This study examines the longitudinal interplay between individuals’ perceptions of two types of intergroup threats—realistic and symbolic—and their feelings of closeness toward Ukrainian war refugees, using a three-wave design and a random intercept cross-lagged panel model. By disentangling within-person dynamics from between-person effects, the findings reveal that stronger-than-usual feelings of closeness predicted reduced perceptions of both realistic and symbolic threats over time. Conversely, heightened perceptions of realistic threat significantly undermine feelings of closeness, whereas symbolic threat demonstrates no substantial influence on subsequent closeness. These results underscore the centrality of realistic threats, reflecting concerns such as economic competition and resource allocation strains, in shaping intergroup attitudes in the studied context. By distinguishing between within- and between-person variances, and adopting a longitudinal framework, this study provides novel insights into the mechanisms underlying intergroup relations, offering a robust empirical contribution to the field.
AbramsD.Van de VyverJ.HoustonD. M.VasiljevicM. (2017). Does terror defeat contact? Intergroup contact and prejudice toward Muslims before and after the London bombings. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 23(3), 260–268.
2.
AjanaB.ConnellH.LiddleT. (2024). “It Could Have Been Us”: Media frames and the coverage of Ukrainian, Afghan and Syrian refugee crises. SN Social Sciences, 4(7), 135.
3.
BerscheidE.SnyderM.OmotoA. M. (1989). The relationship closeness inventory: Assessing the closeness of interpersonal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 792–807.
4.
BogardusE. S. (1927). Race friendliness and social distance. Journal of Applied Sociology, 11, 272–287.
5.
BogardusE. S. (1967). Measuring social distances. In FishbeinM. (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory and measurement (pp. 71–76). Wiley.
6.
BracegirdleC.ReimerN. K.van ZalkM.HewstoneM.WölferR. (2022). Disentangling contact and socialization effects on outgroup attitudes in diverse friendship networks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(1), 1–15.
7.
BranscombeN. R.EllemersN.SpearsR.DoosjeB. (1999). The context and content of social identity threat. In EllemersN.SpearsR.DoosjeB., (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 35–58). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science.
8.
CanettiD.SniderK. L.PedersenA.HallB. J. (2016). Threatened or threatening? How ideology shapes asylum seekers’ immigration policy attitudes in Israel and Australia. Journal of Refugee Studies, 29(4), 583–606. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/few022
9.
CartwrightN.HardieJ. (2012). Evidence-based policy: A practical guide to doing it better. Oxford University Press.
10.
CowlingM. M.AndersonJ. R.FergusonR. (2019). Prejudice-relevant correlates of attitudes towards refugees: A meta-analysis. Journal of Refugee Studies, 32(3), 502–524.
11.
CraigM. A.RichesonJ. A. (2014). On the precipice of a “majority-minority” America: Perceived status threat from the racial demographic shift affects White Americans’ political ideology. Psychological Science, 25(6), 1189–1197.
12.
De ConinckD. (2023). The refugee paradox during wartime in Europe: How Ukrainian and Afghan refugees are (not) alike. International Migration Review, 57(2), 578–586.
13.
DovidioJ. F.GaertnerS. L. (1999). Reducing prejudice: Combating intergroup biases. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(4), 101–105.
14.
DrewskiD.GerhardsJ. (2024). Why do states discriminate between refugee groups? Understanding how Syrian and Ukrainian refugees were framed in Germany and Poland. American Journal of Cultural Sociology, 13(2), 271–297.
15.
DuckittJ.SibleyC. G. (2010). Right–wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation differentially moderate intergroup effects on prejudice. European Journal of Personality, 24(7), 583–601.
16.
DuriezB.MeeusJ.VansteenkisteM. (2012). Why are some people more susceptible to ingroup threat than others? The importance of a relative extrinsic to intrinsic value orientation. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(2), 164–172.
17.
DuszczykM.KaczmarczykP. (2022) The war in Ukraine and migration to Poland: Outlook and challenges. Intereconomics, 57(3), 164–170.
