Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

In the context of growing international migration, it is crucial to understand factors that might alleviate or amplify threat perceptions by outgroups. Hereby, the role of subjective societal status (SSS), religiosity, Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) are not fully understood. In a large online survey (N = 1257), we investigated the joint and interactive effects of RWA, SDO, SSS, and religiosity on German residents’ threat perceptions by Middle Eastern immigrants. Higher RWA and SDO, and lower SSS, predicted both symbolic and realistic threat, even after controlling for income, education, age, and gender. Furthermore, higher SSS buffered the effect of RWA and SDO for realistic threat, while religiosity was not related to threat perceptions and did not moderate RWA or SDO threat associations. We discuss methodological limitations and implications of our findings for the understanding of societal conflict.

Keywords

right-wing authoritarianism social dominance orientation subjective societal status religiosity threat perception Middle Eastern immigrants

Feeling threatened by immigrants is a widespread phenomenon that has received particular attention in recent years in the context of global mass migration (Esses et al., 2017; Hellmann et al., 2022; Landmann et al., 2019). Understanding predictors of threat perceptions is crucial, because threat is associated with prejudice and discriminating behavior towards members of ethnic outgroups (Esses et al., 1998; Stephan et al., 1999), far-right political attitudes and action (Duckitt & Fisher, 2003), political distrust (Schlipphak, 2024), and endorsement of restrictive immigration policies (Canetti et al., 2016). The context of Germany provides an interesting field to study perceived threat from immigrants, because Germany has seen a steadily growing number of immigrants in recent years (McAuliffe & Khadria, 2020). Hence, a better understanding of the factors driving perceived threat by immigrants in Germany promises valuable insights that may contribute to the reduction of intergroup conflicts in general.

The perception of immigrants in Germany and Europe shows significant individual differences, for instance, when asked to evaluate immigrants in terms of asylum claim decisions or likability (e.g., Bansak et al., 2016; Stecker et al., 2021). Particularly, Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) were identified as relevant ideological determinants for individual reactions to immigrants, such as feeling threatened (for a meta-analysis see Sibley & Duckitt, 2008). Less is known about subjective societal status (SSS) and religiosity as predictors of threat. Both factors are particularly important in the context of perceived threat from immigrants because they can be either conceptualized as a buffer against or an amplifier of threat. Following the buffer perspective, SSS as well as religiosity can work as a source of personal esteem, meaning and belonging, while the amplification perspective implies that both can work in the sense of demarcation and distinction from others and therefore as a source of identity-based devaluation of minoritized outgroups.

The present study provides a first exploration on the joint and interactive effects of RWA, SDO, SSS, and religiosity on perceived threat from immigrants.

Perceived threat by immigrants

In accordance with Intergroup Threat Theory (ITT; Stephan & Stephan, 2017), which informs about potential threat and angst reaction in intergroup settings, we focus on the two main categories of perceived threat, namely, symbolic and realistic threats. Nevertheless, we acknowledge more recent identifications of other types of threat from immigrants (e.g., Hellmann et al., 2022; Landmann et al., 2019). Symbolic threats refer to perceived harm to one’s values, beliefs, and worldviews, whereas realistic threats refer to more tangible concerns, such as one’s physical or economic well-being (Stephan & Stephan, 2017). Previous research has repeatedly shown that both types of threat are reliable predictors of prejudice and discriminating behavior against immigrants (e.g., Duckitt & Fisher, 2003; Esses et al., 1998). Therefore, understanding the determinants of symbolic and realistic threat likely helps to derive effective means to attenuate threat as a proxy of prejudice and discrimination towards migrants and thus foster positive intergroup relations.

RWA, SDO, and threat perceptions

A large body of research shows that RWA and SDO reliably predict threat perceptions by immigrants (Duckitt & Sibley, 2017). RWA describes the tendency to be submissive to authorities, adhere to traditions, and endorse sanctions to those violating established norms or the social order, whereas SDO represents the preference for a hierarchical social order in which one’s ingroup dominates the outgroups (Duckitt & Fisher, 2003). The dual process model of ideology (Duckitt & Sibley, 2017) describes the motivations underlying RWA and SDO: While RWA is characterized by dangerous world beliefs, SDO is characterized by a competitive-jungle worldview. Individuals with higher RWA tend to see the world “as dangerous and threatening (vs. safe and secure)”, while those higher in SDO rather see it as “competitive and cut-throat (vs. cooperative and characterized by mutually beneficial exchange)” (Perry et al., 2013, pp. 14-16).

We wanted to examine if previously established associations between RWA and SDO with threat perceptions can be replicated for German citizens towards Middle Eastern immigrants in Germany. Hereby, higher authoritarianism may be associated with perceiving more threat to social cohesion and security by Middle Eastern immigrants in terms of symbolic (e.g., Islam as a potential danger to an existing predominantly Christian moral order) and realistic threats (e.g., Middle Eastern individuals stereotyped as traumatized or a potential source of physical threat; see Saleem & Anderson, 2013). Regarding social dominance orientation, immigrants may activate competitive perceptions in both symbolic terms (e.g., through perceived competing value systems) and realistic terms (e.g., through perceived competition for resources). Therefore, we expected RWA and SDO to predict both types of threat.

