ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

30 (2006) 653–669

0147-1767/$ -

doi:10.1016/j

$Preparat

grant to the�CorrespoE-mail ad

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

Perceptions of national identity and attitudestoward immigrants and immigration in Canada

and Germany$

Victoria M. Essesa,�, Ulrich Wagnerb, Carina Wolfb,Matthias Preiserb, Christopher J. Wilbura

aDepartment of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont., Canada N6A 5C2bPhilipps-Universitat Marburg

Abstract

In the current research, we examined whether promoting an inclusive national ingroup that

includes both immigrants and nonimmigrants would improve attitudes toward immigrants and

immigration among members of receiving societies. We also determined whether one’s nation of

citizenship and individual differences in social dominance orientation would moderate the effects.

Participants were 126 Canadian students and 282 German students, who completed a measure of

social dominance orientation and were then asked to respond to a series of questions designed to

heighten the salience of national identity (national identity), promote a national ingroup that

includes immigrants (common national ingroup), or irrelevant questions (control). The dependent

measures included attitudes toward immigrants and immigration, and subtle prejudice toward

immigrants. Results revealed that the manipulation of a common national ingroup successfully

promoted more positive attitudes toward immigrants and immigration among higher social

dominance oriented Canadian participants, but tended to have detrimental effects on the attitudes of

higher social dominance oriented German participants. Results are discussed in terms of the

see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

.ijintrel.2006.07.002

ion of this article was supported by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

first author.

nding author.

dress: vesses@uwo.ca (V.M. Esses).

ARTICLE IN PRESSV.M. Esses et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 653–669654

importance of considering the context in which groups are situated, as well as implications for

developing strategies to promote harmony between immigrants and members of receiving societies.

r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Immigrants; Immigration; National identity; Common ingroup identity model; Social dominance

orientation; Threat; Canada; Germany

1. Introduction

In recent years, many western nations have experienced some difficulty integratingimmigrants into their society. It seems that although immigrants are required to fill laborshortages and prevent population decline, public attitudes toward immigrants are notuniformly positive and there is some resistance to the acceptance of large numbers ofimmigrants each year (Esses, Dovidio, Jackson, & Armstrong, 2001; Munz, 2004). Ofimportance, the arrival of large numbers of immigrants may raise concerns about nationalidentity and can increase nativist sentiments (e.g., Feagin, 1997; Jaret, 1999). Theseconcerns can in turn promote less favorable attitudes toward immigrants and immigration(e.g., Citrin, Reingold, & Green, 1990; Esses, Dovidio, & Hodson, 2002; Jaret, 1999). Thisinterplay between national identity, on the one hand, and attitudes toward immigrants andimmigration, on the other, is likely to be a central issue for the 21st century.In this context, the current research examines the role of the salience of national identity

in determining attitudes toward immigrants and immigration, and the potential forimproving attitudes through the promotion of a common national ingroup that includesboth nonimmigrants and immigrants in what it means to be a member of the nationalgroup. Of course, different countries within western society have very different historiesand contexts for immigration, and we therefore chose to examine these processes in twocountries with very different histories and policies for immigration: Canada and Germany.In addition, given past evidence that individuals higher in social dominance orientation,who desire group hierarchies in society and oppose equality among groups (Pratto,Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994), are especially likely to hold negative attitudes towardimmigrants and immigration (Esses, Jackson, & Armstrong, 1998; Sidanius & Pratto,1999), we also examined the potential role of social dominance orientation in the process.

1.1. The historical and current context of immigration to Canada versus Germany

Both Canada and Germany have received large numbers of immigrants over the last 50years, and are two of the world’s most important destinations for immigrants (see Dovidio& Esses, 2001; Organization for International Cooperation and Development, 2006). The2001 Canadian census indicated that 5.4 million foreign-born individuals live in Canada,accounting for 18% of the total population (Statistics Canada, 2003). Similarly, in 2004,7.3 million immigrants were living in Germany, accounting for 8.8% of the totalpopulation, and this figure does not include those who had acquired German citizenship(Statistisches Bundesamt, 2005).Despite this similarity in being large immigrant-receiving nations, Canada and Germany

differ considerably in their history of immigration and current perspective on immigration.Whereas Canada has historically considered immigration an integral part of its

ARTICLE IN PRESSV.M. Esses et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 653–669 655

development as a nation (e.g., Knowles, 2000; Ray, 2002), Germany’s large immigrantpopulation is mainly an unintended effect of guest worker immigration and an influx ofrefugees and asylum seekers (Berry et al., 2006; Oezcan, 2004; Zick, Wagner, van Dick, &Petzel, 2001). Thus, whereas Canada has had a relatively well-developed system foracceptance of immigrants for close to 40 years and a supporting policy of multiculturalismfor over 30 years (Knowles, 2000), German officials have consistently denied that Germanyis a nation of immigrants, and Germany’s first official immigration law only came intoeffect in 2005 (GraXler, 2005).

