Complementing well-established antecedents of anti-migrant opinion (e.g., threat), we investigated how system-sanctioned ideologies—that is, the collection of beliefs and values espoused by the government in power—are linked with migrant stereotypes. Using Canada as a case study, across three waves of national survey data (N = 1,080), we found that system-sanctioned pro-migrant ideologies corresponded with (relatively) more positive migrant stereotype content (i.e., increases in perceived warmth and competence). Moreover, controlling for other political ideologies, increases in migrant stereotype positivity were linked to people’s motivation to justify their sociopolitical systems, suggesting that system-sanctioned ideologies may be especially likely to influence the positivity of migrant stereotypes when people are motivated to justify their sociopolitical systems.
BanfieldJ. C.KayA. C.CutrightK. M.WuE. C.FitzsimonsG. J. (2011). A person by situation account of motivated system defense. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 212–219. doi:10.1177/1948550610386809
BonnotV.Krauth-GruberS. (2016). System-justifying behaviors: When feeling dependent on a system triggers gender stereotype-consistent academic performance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 776–782. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2201
6.
CalogeroR. M.JostJ. T. (2011). Self-subjugation among women: Exposure to sexist ideology, self-objectification, and the protective function of the need to avoid closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 211–228. doi:10.1037/a0021864
CialdiniR. B.KallgrenC. A.RenoR. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 201–234. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60330-5
10.
CichockaA.WiniewskiM.BilewiczM.BukowskiM.JostJ. T. (2015). Complementary stereotyping of ethnic minorities predicts system justification in Poland. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 18, 788–800. doi:10.1177/1368430214566891
CuddyA. J. C.FiskeS. T.GlickP. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 40, pp. 61–137). New York, NY: Elsevier.
13.
CutrightK. M.WuE. C.BanfieldJ. C.KayA. C.FitzsimonsG. J. (2011). When your world must be defended: Choosing products to justify the system. Journal of Consumer Research, 38, 62–77. doi:10.1086/658469
DuckittJ.SibleyC. G. (2007). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and the dimensions of generalized prejudice. European Journal of Personality, 21, 113–130. doi:10.1177/1088868308319226
16.
DuckittJ.SibleyC. G. (2010). Intergroup and individual difference determinants of prejudice: Testing a differential moderation hypothesis. European Journal of Personality, 24, 583–601. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00672.x
17.
EidelmanS.CrandallC. S. (2012). Bias in favor of the status quo. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6, 270–281. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00427.x
18.
EidelmanS.CrandallC. S.PattershallJ. (2009). The existence bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 765–775. doi:10.1037/a0017058
19.
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, 78–123. doi:10.1111/sipr.12028
20.
EssesV. M.HodsonG.DovidioJ. F. (2003). Public attitudes toward immigrants and immigration: Determinants and policy implications. In BeachC. M.GreenA. G.ReitzJ. G. (Eds.), Canadian immigration policy for the 21st century (pp. 507–535). Montreal, Canada: McGill Queen’s Press.
21.
EssesV. M.JacksonL. M. (2008). Applying the unified instrumental model of group conflict to understanding ethnic conflict and violence: The case of Sudan. In EssesV. M.VernonR. A. (Eds.), Explaining the breakdown of ethnic relations: Why neighbors kill (pp. 223–243). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
22.
EssesV. M.JacksonL. M.DovidioJ. F.HodsonG. (2005). Instrumental relations among groups: Group competition, conflict, and prejudice. In DovidioJ. F.GlickP.RudmanL. A. (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport (pp. 227–243). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
23.
EssesV. M.VeenvlietS.MedianuS. (2011). The dehumanization of refugees: Determinants and consequences. In WileyS.PhilogeneG.RevensonT. A. (Eds.), Social categories in everyday experience (pp. 133–150). Washington, DC: APA Books.
24.
FaselN.GreenE. G. T.SarrasinO. (2013). Facing cultural diversity: Anti-immigrant attitudes in Europe. European Psychologist, 253–262. doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000157
25.
FeyginaI.JostJ. T.GoldsmithR. E. (2010). System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of “system-sanctioned change.”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 326–338. doi:10.1177/0146167209351435
26.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J.GlickP.XuJ. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902.
27.
FussellE. (2014). Warmth of the welcome: Attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 479–498. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043325
28.
GaucherD.JostJ. T. (2011). Difficulties awakening the sense of injustice and overcoming oppression: On the soporific effects of system justification. In ColemanP. (Ed.), Conflict, interdependence, and justice: The intellectual legacy of Morton Deutsch (pp. 227–246). New York, NY: Springer.
29.
GaucherD.JostJ. T. (2014). Why does the “mental shotgun” fire system-justifying bullets?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37, 489. doi:10.1017/S0140525X13003725
HaddockG.ZannaM. P.EssesV. M. (1993). Assessing the structure of prejudicial attitudes: The case of attitudes toward homosexuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1105–1118.
33.
HamiltonL. K.MedianuS.EssesV. M. (2013). Toward an understanding of immigration as a defining feature of the 21st century. In de ZavalaA. G.CichockaA. (Eds.), Social psychology of social problems (pp. 82–111). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
34.
HennesE. P.NamH. H.SternC.JostJ. T. (2012). Not all ideologies are created equal: Epistemic, existential, and relational needs predict system-justifying attitudes. Social Cognition, 30, 669–688. doi:10.1521/soco.2012.30.6.669
JostJ. T.BanajiM. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1–27.
37.
JostJ. T.BanajiM. R.NosekB. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881–919.
38.
JostJ. T.HunyadyO. (2002). The psychology of system justification and the palliative function of ideology. European Review of Social Psychology, 13, 111–153. doi:10.1080/10463280240000046
39.