Subjective societal status and threat perception

Research on the role of societal status for negatives perception of minorities has focused on socio-economic status (SES) as a more objective measure, including one’s income, education, and occupation (e.g., Carvacho et al., 2013). Less is known about the role of subjective societal status (SSS), that is, individuals’ perceptions of their own standing within a social hierarchy (Adler et al., 2000) as a more proximate and, thus, potentially more powerful predictor of threat. Two opposing views on the role of SSS for threat perceptions can be distinguished: A “buffer perspective” and an “amplification perspective”, which we aimed to examine exploratorily.

Following Social Identity Theory (SIT; Tajfel & Turner, 1986), SSS can be seen as a potential source for people’s fundamental need for self-esteem and social belonging (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), which they derive largely from belonging to positively evaluated groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Within a buffer perspective, one could therefore assume someone feeling positively distinct and valuable to feel less threatened by others such as immigrants. In line with this argument, Relative Deprivation Theory (Pettigrew et al., 2008) postulates that the sense of not belonging to a particular group can enhance negative perceptions of others. In that sense, perceiving more resources compared to others (higher SSS) might strengthen people’s sense of control, justice, and meaningfulness, which in turn might buffer negative emotions, such as anger and fear. Following this logic, one would expect higher SSS to be associated with less feelings of realistic and symbolic threat by immigrants.

On the other hand, an “amplification perspective” suggests a higher SSS to be associated with stronger threat perceptions. In line with a maintaining approach on social status, a collective angst of losing or falling from the higher status might be a rational for demarcation behavior towards others such as immigrants (Jetten et al., 2021). Following this logic, a high status, wealth or relative gratification might foster negative attitudes towards others (the so-called “Wealth Paradox”, see Piff et al., 2012). A higher SSS, thus, might also be associated with more perceived realistic and symbolic threat by immigrants.

Furthermore, SSS might not only directly affect threat but also moderate RWA and SDO based threat triggers. A lower SSS may indicate more threat triggers, in that the persons (subjectively) live in environments that pose more risks (e.g., due to poorer health care) and are more competitive (e.g., due to higher competition in low-skilled professions). Those threat triggers correspond to underlying tendencies in both RWA (dangerous world beliefs) and SDO (competitive-jungle worldview) and might therefore buffer or amplify the translation of RWA and SDO to feelings of threat by immigrants. Again, the buffer and amplification perspectives on the role of SSS lead to two opposing predictions. According to the buffer perspective, those indicating a higher SSS would face less threat triggers, so that a higher SSS could work as a buffer by impeding the translation of RWA and SDO beliefs into threat perception. This might be true for both symbolic (e.g., different cultural norms) and realistic (e.g., competition for jobs) threat. In contrast, following the amplification perspective, those with a higher SSS should have more to lose in the sense of materialistic values and in the sense of remaining the current societal environment stable and predictable. A higher SSS could therefore be associated with perceiving more potential risks of losing and competition over resources and cultural values, which could amplify the effects of RWA and SDO.

Religiosity and threat perception

General religiosity, in the sense of the importance of religion for everyday life, has been widely discussed as an important factor predicting positive or negative reactions towards foreign groups (see Back et al., 2021; Burch-Brown & Baker, 2016; Hillenbrand, 2020). Religiosity can thereby be particularly important to threat perceptions in intergroup contexts that involve differences in cultural and religious background (see Stecker et al., 2021). This applies to the context of Germany, where the majority of immigrants from the Middle East are of Muslim faith (Brücker et al., 2016), while the majority of Germans identify as Christians or Atheists. Correspondingly, a buffer perspective and an amplification perspective can be outlined as two opposing views on religiosity’s effect on threat perception.

Following a buffer perspective, those with higher religiosity should feel less realistic and symbolic threat by immigrants. Similar to SSS, religiosity can work as a source of esteem and sense of belonging in the sense of SIT (Lockhart et al., 2019; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). More religious individuals could therefore be less susceptible to feeling threat from others as they already feel positively distinct. In line with this, previous research found religiosity to be a facilitator of helping those in need and promote helping strangers (Bennett & Einolf, 2017). In contrast, and following an amplification perspective, religiosity is widely discussed as a source of general or selective intolerance of the religious (Hillenbrand, 2020; Rowatt et al., 2009). Building on the ITT, religiosity could enhance feelings of being different from, or fearful of, “the other”, for instance other religions, which can amplify threat perceptions. For instance, religiosity is connected to negative attitudes towards those perceived to violate religious worldviews (Hillenbrand, 2020) and to amplify ingroup favoritism (Hall et al., 2010). Furthermore, recent studies showed religiosity to be associated with higher threat perceptions towards immigrants (Back et al., 2021; Rowatt & Al-Kire, 2021). For our exploratory analyses, we aimed to test whether religiosity works as a buffer or amplifier of perceiving realistic and symbolic threat by immigrants.