These different approaches to immigration are also reflected in naturalization laws. InCanada, applicants for naturalization must prove that they have been permanent residentsof Canada for a minimum of 3 years, and pass a series of language and historical/politicaltests (Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 2004). In contrast, naturalization in post-warGermany has always been overshadowed by the idea of having guest workers(‘‘Gastarbeiter’’) in the country who would live and work in Germany for a couple ofyears and then return to their countries of origin. Even though it became clear by the early1970s that many immigrants would stay in Germany permanently, the idea of guestworkers has determined immigration and naturalization policies for the last 50 years (Zicket al., 2001). For example, current German naturalization laws do not allow dualcitizenship for adults. As a result, many immigrants who came to Germany decades ago, aswell as their children and grandchildren, do not possess German citizenship, even if theywere born in Germany. In addition, applicants for naturalization must prove that theyhave been habitual residents of the Federal Republic of Germany for at least 8 years, andmust demonstrate knowledge of Germany and commitment to the basic laws of the nation(Auswartiges Amt, 2005).

Perhaps not surprisingly given these different approaches to immigration andnaturalization, acceptance and promotion of diversity also differ considerably betweenCanada and Germany. On an index of policy diversity—the degree to which governmentand other administrative bodies within a country promote cultural diversity—Canada israted as high in policy diversity whereas Germany is rated as low (Berry et al., 2006). Asmentioned earlier, Canada has had a policy of multiculturalism for over 30 years, whichencourages the maintenance and development of distinct ethnocultural groups inCanadian society, promotes mutual intergroup acceptance and harmony, and promotesfull participation of all ethnocultural groups in Canadian society (Canadian Heritage,2004). In line with this policy, national surveys have shown that Canadians generallysupport integration, and reject assimilation and segregation, for ethnocultural groups(Berry et al., 2006). In contrast, given Germany’s focus on guest workers and governmentofficials’ historic denial of the fact that Germany is a country of immigrants, little has beendone to support the integration of ethnocultural groups in Germany (Berry et al., 2006). Inaddition, national surveys have demonstrated that Germans tend to support segregation orassimilation for ethnocultural groups (Zick et al., 2001; see also Florack, Piontkowski,Bohman, Balzer, & Perzig, 2003). Overall, then, Canada and Germany have very differentperspectives on immigration, naturalization, and immigrant acculturation.

1.2. Social dominance orientation

Social dominance orientation has been described as a general approach to therelationships among social groups—whether an individual supports group hierarchies

ARTICLE IN PRESSV.M. Esses et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 653–669656

and inequality in society or group equality and a reduction in hierarchical relations amonggroups (Pratto et al., 1994; Roccato & Ricolfi, 2005). Individuals who are higher in socialdominance orientation support group hierarchies and inequality in society, view the worldas a competitive place in which only the toughest survive, and express a willingness todiscriminate against other groups in order to attain or maintain group dominance(Duckitt, 2006; Duckitt, Wagner, du Plessis, & Birum, 2002; Pratto, 1999; Sidanius &Pratto, 1999). Because of their support for group hierarchy, higher social dominanceoriented individuals may also be particularly sensitive to group boundaries, and thus todifferences between groups. In support of these propositions, higher social dominanceoriented individuals have been shown to demonstrate prejudice toward a variety of groups,and to display heightened evidence of pro-ingroup biases (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999).In the context of immigration attitudes, it has been demonstrated that individuals who

are higher in social dominance orientation are especially likely to believe in zero-sumcompetition between immigrants and nonimmigrants, including competition over tangibleresources, such as jobs, and competition over more symbolic factors, such as value andcultural dominance (e.g., Esses et al., 1998; Esses, Hodson, & Dovidio, 2003). In addition,higher social dominance oriented individuals have been found to be especially likely toendorse the belief that immigrants and nonimmigrants are fundamentally different (Esseset al., 2003). As a result, higher social dominance oriented individuals generally hold morenegative attitudes toward immigrants and immigration (Esses et al., 1998, 2001, 2003).

1.3. Group boundaries and national identity

Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; see also Self Categorization Theory:Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) states that the social categorization ofpeople into outgroups and an ingroup stimulates a motivation to maintain or achieve asense of positive group distinctiveness. This may take the form of enhancing the image,prestige, and resources of one’s own group by derogating or discriminating againstoutgroups. Thus, when group identity is salient, prejudice against outgroups may beevident, particularly if there is a threat to ingroup identity (Branscombe, Ellemers, Spears,& Doosje, 1999).Based on this perspective, we reasoned that to the extent that immigrants are not

considered part of the national ingroup, when national identity is salient, derogation ofimmigrants and opposition to immigration may occur in order to promote a positive senseof national identity. This would be especially likely to occur for individuals higher in socialdominance orientation who are particularly sensitive to group boundaries, see immigrantsas threatening their resources, and generally see immigrants as different from members ofthe national ingroup. Given the history of immigration to Germany and its reluctance, upuntil recently, to formalize acceptance of immigrants into the national ingroup, we alsoexpected this effect to be especially likely to occur for German individuals, who areespecially likely to see immigrants as an outgroup.