18.
EssesV. M.HamiltonL. K.GaucherD. (2017). The global refugee crisis: Empirical evidence and policy implications for improving public attitudes and facilitating refugee resettlement. Social Issues and Policy Review, 11(1), 78–123.
19.
GorodzeiskyA.SemyonovM. (2019). Unwelcome immigrants: Sources of opposition to different immigrant groups among Europeans. Frontiers in Sociology, 4, 24.
GreenE. G.VisintinE. P.SarrasinO.HewstoneM. (2020). When integration policies shape the impact of intergroup contact on threat perceptions: A multilevel study across 20 European countries. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 46(3), 631–648.
22.
GreitemeyerT. (2011). Effects of prosocial media on social behavior: When and why does media exposure affect helping and aggression?Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(4), 251–255.
23.
HamakerE. L. (2023). The within-between dispute in cross-lagged panel research and how to move forward. Psychological Methods. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000600
24.
HamakerE. L.KuiperR. M.GrasmanR. P. P. P. (2015). A critique of the cross-lagged panel model. Psychological Methods, 20(1), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038889
25.
HitlanR. T.CarrilloK.ZárateM. A.AikmanS. N. (2007). Attitudes toward immigrant groups and the September 11 terrorist attacks. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 13(2), 135.
26.
HodsonG.MeleadyR. (2024). Replicating and extending Sengupta et al. (2023): Contact predicts no within-person longitudinal outgroup-bias change. American Psychologist, 79(3), 451.
27.
JamiesonL. (1998). Intimacy: Personal relationships in modern societies Polity Press, Cambridge.
28.
KnapikW.LutyL.ZiołoM.Odlanicka-PoczobuttM. (2024). Migrants from Ukraine in the Polish labour market as perceived by Poles from rural areas and towns. PLoS One, 19(9), e0306895.
29.
KossowskaM.ChanH. W.HongY. Y.SzumowskaE. (2025). Longitudinal effects of helping war refugees on intergroup threat and fear of war: The role of perceived helping functionality. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 28(3), 648–672.
30.
KossowskaM.Perek-BiałasJ.BlukaczM.SzwedP.SzumowskaE.Czernatowicz-KukuczkaA. (2023). Mass mobilizations for helping war refugees: The role of fear, closeness, and norms. Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology, 5, 100153.
31.
KossowskaM.SzwedP.SzumowskaE.Perek-BiałasJ.Czernatowicz-KukuczkaA. (2023). The role of fear, closeness, and norms in shaping help towards war refugees. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 1465.
32.
LandmannH.GaschlerR.RohmannA. (2019). What is threatening about refugees? Identifying different types of threat and their association with emotional responses and attitudes towards refugee migration. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(7), 1401–1420.
33.
LucasR. E. (2023). Why the cross-lagged panel model is almost never the right choice. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 6(1), 25152459231158378.
34.
LutterbachS.BeelmannA. (2020). Positive and negative intergroup contact and shared reality: Contact effects among host society and refugees. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(1), 143–159.
35.
MarksM.R.FloydK. (1996). Meanings for closeness and intimacy in friendship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 85–107.
36.
MartínezC. A.van ProoijenJ. W.Van LangeP. A. (2022). A threat-based hate model: How symbolic and realistic threats underlie hate and aggression. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 103, 104393.
McConahayJ. B.HoughJ.Jr. (1976). Symbolic racism. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 23–45.
39.
McCorkleW.ParvenS. (2024). Poland and the “Paradox” of immigration: Implications for educators and advocates. Migration and Development, 13(2), 199–219.
40.
MiaoQ.SchwarzS.SchwarzG. (2021). Responding to COVID-19: Community volunteerism and coproduction in China. World Development, 137, Article 105128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.world-dev.2020.105128
41.
MorrisonK. R.YbarraO. (2008). The effects of realistic threat and group identification on social dominance orientation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(1), 156–163.