Beyond these direct effects, religiosity might moderate the effects of RWA and SDO on threat perceptions. According to a buffer perspective, a higher religiosity, with its corresponding feelings of belonging and values of prosociality and compassion, could alleviate the translation of dangerous or competitive worldviews underlying RWA and SDO on threat perception. In contrast, within an amplification perspective, higher religiosity could make people more attentive for threats, particularly symbolic threats such as cultural or religious norm deviations, which would result in facing more frequent threat triggers (e.g., others violating religious attitudes). As for SSS, these threat triggers could then amplify the translation of RWA and SDO world-beliefs on threat perception. Correspondingly, religious people were found to be more critical of those dissimilar to themselves (see Brandt & Van Tongeren, 2017), which could trigger RWA and SDO associated world belief and in turn might amplify feeling threatened by immigrants. To the best of our knowledge, the moderation effects outlined above have not been tested. The present study is, thus, the first to explore such interplay of SSS and religiosity with RWA and SDO in the emergence of perceiving threat by immigrants.

The present research

To investigate the joint effects of RWA and SDO, SSS, and religiosity on threat perception by Middle Eastern immigrants, we conducted an online survey study with a broad representation of different age groups and analyzed the data with multiple linear regression.

We investigated the same set of hypotheses (1–2) and exploratory research questions (3–8) for both symbolic threat (a) and realistic threat (b). Corresponding to the dual process model of ideology, we expected a positive relationship between (1a, 1b) RWA and (2a, 2b) SDO, and perceiving realistic as well as symbolic threat by immigrants. Regarding the role of (3a, 3b) SSS and (4a, 4b) religiosity in threat perceptions, we conducted exploratory analyses to test for evidence for a negative association (buffer perspective) or a positive association (amplification perspective). Furthermore, we explored potential moderation effects of RWA by (5a, 5b) SSS and (6a, 6b) religiosity as well as of SDO by (7a, 7b) SSS and (8a, 8b) religiosity when predicting symbolic and realistic threat. Our hypotheses and research questions were not preregistered.

Method

Participants

The present survey study sample consists of two sub-samples. Because the designs and period of administration (2016 and 2017) of the two surveys were almost identical, we combined the two samples to achieve higher power and representativeness regarding sociodemographic measures (see codebooks at https://t1p.de/df4z for an overview of ‘Study 1’ and ‘Study 2’, respectively).

Combined sample

Initially, 1412 participants completed the online survey, of which we excluded 67 participants due non-German citizenship¹ and 88 due to an abnormal² completion duration. The remaining N = 1257 subjects (n = 870 females) were aged between 15 and 81 years (M_age = 43.65, SD_age = 15.81). The sample consisted of 257 students (high school or university), 707 employees and 293 had other job statuses. The majority was Christian (735), followed by atheist (505), and other faith (17; including orthodox religions, Islam and others not further specified). We recruited the participants via social networks (e.g., Facebook or Xing), direct e-mail solicitation, project flyers, and via the platform Psyweb³ (see https://psyweb.uni-muenster.de/), and aimed to reach a large German-speaking sample with a wider age range and more diverse sociodemographic characteristics than standard convenience student samples. Subjects were told that the study investigates face perception and first impressions. We informed potential subjects about participation incentives, which consisted of a voucher lottery and for psychology students a course credit. While not being representative for the whole population, this sample definitely goes beyond usual student samples in regards to age and education heterogeneity. Post-hoc power analysis for two-tailed testing (α = .05) of predictors in multiple linear regression analysis with five predictors yielded a power of 1-β > .99 to obtain statistical significance for a small effect (f² = 0.02; Cohen, 1988).

Procedure

Both online surveys started with welcoming participants and providing information about the participation incentives. After reading the data privacy conditions and study objectives, subjects provided informed consent and proceeded to several self-report measures. At the end, we thanked subjects for their participation and provided them with the opportunity to share their contact details for receiving study incentives.

The studies also included a part where participants were asked to evaluate faces of immigrants and Germans on different personality traits, such as their trustworthiness. By introducing our study as research on first impression and by conducting several control analyses, we reduced demand characteristics as much as possible. Also, the results on relevant personality measures (such as RWA and SDO) and intergroup attitudes (such as threat) are comparable to similar studies. We describe all relevant measures for the present research. A complete overview of all procedures and measures is available at https://t1p.de/df4z.

Measures

Age, income, and education

All three variables were used only in supplementary analyses, as described in the Results section. Scaling can be found in Table 1. Further details on the operationalization can be found in the supplementary materials (https://t1p.de/df4z).

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, Numbers of Observations (n), and Pearson Correlations of Sociodemographic Variables, Right-Wing-Authoritarianism (RWA), Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), Subjective Societal Status (SSS), Religiosity, and Threat Perception.