1.4. Common ingroup identity

The common ingroup identity model (see Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000) proposes thatinducing members of different groups to recategorize ingroup and outgroup members asmembers of a more inclusive superordinate group can improve intergroup attitudes and

ARTICLE IN PRESSV.M. Esses et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 653–669 657

behavior. Gaertner and Dovidio suggest that by emphasizing membership in shared socialcategories, more favorable attitudes toward former outgroup members may be producedthrough processes involving pro-ingroup bias. When members of a former outgroup cometo be considered part of the ingroup, the cognitive and motivational forces that contributeto ingroup favoritism become redirected to improve attitudes toward the newly definedmembers of the ingroup. There is considerable support for these propositions (Gaertner &Dovidio, 2000). Indeed, in previous research conducted in Canada in which we tested theseassertions in the context of relations between immigrants and nonimmigrants, we foundsupport for the model (Esses et al., 2001). In that research, we manipulated perceptions oflinks between immigrants and nonimmigrants by presenting participants with fictitiousnewspaper articles that emphasized a common history of immigration among Canadians,or a common present and future for Canadians. These articles were effective in improvingattitudes toward immigrants, particularly for individuals who were higher in socialdominance orientation. Thus, higher social dominance oriented individuals, who place astrong emphasis on group membership, were induced to see immigrants in a more positivelight by including immigrants in the ingroup.

Manipulations of common ingroup identity do not always have their intended effects,however. On occasion, the attempt to produce more positive intergroup attitudes through theinduction of a common ingroup identity may backfire, and lead to higher levels of bias (seeHewstone, 1996; Hewstone, Rubin, & Willis, 2002; Waldzus & Mummendey, 2004). Thiseffect may occur if the proposed common ingroup representation is seen to threaten initialidentities. As the social identity perspective suggests, people are motivated to identify withgroups for reasons of self-enhancement and in order to avoid subjective uncertainty about whothey are and how to behave (Hogg & Abrams, 1993; Rubin & Hewstone, 1998). As a result,the promotion of a common ingroup identity may encounter resistance if it is seen as lesseningthe value of the ingroup and as blurring group norms. The promotion of a common ingroupidentity may also have negative consequences if the initial ingroup is seen as more prototypicalof the inclusive category, resulting in negative intergroup comparisons for the initial outgroup(Wenzel, Mummendey, Weber, & Waldzus, 2003).

In comparing Canadians to Germans, we might expect that attempts to highlight acommon ingroup that includes immigrants in national identity may have differentoutcomes. As previously discussed, national perceptions of Canada include a sense that itwas ‘‘built on immigration’’ and is a ‘‘nation of immigrants.’’ Thus, the salience of acommon national ingroup that includes immigrants in national identity is compatible withpre-existing views of national identity, and may therefore be readily accepted in Canada.As demonstrated in the previous research, this may have a particularly strong effect inimproving the attitudes toward immigrants held by higher social dominance orientedindividuals through processes involving pro-ingroup biases.

The effects in Germany might be quite different. As discussed earlier, Germans havehistorically resisted the suggestion that Germany is an immigrant-receiving nation, andmay continue to view immigrants as a threat to national identity and as not prototypical ofthe national ingroup. As a result, attempts to promote a common national ingroup thatincludes immigrants may backfire under these conditions and increase bias if the proposedcommon ingroup representation is perceived to threaten national identity and ifimmigrants are the target of negative intergroup comparisons. The threat may includeboth a threat to the value or prestige of German identity and a threat involving increaseduncertainty about what it means to be a German.

ARTICLE IN PRESSV.M. Esses et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 653–669658

1.5. Overview and hypotheses

In the current research, we wished to determine whether manipulations of the salience ofnational identity and of a common national ingroup would serve to increase or decreasebias against immigrants, particularly among individuals who are higher in socialdominance orientation. We also wished to determine whether these effects would differbetween two countries with very different histories and public discourse on immigration:Canada versus Germany. Participants were recruited from the University of WesternOntario in Canada and from Philipps-Universitat Marburg in Germany, and their socialdominance orientation was assessed. The manipulation of perceived identity included acontrol condition, a condition intended to heighten the salience of national identity, and acondition intended to induce links with immigrants in the service of a common nationalingroup identity. Because the information provided in the fictitious newspaper articles thatmanipulated a common national identity in the previous Canadian studies (Esses et al.,2001) could not easily be utilized in the German context, we chose to use a different type ofmanipulation in the current research. The current manipulations involved the content ofquestions asked of participants and the response options provided, and were thusequivalent in Canada and Germany. We assessed effects on attitudes toward immigrantsand immigration using rather blatant scales, as utilized in previous research (e.g., Esseset al., 2001), as well as assessing effects on more subtle prejudice toward immigrants(Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995).We hypothesized first that in the control condition in both countries, social dominance

orientation would predict less favorable attitudes toward immigrants and immigration.We also expected that a salient national identity would have little effect on attitudesin the Canadian sample, but would serve to produce less favorable attitudes in theGerman sample, particularly for higher social dominance oriented individuals. Finally,we expected that the manipulation of a common national ingroup would reduce thetendency for higher social dominance oriented individuals to hold less favorableattitudes toward immigrants among the Canadian participants, but not amongthe German participants. Indeed, it seemed possible that this manipulation might serveto exacerbate the negative attitudes of higher social dominance oriented Germanindividuals.

2. Method

2.1. Participants and design

Two samples of participants were recruited for a study of ‘‘Social Issues.’’ Canadianparticipants were 126 introductory psychology undergraduates at the University ofWestern Ontario (52% women, mean age ¼ 20 years). German participants were 282 firstyear psychology students at Philipps-Universitat Marburg (82% women, mean age ¼ 21years).The design was a 2� 3 factorial, with two between-subjects variables: country of

citizenship (Canada or Germany) and identity condition (control, national identity,common national ingroup). Participants were randomly assigned to identity condition.Social dominance orientation was also included in the design as a continuous variable.

