, C., Sullivan, L. A,, &Ford, T. E. ( I 991). Affective and cognitive determinants of prejudice. So- cial Cognition, 9,359-380.

Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Bachman, G. (1998). Prejudice toward immigrants: An inregrated threat theory. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., Martinez, C., Schwarzwald, J., & Tur-Kaspa, M. (1998). Prejudice toward immigrants to Spain and Israel: An integrated threat theory analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 29.559-576.

Tajfel, H., &Turner, J. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson.

Taylor, D. M., & Moghaddam, F. M. (1994). Theories ofintergroup relations: International socialpsy- chological perspecrives. Westport, CT: Praeger.


Zavella. P. (1997). The tables are turned Immigration, poverty, and social conflict in California com- munities. In J. F. Perea (Ed.). Intmigrnnts out!: The new nativism nnd the nizti-immigrrint in~,uirlse in the Ui?itrdSttrres (pp, 136-161). New York: New York University Press.

Zawadzki, B. (1948). Limitations on the scapegoat theory of prejudice. Journrrl ofAbnormnl cindSociul Psychology, 43. 127- I4 I .

VICTORIA ESSES is an associate professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario in London, Canada. Her research interests are in the area of intergroup relations, prejudice, and discrimination. She is particularly interested in ethnic relations and attitudes toward immigrants and immigration. She received the 1992 Otto Klineberg Intercultural and International Relations Award with Geoffrey Haddock and Mark Zanna for work on the role of values, stereotypes, and emotions in predicting intergroup attitudes. She is currently a member of the SPSSI Council and is in the process of organizing the SPSSI International Conference on Immi- grants and Immigration

LYNNE JACKSON is a postdoctoral fellow in psychology at Wilfrid Laurier Uni- versity in Waterloo, Canada. Her research explores the nature of contemporary forms of sexism, mediators of gender discrimination, determinants of people's responses to immigrants and immigration, and the roles that values play in predicting and justifying discrimination. She is also involved in work on students' adaptation to college.

TAMARA ARMSTRONG is a doctoral candidate in psychology at the University of Western Ontario in London, Canada. Her research interests are in the areas of cross-cultural differences in health beliefs and intergroup relations. She is currently supported by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada doctoral fellowship.

intergroup competition and attitudes toward immigrants and immigration: an instrumental model of...

Documents