Variable	M	SD	n	VIF	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Income	3.69	1.81	1045	1.87
2. Education	4.29	0.84	1210	1.11	.13*** [.07, .19]
3. Age	43.65	15.81	1257	1.60	.57*** [.53, .61]	−.03 [−.09, .03]
4. Gender	1.31	0.46	1257	1.12	.27*** [.22, .33]	.03 [−.03, .08]	.18*** [.13, .23]
5. RWA	2.31	0.70	1254	1.35	.02 [−.04, .08]	−.15*** [−.20, −.09]	.04 [−.02, .10]	.07** [.02, .13]
6. SDO	2.48	1.11	1257	1.37	.11*** [.05, .17]	−.05 [−.10, .01]	.14*** [.09, .20]	.15*** [.10, .21]	.46*** [.42, .51]
7. SSS	6.28	1.61	1257	1.26	.38*** [.32, .43]	.23***[.17, .28]	.09** [.03, .14]	.06* [.00, .11]	−.03 [−.08, .03]	−.02 [−.07, .04]
8. Religiosity	1.68	0.90	1257	1.05	−.02 [−.09, .04]	.00 [−.05, .06]	−.01 [−.06, .05]	−.04 [−.10, .01]	.08** [.03, .14]	−.02 [−.08, .03]	.07* [.01, .13]
9. Symbolic threat	2.90	0.73	1257	—	.11*** [.05, .17]	−.10*** [−.16, −.05]	.17*** [.11, .22]	.14*** [.08, .19]	.52*** [.48, .56]	.57*** [.53, .60]	−.12*** [−.17, −.06]	−.03 [−.09, .02]
10. Realistic threat	1.98	0.75	1257	—	.01 [−.05, .07]	−.15*** [−.20, −.09]	.07* [.01, .12]	.07* [.01, .12]	.48*** [.43, .52]	.54*** [.50, .57]	−.14*** [−.20, −.09]	−.01 [−.07, .04]	.67*** [.64, .70]

Note. VIF represents variance inflation factors, which indicate if multicollinearity might be a concern. SSS scales from 1 to 10. Symbolic threat, realistic threat, education, and RWA scale from 1 to 5. SDO and income scale from 1 to 7. Religiosity scale from 1 to 4. Gender indicates 1 = female and 2 = male. Income scales from 1 (x < 500 Euro), 2 (500 Euro ≤ × < 1000 Euro), 3 (1000 Euro ≤ × < 1500 Euro), 4 (1500 Euro ≤ × < 2000 Euro), 5 (2000 Euro ≤ × < 3000 Euro), 6 (3000 Euro ≤ × < 4000 Euro), and 7 (x ≥ 4000 Euro). Education ranges from 1 to 5, corresponding to the following categories: 1 (without school leaving certificate), 2 (lower secondary school leaving certificate), 3 (secondary school leaving certificate), 4 (Abitur, the general qualification for university admission in Germany), and 5 (university degree). Significant correlations (α ≤ .05) are bold. The 95% confidence intervals of the correlation coefficients are presented below each coefficient in square brackets. *indicates p < .05. **indicates p < .01. ***indicates p < .001.

RWA and SDO

To assess RWA, we applied an authoritarianism short scale (KSA-3; Beierlein et al., 2014). All KSA-3 items were scored on a five-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and were aggregated to a single mean score of RWA (α = .84). To assess SDO, we used an eight-item short version (Six et al., 2001). Participants answered the SDO items on a seven-point Likert scale from 1 (very negative) to 7 (very positive). After reverse coding the appropriate items, we aggregated the scores to a single mean score of SDO (α = .85).

Subjective societal status

We assessed SSS with a German version of the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status (Adler et al., 2000). The scale is depicted as a 10-rung social ladder, where 1 represented the lowest and 10 the highest SSS. The instruction asked participants to rank themselves on the ladder, while considering their income, educational level, and current occupation in comparison to all other people of their society. The detailed instruction read: “Think of this ladder as representing where people stand in Germany. At the top of the ladder are the people who are best off – those who have the most money, the most education and the most respected jobs. At the bottom are the people who are the worst off – who have the least money, least education, and the least respected jobs or no job. The higher up you are on this ladder, the closer you are to the people at the very top; the lower you are, the closer you are to the people at the very bottom. Where would you place yourself on this ladder? Please place a large ‘X’ on the rung where you think you stand at this time in your life, relative to other people in Germany”.

Religiosity

For a basic assessment of religiosity, we used a single item referring to the overall importance ascribed to religion (“Religion plays an important role in my daily life”) varying from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree).

Threat perceptions

To measure threat perceptions, we used a translated version of the 15-item survey for symbolic and realistic threat from Stephan et al. (1999). To adapt the items to the context of migration in Germany, we changed the term “Asian immigrants” to “Middle Eastern immigrants”. All threat items were scored on a five-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and aggregated to two mean scores, namely symbolic threat (α = .82) and realistic threat (α = .82).

Transparency, openness, and reproducibility

Both studies are part of a broader project on the interpersonal perception of refugees and the research cluster of Religion and Politics at the University of Münster. While the broader project was preregistered including background, materials and global hypotheses, the hereby presented analyses were not pre-registered. Therefore, we note that all hypotheses are to be labeled as exploratory.

We also note that data of both studies have already been analyzed in multiple Bachelor and Master theses as well as one publication (see Stecker et al., 2021). The data overlap is limited to the use of SDO and RWA, of which the link to threat perception was not part of prior analyses. The sample data and R-code of the present study are publicly available on the Open Science Framework (see https://t1p.de/df4z).