ARTICLE IN PRESSV.M. Esses et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 653–669 659

2.2. Materials and procedure

Participants were run in small groups. Upon arrival at the laboratory, they wereprovided with a questionnaire package and instructed to work through it at their ownpace. The questionnaire contained the measure of social dominance orientation, thequestions designed to manipulate perceptions of identity, the dependent variables(including attitudes toward immigrants, attitudes toward immigration, and subtleprejudice toward immigrants), and a page requesting demographic information. Uponcompletion of the package, participants were fully debriefed. The Canadian questionnairewas provided in English and the German questionnaire was translated into German.

2.2.1. Social dominance orientation

Social dominance orientation was assessed using four items from the Social DominanceOrientation Scale (Pratto et al., 1994), with two items reverse scored. Responses wereprovided on scales ranging from 1 (do not agree at all) to 6 (strongly agree). A sample itemreads, ‘‘Some groups of people are just less worthy than others’’ Average scores werecalculated (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .60). Importantly, Canadian and German participants didnot differ in social dominance orientation (Canadian: M ¼ 2.00, German: M ¼ 2.03).

2.2.2. Manipulation of perceived identity

In order to manipulate perceived identity, participants were asked to respond to twoquestions. In the national identity condition, participants were asked, ‘‘How important is itfor you to be a Canadian/German’’ and ‘‘To what extent do you identity yourself as aCanadian/German.’’ Responses were provided on six-point scales ranging from not at all

to very much. These questions were designed to increase the salience of national identity(see also Verkuyten & Hagendoorn, 1998). In the common national ingroup condition,participants were asked, ‘‘What percentage of Canadians/Germans do you think haveparents or grandparents who were not born in Canada’’ and ‘‘When Canadians andimmigrants are asked about their goals and values in life, how much do you think thatCanadians and immigrants agree with each other.’’ Responses were provided on six-pointscales ranging from 30% or less to 80% or more, and 50% to 100%. These questions andthe biased response options available were used to induce the perception that a largeproportion of Canadians/Germans are foreign born, and that Canadians and immigrantsshow agreement on goals and values (see also Salancik & Conway, 1975). Finally, in thecontrol condition, participants were asked, ‘‘What percentage of the population do youthink regularly watches the news on TV’’ and ‘‘What percentage of the population do youthink regularly reads a daily or weekly newspaper’’. Response options were similar to thoseprovided in the common national ingroup manipulation.

2.2.3. Dependent measures

Following the manipulation of identity, participants were asked to respond to twoquestions regarding their attitudes toward immigrants and two questions regarding theirattitudes toward immigration (see Esses et al., 2001). The two questions designed to assessattitudes toward immigrants asked how often participants feel sympathy for immigrants(never to very often) and for overall attitudes toward immigrants (extremely unfavorable toextremely favorable) on six-point scales. Responses to the two items were correlated,r(406) ¼ .41, po.001, and were therefore averaged. The two questions designed to assess

ARTICLE IN PRESSV.M. Esses et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 653–669660

attitudes toward immigration asked whether immigration to Canada/Germany should besupported (strongly disagree to strongly agree) and whether immigration levels should bedecreased or increased (decreased a lot to increased a lot) on six-point scales. Responses tothe two items were strongly correlated, rð406Þ ¼ :69, po:001, and were therefore averaged.Participants were also asked to complete a 10-item measure of subtle prejudice toward

immigrants (based on Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995). Sample items are, ‘‘The Canadianpolitical system takes more care of immigrants than is necessary’’ and ‘‘I’m happy aboutthe immigrants living in Canada’’ (reverse scored). Responses were provided on six-pointscales ranging from do not agree at all to strongly agree. Average scores were calculated(Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .81).

2.2.4. Demographic information

Following completion of the measures, participants were asked to provide somedemographic information about themselves, including sex, age, and citizenship.

3. Results

Mean scores on the dependent measures are provided in Table 1. All dependentmeasures were scored so that higher numbers indicate more negative attitudes towardimmigrants or immigration. As can be seen in the table, overall, participants expressedrelatively favorable attitudes toward both immigrants and immigration.Multiple regression analyses were conducted on each dependent measure, with social

dominance orientation maintained as a continuous variable and centered prior to analysis.Effect coding was used to create the vectors indicating condition. Due to the higherproportion of women in the German sample than in the Canadian sample, analyses werealso repeated using gender as a covariate. Because results were not appreciably altered, theanalyses reported below do not include gender as a variable.

3.1. Attitudes toward immigrants

The multiple regression analysis predicting attitudes toward immigrants had an overallR2 of .135, and revealed a significant three-way interaction between social dominanceorientation, country of citizenship, and condition, F change for addition of three-wayinteraction: F(2, 390) ¼ 5.48, po:01. A graphical representation of this interaction ispresented in Fig. 1, with the Canadian sample at the top and the German sample at thebottom.