JostJ. T.KayA. C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 498–509. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.498
40.
JostJ. T.PelhamB. W.CarvalloM. R. (2002). Non-conscious forms of system justification: Implicit and behavioral preferences for higher status groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 586–602. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00505-X
41.
JostJ. T.PelhamB. W.SheldonO.SullivanB. N. (2003). Social inequality and the reduction of ideological dissonance on behalf of the system: Evidence of enhanced system justification among the disadvantaged. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 13–36. doi:10.1002/ejsp.127
42.
KayA. C.CzaplińskiS.JostJ. T. (2009). Left-right ideological differences in system justification following exposure to complementary versus noncomplementary stereotype exemplars. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 290–298. doi:10.1002/ejsp.500
43.
KayA. C.FriesenJ. P. (2011). On social stability and social change: Understanding when system justification does and does not occur. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 360–364. doi:10.1177/0963721411422059
44.
KayA. C.GaucherD.NapierJ. L.CallanM. J.LaurinK. (2008). God and the government: Testing a compensatory control mechanism for the support of external systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 18–35. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.18
45.
KayA. C.GaucherD.PeachJ. M.FriesenJ. P.LaurinK.ZannaM. P.SpencerS. J. (2009). Inequality, discrimination, and the power of the status quo: Direct evidence for a motivation to see the way things are as the way they should be. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 421–434. doi:10.1037/a0015997
46.
KayA. C.JostJ. T. (2003). Complementary justice effects of “poor but happy” and “poor but honest” stereotype exemplars on system justification and implicit activation of the justice motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 823–837.
47.
KayA. C.JostJ. T.MandisodzaA. N.ShermanS. J.PetrocelliJ. V.JohnsonA. L. (2007). Panglossian ideology in the service of system justification: How complementary stereotypes help us to rationalize inequality. In ZannaM. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 39, pp. 305–358). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
48.
KayA. C.JostJ. T.YoungS. (2005). Victim derogation and victim enhancement as alternate routes to system justification. Psychological Science, 16, 240–246. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00810.x
49.
KayA. C.ZannaM. P. (2009). A contextual analysis of the system justification motive and its societal consequences. In JostJ. T.KayA. C.ThorisdottirH. (Eds.), Social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification (pp. 158–181). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
50.
KrayL. J.HowlandL.RussellA. G.JackmanL. M. (2017). The effects of implicit gender role theories on gender system justification: Fixed beliefs strengthen masculinity to preserve the status quo. Journal of Personality Social Psychology, 112, 98–115. doi:10.1037/pspp0000124
51.
LaurinK.ShepherdS.KayA. C. (2010). Restricted emigration, system inescapability, and defense of the status quo: System-justifying consequences of restricted exit opportunities. Psychological Science, 21, 1075–1082. doi:10.1177/0956797610375448
LouisW. R.DuckJ. M.TerryD. J.SchullerR. A.LalondeR. N. (2006). Why do citizens want to keep refugees out? Threats, fairness and hostile norms in the treatment of asylum seekers. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 53–73. doi:10.1002/ejsp.329
54.
MurrayK. E.MarxD. M. (2013). Attitudes toward unauthorized immigrants, authorized immigrants, and refugees. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 19, 332–341. doi:10.1037/a0030812
55.
NapierJ. L. (2014). The natural order of things: The motivated underpinnings of naturalistic explanations for inequality. In ForgasJ. P.Harmon-JonesE. (Eds.), Motivation and its regulation: The control within (pp. 299–311). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
PehrsonS.BrownR.ZagefkaH. (2009). When does national identification lead to the rejection of immigrants? Cross-sectional and longitudinal evidence for the role of essentialist in-group definitions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 61–76. doi:10.1348/014466608X288827
59.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 922–934. doi:10.1002/ejsp.504
PrattoF.SidaniusJ.StallworthL. M.MalleB. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741
62.
QuinnD. M.CrockerJ. (1999). When ideology hurts: Effects of feeling fat and the Protestant ethic on the psychological well-being of women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 402–414. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.2.402
63.
ShepherdS.ChartrandT. L.FitzsimonsG. J. (2015). When brands reflect our ideal world: The values and brand preferences of consumers who support versus reject society’s dominant ideology. Journal of Consumer Research, 42, 76–92. doi:10.1093/jcr/ucv005
64.
ShepherdS.KayA. C. (2012). On the perpetuation of ignorance: System dependence, system justification, and the motivated avoidance of sociopolitical information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 264–280. doi:10.1037/a0026272
65.
SibleyC. G. (2013). Social dominance and representations of the national prototype: The exclusionary emphasis hypothesis of national character. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37, 212–224. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2012.12.001
66.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
67.
SlovicP. (2007). If I look at the mass I will never act: Psychic numbing and genocide. Judgment and Decision Making, 2, 79–95. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-8647-1_3
68.
ThomsenL.GreenE. G.SidaniusJ. (2008). We will hunt them down: How social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism fuel ethnic persecution of immigrants in fundamentally different ways. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1455–1464. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.06.011
69.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (2016). Global trends: Forced displacement in 2015. Retrieved fromhttp://www.unhcr.org/576408cd7.pdf
70.
VerkuytenM. (2009). Support for multiculturalism and minority rights: The role of national identification and out-group threat. Social Justice Research, 22, 31–52. doi:10.1007/s11211-008-0087-7
71.
YeungA. W. Y.KayA. C.PeachJ. M. (2014). Anti-feminist backlash: The role of system justification in the rejection of feminism. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17, 474–484. doi:10.1177/1368430213514121
72.
ZárateM. A.ShawM.MarquezJ. A.BiagasD. (2012). Cultural inertia: The effects of cultural change on intergroup relations and the self-concept. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 634–645. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.014
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.