Results

Descriptive statistics

Descriptive statistics and Pearson intercorrelations of sociodemographic variables, RWA, SDO, SSS, religiosity, and threat perception are presented in Table 1. Accordingly, multicollinearity was not a concern and correlations were in line with theoretical expectations and previous empirical findings, which support the notion that all variables are sufficiently distinct.

Concerning our predictors, RWA and SDO are highly correlated, but still clearly represent two distinct constructs. Also, we found that the more participants favored authoritarian ideas and/or social hierarchies, the stronger they perceived symbolic and realistic threats from Middle Eastern immigrants. SSS and religiosity were sufficiently distinct from objective indicators of societal status and SSS was unrelated to RWA and SDO, while religiosity was only weakly positively related to RWA and SSS.

Main regression analyses

We used multiple linear regression in R for our main analyses (R Core Team, 2018). For each dependent variable (i.e., symbolic and realistic threat), we tested the same four sets of predictors: (a) SSS, RWA, and their interaction term, (b) SSS, SDO, and their interaction term, (c) religiosity, RWA, and their interaction term and (d) religiosity, SDO and their interaction term. The specification of the regression models is based on the following consideration: Although a joint analysis of the SSS, religiosity, RWA, and SDO variables would have some advantages in terms of parsimony and model specification, we believe that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. Using the example of RWA and SDO, such an integrated model would allow to explore how much any effects are unique to RWA and SDO, respectively, but at the same time would only reflect effects of residualized variables, which are more difficult to interpret, particularly since RWA and SDO substantially overlap (e.g., Lynam et al., 2006; Miller & Chapman, 2001). Thus, to be able to evaluate effects of RWA and SDO more generally, and their interaction with SSS and religiosity, respectively, we use the four sets of predictors in our main analyses. Additionally, we ran analyses including (1) one integrated model including all predictors for both symbolic and realistic threat as well as (2) analyses with the four predictor sets each including objective control variables, namely income, education, age, and gender (see https://t1p.de/df4z for the results). The control variable analyses (2) did not show any substantial deviation from the main models; so that we report these control analyses in the Supplemental Materials. Regarding the integrated models (1), we indicate in the following section whenever the results differ substantially from our main analyses. The results of the main models are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Predicting Symbolic Threat (Upper Half) and Realistic Threat (Lower Half) by Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA), Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), Subjective Societal Status (SSS), and Religiosity.

	Model 1 (RWA*SSS)			Model 2 (SDO*SSS)			Model 3 (RWA*religiosity)			Model 4 (SDO*religiosity)
Symbolic threat
Variable	ß	SE	CI	ß	SE	CI	ß	SE	CI	ß	SE	CI
Intercept	0.00	0.02	[−0.05; 0.05]	0.00	0.02	[−0.05; 0.05]	0.00	0.02	[−0.05; 0.04]	0.00	0.02	[−0.05; 0.05]
RWA	0.52	0.02	[0.47; 0.56]				0.53	0.02	[0.48; 0.58]
SDO				0.56	0.02	[0.52; 0.61]				0.57	0.02	[0.52; 0.61]
SSS	−0.11	0.02	[−0.15; −0.06]	−0.11	0.02	[−0.15; −0.06]
Religiosity							−0.08	0.02	[−0.12; −0.03]	−0.02	0.02	[−0.06; 0.03]
RWA*SSS	−0.01	0.02	[−0.05; 0.04]
SDO*SSS				−0.02	0.02	[−0.06; 0.02]
RWA*religiosity							0.04	0.03	[−0.01; 0.09]
SDO*religiosity										0.01	0.02	[−0.03; 0.06]
Realistic threat
Intercept	0.00	0.02	[−0.05; 0.04]	0.00	0.02	[−0.05; 0.04]	0.00	0.02	[−0.05; 0.05]	0.00	0.02	[−0.05; 0.05]
RWA	0.47	0.02	[0.43; 0.52]				0.48	0.02	[0.43; 0.53]
SDO				0.54	0.02	[0.49; 0.58]				0.54	0.02	[0.49; 0.58]
SSS	−0.13	0.02	[−0.18; −0.09]	−0.13	0.02	[−0.18; −0.08]
Religiosity							−0.05	0.02	[−0.1; −0.00]	0.00	0.02	[−0.04; 0.05]
RWA*SSS	−0.06	0.02	[−0.11; −0.02]
SDO*SSS				−0.07	0.02	[−0.11; −0.03]
RWA*religiosity							0.02	0.03	[−0.03; 0.07]
SDO*religiosity										0.01	0.02	[−0.04; 0.06]

Note. 1250 degrees of freedom (df) for Models 1 and 2, and 1253 df for Models 3 and 4. ß = standardized regression coefficients. SE = standard error. CI = 95% confidence interval. Significant estimates are bold.

Symbolic threat

In the first model, results showed a significant main effect of RWA (1a), as well as SSS (3a), but no significant interaction effect of RWA and SSS (5a) on symbolic threat (see Figure 1(a)). In the second model, symbolic threat was significantly predicted by both SDO (2a) and SSS, while the interaction effect of SSS and SDO (7a) on symbolic threat was not significant (see Figure 1(b)).