Table 1

Means and standard deviations for dependent variables

Measure Mean Standard deviation

Attitudes toward immigrants 2.85 0.91

Attitudes toward immigration 3.28 1.13

Subtle prejudice 2.53 0.74

Note: Possible scores range from 1 to 6. Higher numbers indicate more negative attitudes.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Control

Common NationalIngroup

National Identity

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

High SDOLow SDO

High SDOLow SDO

Att

itu

des

To

war

d Im

mig

ran

tsA

ttit

ud

es T

ow

ard

Imm

igra

nts

Fig. 1. Attitudes toward immigrants in Canada (top) and Germany (bottom) as a function of social dominance

orientation (1 standard deviation below and above the mean) and identity condition. Higher numbers indicate

more negative attitudes.

V.M. Esses et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 653–669 661

Tests of the simple slopes (see Aiken & West, 1991) indicated that for Canadianparticipants, higher social dominance orientation predicted more negative attitudes towardimmigrants in both the control, b ¼ :37, tð390Þ ¼ 2:82, po:01, and national identityconditions, b ¼ :45, tð390Þ ¼ 3:01, po:01, but not in the common national ingroupcondition, to1. Examining the responses of Canadian individuals who were lower orhigher in social dominance orientation (1 standard deviation below or above the mean)was also informative. For lower social dominance oriented individuals, there were nosignificant differences between conditions, all t’so1. For higher social dominance orientedindividuals, attitudes toward immigrants in the common national ingroup condition were

ARTICLE IN PRESSV.M. Esses et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 653–669662

significantly more favorable than those in the control, b ¼ :61, tð390Þ ¼ 2:31, po:05, andnational identity conditions, b ¼ :81, tð390Þ ¼ 3:00, po:01. Thus, for Canadians, thecommon national ingroup manipulation reduced the tendency for higher social dominanceoriented individuals to hold more negative attitudes toward immigrants.In contrast, tests of the simple slopes indicated that for German participants, the

opposite pattern of findings was obtained. Higher social dominance orientation did notpredict more negative attitudes toward immigrants in either the control, to1, or nationalidentity conditions, tð390Þ ¼ 1:47, N’s, but did predict more negative attitudes in thecommon national ingroup condition, b ¼ :43, tð390Þ ¼ 3:63, po:001. Examining theresponses of German individuals who were lower or higher in social dominance orientation(1 standard deviation below or above the mean) showed that for lower social dominanceoriented individuals, there were no significant differences between conditions, all t’so1.34,N’s. For higher social dominance oriented individuals, attitudes toward immigrants in thecommon national ingroup condition were significantly less favorable than those in thecontrol, b ¼ :46, tð390Þ ¼ 2:43, po:05, and national identity condition, b ¼ :38,tð390Þ ¼ 1:93, p ¼ :055. Thus, it seems that for German participants who are higher insocial dominance orientation, there is a negative response to the attempt to suggestcommonality with immigrants, such that attitudes toward immigrants become morenegative.

3.2. Attitudes toward immigration

Similar findings were obtained on the measure of attitudes toward immigration. Themultiple regression analysis predicting attitudes toward immigration had an overall R2 of.063, and revealed a significant three-way interaction between social dominanceorientation, country of citizenship, and condition, F change for addition of three-wayinteraction: F(2, 390) ¼ 4.42, po:05. A graphical representation of this interaction ispresented in Fig. 2, with the Canadian sample at the top and the German sample at thebottom.Once again, tests of the simple slopes indicated that for Canadian participants, higher

social dominance orientation predicted more negative attitudes toward immigration inboth the control, b ¼ :33, tð390Þ ¼ 1:95, p ¼ :052, and national identity conditions,b ¼ :56, tð390Þ ¼ 2:89, po:01, but not in the common national ingroup condition, to1.Examining the responses of Canadian individuals who were lower or higher in socialdominance orientation (1 standard deviation below or above the mean) showed that forlower social dominance oriented individuals, there were no significant differences betweenconditions, all t’so1. For higher social dominance oriented individuals, attitudes towardimmigration in the common national ingroup condition were significantly more favorablethan those in the control, b ¼ :71, tð390Þ ¼ 2:08, po:05, and national identity conditions,b ¼ :86, tð390Þ ¼ 2:47, po:01. Thus, for Canadians, the common national ingroupmanipulation also reduced the tendency for higher social dominance oriented individualsto hold more negative attitudes toward immigration.In contrast, tests of the simple slopes indicated that for German participants, higher

social dominance orientation did not predict more negative attitudes toward immigrationin either the control, tð390Þ ¼ 1:27, N’s, or national identity conditions, to1, but didpredict more negative attitudes in the common national ingroup condition, b ¼ :37,tð390Þ ¼ 2:38, po:05. Examining the responses of German individuals who were lower or

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Control

Common NationalIngroup

National Identity

Att

itu

des

To

war

d Im

mig

rati

on

Att

itu

des

To

war

d Im

mig

rati

on

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

High SDOLow SDO

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

High SDOLow SDO

Fig. 2. Attitudes toward immigration in Canada (top) and Germany (bottom) as a function of social dominance

orientation (1 standard deviation below and above the mean) and identity condition. Higher numbers indicate

more negative attitudes.