42.
MulderJ. D.HamakerE. L. (2021). Three extensions of the random intercept crosslagged panel model. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 28(4), 638–648. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2020.1784738
43.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2015). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.).
44.
OrthU.ClarkD. A.DonnellanM. B.RobinsR. W. (2021). Testing prospective effects in longitudinal research: Comparing seven competing cross-lagged models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(4), 1013–1034.
45.
OrthU.MeierL. L.BühlerJ. L.DappL. C.KraussS.MesserliD.RobinsR. W. (2024). Effect size guidelines for cross-lagged effects. Psychological Methods, 29(2), 421–433.
46.
RiosK.SosaN.OsbornH. (2018). An experimental approach to intergroup threat theory: Manipulations, moderators, and consequences of realistic vs. symbolic threat. European Review of Social Psychology, 29(1), 212–255.
47.
SchmuckD.MatthesJ. (2017). Effects of economic and symbolic threat appeals in right-wing populist advertising on anti-immigrant attitudes: The impact of textual and visual appeals. Political Communication, 34(4), 607–626.
48.
SearsD. O.HenryP. J. (2003). The origins of symbolic racism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 259.
49.
SenguptaN. K.ReimerN. K.SibleyC. G.BarlowF. K. (2023). Does intergroup contact foster solidarity with the disadvantaged? A longitudinal analysis across seven years. American Psychologist. Advance Online Publication. https://dx.soi.org/10.1037/amp0001079
50.
SherifM.HarveyO. J.WhiteB. J.HoodW. R.SherifC. W. (1961). Intergroup cooperation and competition: The Robbers Cave experiment. University Book Exchange.
51.
StephanW. G.BonieckiK. A.YbarraO.BettencourtA.ErvinK. S.JacksonL. A.McNattP. S.RenfroC. L. (2002). The role of threats in the racial attitudes of blacks and whites. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(9), 1242–1254.
52.
StephanW. G.RenfroC. L.EssesV. M.StephanC. W.MartinT. (2005). The effects of feeling threatened on attitudes toward immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(1), 1–19.
53.
StephanW. G.StephanC. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In OskampS. (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 23–45). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
54.
StephanW. G.YbarraO.RiosK. (2015). Intergroup threat theory. In NelsonT. D. (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (2nd ed., pp. 255–278). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
55.
UenalF. (2016). Disentangling Islamophobia: The differential effects of symbolic, realistic, and terroristic threat perceptions as mediators between social dominance orientation and Islamophobia. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 4(1), 66–90.
UsamiS. (2021). On the differences between general cross-lagged panel model and random-intercepcross-lagged panel model: Interpretation of cross-lagged parameters and model choice. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 28(3), 331–344.
58.
Velasco GonzálezK.VerkuytenM.WeesieJ.PoppeE. (2008), Prejudice towards Muslims in The Netherlands: Testing integrated threat theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 667–685.
59.
VezzaliL.CadamuroA.VersariA.GiovanniniD.TrifilettiE. (2015). Feeling like a group after a natural disaster: Common ingroup identity and relations with outgroup victims among majority and minority young children. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54(3), 519–538.
60.
WiepkingP.BreezeB. (2012). Feeling poor, acting stingy: The effect of money perceptions on charitable giving. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 17(1), 13–24.
61.
World Medical Organization. (1996). Declaration of Helsinki. British Medical Journal, 313, 1448–1449.
62.
ZhangQ. (2015). Perceived intergroup stereotypes, threats, and emotions toward Asian Americans. Howard Journal of Communications, 26(2), 115–131.
63.
ZyphurM. J.AllisonP. D.TayL.VoelkleM. C.PreacherK. J.ZhangZ.HamakerE. L.ShamsollahiA.PieridesD. C.KovalP.DienerE. (2019). From data to causes I: Building a general cross-lagged panel model (GCLM). Organizational Research Methods, 23(4), 651–687. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428119847278
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