Figure 1.

Joint and interactive effects of RWA, SDO, subjective societal status, and religiosity on perceived symbolic and realistic threat by Middle Eastern immigrants. Note. Slopes of the relation of right-wing-authoritarianism (RWA; left panels) as well as social dominance orientation (SDO; right panels) with symbolic threat (panels A to D) and realistic threat (panels E to H). These relations are moderated by subjective societal status (SSS; blue colored panels) and religiosity (red colored panels and religiosity (red colored panels). The moderator values are −1 and +1 standard deviations⁴ below and above their mean, respectively.

For the third model, RWA was positively associated while religiosity (4a) was negatively associated with symbolic threat. The interaction of religiosity and RWA (6a) was not significant (see Figure 1(c)). While the religiosity main effect remained significant when controlling for sociodemographic variables (i.e., age, gender, sex, and education), it was not present for any models not including RWA. For instance, we calculated a model with religiosity as the only predictor and found no main effect as well (see the supplemental results for details, https://t1p.de/df4z). As RWA and religiosity were intercorrelated, with more religious individuals showing higher levels of RWA, we do not assume a stable main effect of religiosity. The fourth model showed SDO to be positively associated, while religiosity was not associated with symbolic threat. Their interaction (8a) was not significant (see Figure 1(d)).

Realistic threat

To predict realistic threat, we used the same sets of predictors as discussed above. In the first model, realistic threat was significantly predicted by RWA (1b), as well as SSS (3b) and the interaction of RWA and SSS (5b) (see Figure 1(e)). Thus, lower levels of SSS and higher levels of RWA were associated with higher levels of realistic threat. Subsequent simple slope analysis revealed that the effect of RWA on realistic threat was stronger for subjects with lower scores in SSS (−1 SD), ß = .54, p < .001, as opposed to subjects with higher SSS scores (+1 SD), ß = .41, p < .001. Accordingly, the effect of RWA on realistic threat perception was stronger in individuals with low values in SSS. In the second model, results show a significant effect of SDO (2b), as well as SSS, and the interaction of SSS and SDO (7b) on realistic threat (see Figure 1(f)). As in Model 1, lower levels of SSS and higher levels of SDO were related to higher levels of realistic threat. Simple slope analysis showed that the effect of SDO on realistic threat was stronger for people with low scores in SSS (−1 SD), ß = .60, p < .001, compared to participants with high values in SSS (+1 SD), ß = .47, p < .001. Thus, the effect of SDO on realistic threat was stronger in people with low values in SSS.

The third model showed RWA to be positively associated, while religiosity (4b) was negatively associated with realistic threat. The interaction of RWA and religiosity (6b) was not associated with realistic threat (see Figure 1(g)). Again, the religiosity main effect was only found in models including RWA and is therefore interpreted due to their intercorrelation and not as a stable main effect, see the supplemental results for details https://t1p.de/df4z. In the fourth model SDO was positively associated, while religiosity did not predict realistic threat. Their interaction (8b) was not significant (see Figure 1(h)).

Figure 1 summarizes the joint and interactive effects of RWA/SDO, SSS, and religiosity on symbolic/realistic threat.

Discussion

In the present study, we investigated the joint and interactive effects of RWA, SDO, SSS, and religiosity in predicting symbolic and realistic threat by Middle Eastern immigrants in Germany. With respect to RWA and SDO, our results are in line with previous empirical findings and the dual process model of ideology (Sibley & Duckitt, 2016): Both RWA and SDO positively predicted both types of threat. In addition, SSS had a buffer effect on realistic and symbolic threat, which corresponds to RDT (Pettigrew et al., 2008) and SIT (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). That is, across models, higher levels of SSS were associated with lower levels of both symbolic and realistic threat, also after controlling for participants’ gender, age, income and education. In addition, we found a differentiated pattern of moderation effects between RWA, SDO and SSS, whereby SSS amplified the effect of both RWA and SDO only for realistic threat. For religiosity, there was no stable main effect on either type of threat. Religiosity did also not moderate the effects of RWA and SDO on threat. These results support the notion that threat perception is connected to both specific threat-triggering factors (i.e., lower SSS) and higher RWA and SDO in a non-trivial joint function.

Individual differences in RWA, SDO, and threat perceptions

Our study showed that the group of Middle Eastern immigrants is associated with realistic and symbolic threat particularly among German residents with higher RWA and SDO scores (see also Al-Kire et al., 2021; Sibley & Duckitt, 2008). Following the dual process model of ideology (Duckitt & Sibley, 2017), our findings suggest that the group of Middle Eastern immigrants might trigger feelings of symbolic and realistic threat in association with existing beliefs of a dangerous world (RWA) or a competitive-jungle (SDO) among German residents.