V.M. Esses et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 653–669 663

higher in social dominance orientation (1 standard deviation below or above the mean)showed that for lower social dominance oriented individuals, there were no significantdifferences between conditions, all t’so1. It was also the case that for higher socialdominance oriented individuals, there were no significant differences between conditions,all t’so1.59, N’s. Thus, the tests of the simple slopes once again indicate a negativereaction on the part of higher social dominance oriented German individuals to theattempt to suggest commonality between Germans and immigrants, but this was notevident in the tests of differences between conditions at higher levels of social dominanceorientation.

ARTICLE IN PRESSV.M. Esses et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 653–669664

3.3. Subtle prejudice toward immigrants

Although the effects on subtle prejudice were similar to those obtained on the other twomeasures for Canadian participants, slightly different effects were obtained for Germanparticipants. The multiple regression analysis predicting subtle prejudice had an overall R2

of .113, and revealed a significant three-way interaction between social dominanceorientation, country of citizenship, and condition, F change for addition of three-wayinteraction: F(2, 390) ¼ 4.56, po:02. A graphical representation of this interaction ispresented in Fig. 3, with the Canadian sample at the top and the German sample at thebottom.Tests of the simple slopes indicated that for Canadian participants, higher social

dominance orientation predicted subtle prejudice toward immigrants in both the control,b ¼ :27, tð390Þ ¼ 2:52, po:05, and national identity conditions, b ¼ :53, tð390Þ ¼ 4:30,po:001, but not in the common national ingroup condition, to1. Examining the responsesof Canadian individuals who were lower or higher in social dominance orientation(1 standard deviation below or above the mean) showed that for lower social dominanceoriented individuals, there were no significant differences between conditions, all t’so1.For higher social dominance oriented individuals, attitudes toward immigrants in thecommon national ingroup condition were significantly more favorable than those in thecontrol, b ¼ :47, tð390Þ ¼ 2:15, po:05, and national identity conditions, b ¼ :74,tð390Þ ¼ 3:32, po:01. Thus, for Canadians, the common national ingroup manipulationreduced the tendency for higher social dominance oriented individuals to express subtleprejudice, as well as blatant prejudice as shown above.In contrast, tests of the simple slopes indicated that for German participants, higher

social dominance orientation predicted subtle prejudice toward immigrants in allconditions, control: b ¼ :18, tð390Þ ¼ 2:36, po:05, national identity: b ¼ :16,tð390Þ ¼ 2:05, po:05, common national ingroup: b ¼ :28, tð390Þ ¼ 2:89, po:01. Examin-ing the responses of German individuals who were lower or higher in social dominanceorientation (1 standard deviation below or above the mean) showed that for lower socialdominance oriented individuals, there were no significant differences between conditions,all t’so1. It was also the case that for higher social dominance oriented individuals, therewere no significant differences between conditions, all t’so1. Thus, on this more subtlemeasure of attitudes, German individuals who are higher in social dominance orientationexpress more prejudice, irrespective of condition.

4. Discussion

The results of this research indicate strong differences between Canadian and Germanparticipants in reactions to the manipulations. For the Canadian sample, on all measures,whether blatant or more subtle, higher social dominance oriented individuals showed lessfavorable attitudes toward immigrants and immigration in both the control and nationalidentity conditions. The induction of a common national ingroup that includes immigrantsserved to reduce this effect so that higher social dominance oriented individuals becamemore favorable toward immigrants and immigration. Thus, it seems that for Canadianparticipants, this manipulation had its intended effect of improving attitudes. The fact thatthis effect was not obtained when national identity was simply made salient suggests that

ARTICLE IN PRESS

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

High SDOLow SDO

High SDOLow SDO

Su

btl

e P

reju

dic

eS

ub

tle

Pre

jud

ice

Control

Common NationalIngroup

National Identity

Fig. 3. Subtle prejudice toward immigrants in Canada (top) and Germany (bottom) as a function of social

dominance orientation (1 standard deviation below and above the mean) and identity condition. Higher numbers

indicate more subtle prejudice.

V.M. Esses et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 653–669 665

Canadians need reminding of the common national ingroup and do not necessarilyspontaneously include immigrants in national identity unless reminded to do so.

The findings for the German sample, on the other hand, are more complex. On both ofthe more blatant measures, there was no evidence that higher social dominance orientedindividuals demonstrated less favorable attitudes in either the control or national identityconditions. However, on these more blatant measures, the attempt to induce a common

ARTICLE IN PRESSV.M. Esses et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 653–669666

national ingroup that included immigrants seemed to backfire so that higher socialdominance oriented individuals actually expressed less favorable attitudes. On the measureof subtle prejudice, higher social dominance oriented individuals demonstrated moreprejudice, irrespective of condition. Thus, it seems that for German participants, highersocial dominance oriented individuals may suppress the blatant expression of their biases,unless their national identity is threatened by attempts to promote the inclusion ofimmigrants in the national group. These biases are revealed on more subtle measures, sothat they are evident across conditions.

4.1. Implications

At a theoretical level, these findings suggest that, consistent with the work of severalother researchers (e.g., Hewstone, 1996; Hewstone et al., 2002; Waldzus & Mummendey,2004), there are boundary conditions for successfully improving intergroup attitudesthrough attempts to induce a common ingroup identity. When identity is threatened bythis attempt and negative intergroup comparisons occur, as seemed to be the case forGerman participants in the current research, intergroup attitudes may actually become lessfavorable. Thus, in applying the common ingroup identity model to naturally occurringgroups, it is important to take into account the context in which groups are situated. Forsome groups, a superordinate identity may be welcomed and have positive effects onrelations among previously separate groups. For others, a superordinate identity may beperceived as a threat and result in a backlash against the other groups involved. Thissuggests that the application of this model to improving attitudes must be approached withcaution, so that its positive benefits are reaped, rather than it resulting in heightenedintergroup tension.In terms of attitudes toward immigrants and immigration, this research supports the

view that national identity can have a significant impact on these attitudes. It is indeedpromising that focusing on inclusive perceptions of national identity can have positiveeffects, at least among citizens of nations that acknowledge the importance of immigrantsin their development. It seems, however, that even citizens of these more inclusive countriesmay need periodic reminders of the common ingroup, as suggested by the lack of beneficialeffects of simply making national identity salient for Canadians. Thus, when politicianssuch as former Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Elinor Caplan, remindcitizens of the common national ingroup through such statements as, ‘‘My grandparentswere immigrants, and so were many of yours. Indeed, apart from our aboriginalpopulation, all Canadians are descended from immigrants and refugees’’ (Caplan, 1999),they may be doing what is required to increase support for both immigrants andimmigration.As shown with our German participants, however, attempting to promote favorable

attitudes toward immigrants and immigration among individuals whose national identityis perceived to be threatened by these ‘‘foreigners’’ requires alternative strategies. Changingpeople’s conceptions of national identity is a difficult task. Immigration and citizenshiplaws that place value on immigrants may be a first step in this direction by legislating amore inclusive national identity. Over time, as this form of national identity enters thepublic discourse, citizens may become more open to messages intended to reinforce acommon national identity.

ARTICLE IN PRESSV.M. Esses et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 653–669 667

4.2. Future research directions

Given the importance of national context demonstrated in the current research, it wouldbe useful to replicate this research across a variety of nations. In this way, we may be ableto more clearly pinpoint the factors that determine whether promotion of an inclusivenational identity increases or decreases intergroup harmony. In addition, broadening thedependent measures to include both behavioral and additional attitudinal responses wouldallow us to determine whether the effects demonstrated here are likely to have wide-ranging effects, potentially influencing such outcomes as support for programs and relatedpolicies put into place to assist in the successful integration of immigrants, anddiscrimination against immigrants.

Of course, relations between immigrants and nonimmigrants are not one-sided. Just as itis important to determine how citizens of a nation respond to different conceptions ofnational identity, it is important to examine how these conceptions influence immigrants tothe nation. For example, the degree of inclusiveness of national identity may determinewhether immigrants feel welcome and strive to participate in the larger society, or chooseto remain separate (Bourhis, Moise, Perreault, & Senecal, 1997). Thus, replications of thecurrent research with immigrants, particularly the manipulation of a common nationalingroup, may also prove fruitful.

5. Conclusions

Prejudice toward immigrants is a ubiquitous phenomenon in many western nations, atthe same time that there is a growing realization that immigrants are required to preventpopulation decline and fill labor shortages (Munz, 2004). As a result, strategies forcounteracting anti-immigrant sentiments are in demand. The present research demon-strates the value of promoting a common national ingroup that includes bothnonimmigrants and immigrants, but also suggests that such a strategy cannot be appliedindiscriminately. Rather, as suggested by Dovidio and Esses (2001), we must take intoaccount the historical and contemporary demands within a nation.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. London: Sage.

Auswartiges Amt. (2005). Law on nationality. Retrieved June 10, 2006, from /http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/

diplo/en/WillkommeninD/EinreiseUndAufenthalt/Staatsangehoerigkeitsrecht.htmlSBerry, J. W., Westin, C., Virta, E., Vedder, P., Rooney, R., & Sang, D. (2006). Design of the study: Selecting

societies of settlement and immigrant groups. In J. W. Berry, J. S. Phinney, D. L. Sam, & P. Vedder (Eds.),

Immigrant youth in cultural transition: Acculturation, identity, and adaptation across national contexts

(pp. 15–45). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bourhis, R. Y., Moise, L. C., Perreault, S., & Senecal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive acculturation model:

A social psychological approach. International Journal of Psychology, 32, 369–386.

Branscombe, N. R., Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1999). The context and content of social identity

threat. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content

(pp. 35–58). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Canadian Heritage. (2004). Canadian multiculturalism: An inclusive citizenship. Multiculturalism. Retrieved July

24, 2006, from /http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/multi/inclusive_e.cfmSCaplan, E. (1999). Remarks to the Canadian Club. Retrieved September 18, 1999, from /http://www.cic.gc.ca/

english/press/speech/canclub-e.htmlS

ARTICLE IN PRESSV.M. Esses et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 653–669668

Citizenship and Immigration Canada. (2004). How to become a Canadian citizen. Retrieved June 10, 2006, from

/http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizen/howto-e.htmlSCitrin, J., Reingold, B., & Green, D. P. (1990). American identity and the politics of ethnic change. Journal of

Politics, 52, 1124–1154.

Dovidio, J. F., & Esses, V. M. (2001). Immigrants and immigration: Advancing the psychological perspective.

Journal of Social Issues, 57, 375–387.

Duckitt, J. (2006). Differential effects of right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation on

outgroup attitudes and their mediation by threat from and competitiveness to outgroups. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 684–696.