The role of subjective societal status

Regarding SSS, we found a lower SSS to predict threat perceptions by Middle Eastern immigrants in Germany, supporting a buffer effect of SSS for threat perceptions. As the effect was consistent even after controlling for education, income, age and gender, SSS shows an importance over and above objective socio-economic criteria (i.e., income and education; see the supplementary materials for details https://t1p.de/df4z). While studies on the association of anti-immigrant attitudes with socio-economic status found mixed evidence (e.g., Inglehart & Norris, 2016; Rees et al., 2019), SSS might prove useful to further explain this link not only for the German context. Our results indicate that people’s subjective perceptions of their own social standing (i.e., SSS) – as opposed to objective measures alone –may explain the fear of losing societal status in people that would not be considered marginalized by objective criteria (see also Jetten et al., 2021). Previous research suggesting higher perceived marginalization and a lower sense of belonging to trigger more threat (e.g., Back et al., 2021; Bollwerk et al., 2022), indeed supports a negative relationship between SSS and threat perceptions, along with the buffer perspective.

Regarding the moderation effects of SSS for RWA and SDO, we found evidence for a buffer perspective only for realistic threat, namely higher levels of SSS to alleviate the effects of RWA and SDO. This remained consistent even after controlling for sociodemographic characteristics. Therefore, lower SSS was especially associated with threat triggers in tangible, realistic terms such as job or housing resource scarcity, which supports the importance of economic and sociotropic threat (Manstead, 2018). Considering the overlap of triggers related to lower-levels of SSS and realistic threat (e.g., subjective income poverty, poor health, or job insecurity) as opposed to less tangible triggers in symbolic threats (e.g., marginalized values, norms, and traditions), helps to understand this pattern. However, it has to be noted that the interaction effects of SSS with RWA and SDO were relatively small, especially compared to the RWA and SDO main effects. Following the buffer perspective, a key conclusion is that feeling threatened by minoritized groups such as immigrants could be mitigated by social programs addressing the causes of perceived marginalization (see also Bollwerk et al., 2022 for a recent measuring approach).

The role of religiosity

Religiosity was not generally associated with symbolic or realistic threat after controlling for socio-demographic effects, which fits with the unclear state of research (e.g., Back et al., 2021; Brandt & Van Tongeren, 2017; Hillenbrand, 2020; Rowatt & Al-Kire, 2021). We did not find evidence for an overall effect of religiosity on threat perception as a main effect of religiosity was only present when partialling out the overlapping variance of RWA and religiosity. Regarding the interaction of religiosity and RWA or SDO, our findings did neither support the amplification nor the buffer perspective. Apparently, the presented sample did not use religiosity as an identity-forming characteristic or as a source of threat triggers. A potential explanation could be a country-specific factor, where religiosity does not seem to play the same identity-defining role in Germany as in other countries (e.g., Back et al., 2021).

Constraints of generality, limitations and future prospects

The present study’s limitations and related prospects for future research mainly concern (1) the small size of the obtained interaction effects, (2) the specific definition of the target group, (3) the focus on cross-sectional self-reported measures and attitudes, and (4) the conceptual width of threat, SSS, and religiosity. Beyond the constraints pointed out below, we have no reason to believe that the results depend on other characteristics of the participants, materials, or context (Simons et al., 2017).

(1) The interaction effects of RWA/SDO with SSS and religiosity on threat perception were not present or very small and only significant with respect to realistic threat. Hence, further evidence through replications with heterogeneous samples is needed. Analyses based on samples with a larger heterogeneity might even result in stronger effect sizes given that a fuller range of the relevant variability (i.e., religiosity and societal status) would be covered. Especially for religiosity, the presented sample is restricted to less religious Christians and Atheists offering a limited insight to more diverse and religious samples. While the results may be an important indicator for societies that are becoming less religious like Germany, more diverse and cross-national samples would be needed to obtain more generalizable results concerning the importance of religiosity. The present data show a temporal proximity of data collection in 2016 and 2017 to the debated refugee movements in 2015.

(2) Furthermore, the focus on Middle Eastern immigrants did not differentiate between target groups regarding status (e.g., high vs. low status) and migration type (e.g., forced vs. voluntary migration; see Echterhoff et al., 2020), which might reveal target characteristics that influence processes of threat perception. Particularly, the variation of religious affiliation of the target group (e.g., Muslim vs. Christian) might play an important role for threat perception in general and specifically in interaction with perceiver’s religiosity (see Back et al., 2021; Stecker et al., 2021). However, as the perception of Middle Eastern groups tend to overlap (Ahmed, 2010; Saleem & Anderson, 2013), the present study offered a first insight into relevant social groups in Germany.

(3) Moreover, experimental designs including behavioral measures (e.g., discriminating behavior against minorities, more or less mundane relevant helping behaviors; e.g., Hellmann et al., 2020) might represent a promising next step to explain real-world consequences of variations in RWA and SDO, as well as SSS and religiosity, while allowing for a more controlled analysis of causal relationships. In addition, repeated within-person state-level measures of RWA, SDO, SSS, and religiosity may enable a deeper understanding of (a) longitudinal interaction effects on an individual level and (b) moderating effects of context factors, such as media reports.