Duckitt, J., Wagner, C., du Plessis, I., & Birum, I. (2002). The psychological bases of ideology and prejudice:

Testing a dual process model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 75–93.

Esses, V. M., Dovidio, J. F., & Hodson, G. (2002). Public attitudes toward immigration in the United States and

Canada in response to the September 11, 2001 ‘‘Attack on America’’. Analyses of Social Issues and Public

Policy, 2, 69–85.

Esses, V. M., Dovidio, J. F., Jackson, L. M., & Armstrong, T. L. (2001). The immigration dilemma: The role of

perceived group competition, ethnic prejudice, and national identity. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 389–412.

Esses, V. M., Hodson, G., & Dovidio, J. F. (2003). Public attitudes toward immigrants and immigration:

Determinants and policy implications. In C. M. Beach, A. G. Green, & J. G. T. Reitz (Eds.), Canadian

immigration policy for the 21st century (pp. 507–535). Montreal, Canada: McGill-Queen’s Press.

Esses, V. M., Jackson, L. M., & Armstrong, T. L. (1998). Intergroup competition and attitudes toward

immigrants and immigration: An instrumental model of group conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 699–724.

Feagin, J. R. (1997). Old poison in new bottles: The deep roots of modern nativism. In J. F. Perea (Ed.),

Immigrants out! The new nativism and the anti-immigrant impulse in the United States. New York: New York

University Press.

Florack, A., Piontkowski, U., Bohman, A., Balzer, T., & Perzig, S. (2003). Perceived intergroup threat and

attitudes of host community members towards immigrant acculturation. Journal of Social Psychology, 143,

633–648.

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model.

Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

GraXler, B. (2005). First German immigration law takes effect. DW-World.DE, Retrieved June 20, 2006, from

/http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1442681,00.htmlSHewstone, M. (1996). Contact and categorization: Social psychological interventions to change intergroup

relations. In C. N. Macrae, C. Stangor, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Stereotypes and stereotyping (pp. 323–368).

New York: Guilford.

Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual review of psychology, 53, 575–604.

Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1993). Towards a single-process uncertainty-reduction model of social motivation in

groups. In M. A. Hogg, & D. Abrams (Eds.), Group motivation: Social psychological perspectives

(pp. 173–190). Hemel Hempstead, England: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Jaret, C. (1999). Troubled by newcomers: Anti-immigrant attitudes and action during two eras of mass

immigration to the United States. Journal of American Ethnic History, 18(3), 9–39.

Knowles, V. (2000). Forging our legacy: Canadian citizenship and immigration, 1900– 1977. Ottawa: Government

of Canada.

Munz, R. (2004). New German law skirts comprehensive immigration reform. Migration information source.

Retrieved June 19, 2006, from /http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?id=241SOezcan, V (2004). Germany: Immigration in transition. Migration information source. Retrieved June 19, 2006,

from /http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=235SOrganization for International Cooperation and Development. (2006). International migration data. Retrieved

June 20, 2006, from /http://www.oecd.org/document/21/0,2340,en_2825_494553_2515108_1_1_1_1,00.htmlSPettigrew, T. F., & Meertens, R. W. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western Europe. European Journal of

Social Psychology, 25, 57–75.

Pratto, F. (1999). The puzzle of continuing group inequality: Piecing together psychological, social, and cultural

forces in social dominance theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 31

(pp. 191–263). San Diego: Academic Press.

Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality

variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763.

ARTICLE IN PRESSV.M. Esses et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 653–669 669

Ray, B. (2002). Canada: Policy legacies, new directions, and future challenges [Migration Information Source].

Retrieved November 5, 2005 from /http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=20SRoccato, M., & Ricolfi, L. (2005). On the correlation between right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance

orientation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27, 187–200.

Rubin, M., & Hewstone, M. (1998). Social identity theory’s self-esteem hypothesis: A review and some

suggestions for clarification. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 40–62.

Salancik, G. R., & Conway, M. (1975). Attitude inference from salient and relevant cognitive content about

behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 829–840.

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression.

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Statistics Canada. (2003). Canada’s ethnocultural portrait: The changing mosaic. Retrieved June 10, 2006, from

/http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/analytic/companion/etoimm/canada.cfm#proportion_

foreign_born_highestSStatistisches Bundesamt. (2005). Auslandische Bevolkerung. Retrieved November 18, 2005, from /http://

www.statistik-portal.de/Statistik-Portal/de_jb01_jahrtab2.aspSTajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory in intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel

(Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group:

a self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwood.

Verkuyten, M., & Hagendoorn, L. (1998). Prejudice and self-categorization: The variable role of authoritarianism

and in-group stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 99–110.

Waldzus, S., & Mummendey, A. (2004). Inclusion in a superordinate category, in-group prototypicality, and

attitudes toward out-groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 466–477.

Wenzel, M., Mummendey, A., Weber, U., & Waldzus, S. (2003). The ingroup as pars pro toto: Projection from

the ingroup onto the inclusive category as a precursor to social discrimination. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 29, 461–473.

Zick, A., Wagner, U., van Dick, R., & Petzel, T. (2001). Acculturation and prejudice in Germany: Majority and

minority perspectives. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 541–557.