Finally, (4) future research might aim at a more comprehensive coverage of threat perceptions including non-economic aspects of realistic threat such as safety threat (e.g., Landmann et al., 2019) or realistic physical threat (Hellmann et al., 2022). Similarly, the concepts of SSS and religiosity represents a useful starting point for a more comprehensive investigation of perceived societal disadvantage and religious attitudes in relation to threat perception and antagonistic behaviors. For SSS, different conceptualizations of (subjectively) disadvantaged groups exist in the literature (see Bollwerk et al., 2022; Goodhart, 2017). For religiosity, current research suggests its effects on threat perception to vary on measures such as identification, orientation, fundamentalism, spirituality and others, which could help future research to get a clearer picture of religiosity’s influence on RWA and SDO and threat perception (e.g., Al-Kire et al., 2021; Back et al., 2021; Hall et al., 2010; Rowatt & Al-Kire, 2021). Especially, religious fundamentalism is found to be important for threat perception and outgroup devaluation.

Conclusions

Investigating the determinants of perceiving symbolic and realistic threat by immigrants is particularly relevant in times of high global migration movements. The present study underlined for the context of Middle Eastern immigrants in Germany that RWA and SDO are driving threat perceptions among residents. Moreover, we explored SSS and religiosity as potentially important additional predictors and moderators. Results indicate that the perception of one’s own social status as relatively low or high is particularly relevant: It seems to further activate RWA and SDO world beliefs, thereby triggering feelings of realistic threat towards immigrants. Concepts such as SSS might offer a more tangible way to address intergroup conflicts by implementing social programs (e.g., to reduce scarcity of resources or to promote intergroup identity formation). With the help of future research on potential buffers or amplifiers of perceiving threat by immigrants, the presented approach might be fruitfully applied in future research and politics.

Key insights

• Higher SDO, RWA and lower SSS predict more perceived threat.

• Higher SSS buffers the effect of ideology for realistic threat.

• In contrast, religiosity was not linked to threat perception.

Relevance statement

To promote integration of refugees in times of global mass migration, it is important to understand factors underlying threat perceptions. The present paper elucidates the role of host society members’ RWA, SDO, subjective status, and religiosity.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Feeling threatened by Middle Eastern immigrants: The role of RWA, SDO, subjective societal status, and religiosity in Germany

Supplemental Material for Feeling threatened by Middle Eastern immigrants: The role of RWA, SDO, subjective societal status, and religiosity in Germany by Joscha Stecker, Michael Bollwerk, Bernd Schlipphak, Jens Hellmann, Gerald Echerhoff and Mitja D Back in Personality Science

Footnotes

Author note

Not applicable.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Author contributions

Joscha Stecker: Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Methodology; Project administration; Validation; Visualization; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing.

Michael Bollwerk: Conceptualization; Formal analysis; Visualization; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing.

Bernd Schlipphak: Writing – review & editing.

Jens Hellmann: Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing.

Gerald Echerhoff: Writing – review & editing.

Mitja D Back: Conceptualization; Project administration; Resources; Supervision; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a grant from the Cluster of Excellence Religion and Politics and a science synergy grant from the Department of Psychology at the University of Münster.

Correction (March 2025):

This article was updated to correct the affiliations of Bernd Schlipphak, Jens Hellmann and Mitja D Back.

ORCID iD

Not applicable.

Data accessibility statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online. Depending on the article type, these usually include a Transparency Checklist, a Transparent Peer Review File, and optional materials from the authors.

Notes

References

Adler

N. E.

Epel

E. S.

Castellazzo

Ickovics

J. R.

(2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy White women. Health Psychology: Official Journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association, 19(6), 586–592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.19.6.586

Ahmed

A. M.

(2010). Muslim discrimination: Evidence from two lost-letter experiments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(4), 888–898. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00602.x

Al-Kire

R. L.

Pasek

M. H.

Tsang

J.-A.

Leman

Rowatt

W. C.

(2021). Protecting America’s borders: Christian nationalism, threat, and attitudes toward immigrants in the United States. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 25(2), 354–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220978291

Back

M. D.

Echterhoff

Müller

Pollack

Schlipphak

(2021). Of defenders and explorers: An identity conflict over belonging and threat. https://doi.org/10.17879/97049506223

Bansak

Hainmueller

Hangartner

(2016). How economic, humanitarian, and religious concerns shape European attitudes toward asylum seekers. Science, 354(6309), 217–222. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aag2147

Baumeister

R. F.

Leary

M. R.

(1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

Beierlein

Asbrock

Kauff

Schmidt

(2014). Die Kurzskala Autoritarismus (KSA-3): Ein ökonomisches Messinstrument zur Erfassung dreier Subdimensionen autoritärer Einstellungen [Authoritarianism short scale (KSA-3): An economic measure to assess three subdimensions of authoritarian attitudes]. GESIS-Working Papers, 2014/35. https://doi.org/10.6102/zis228

Bennett

M. R.

Einolf

C. J.

(2017). Religion, altruism, and helping strangers: A multilevel analysis of 126 countries. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 56(2), 323–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/jssr.12328

Bollwerk

Schlipphak

Back

M. D.

(2022). Development and validation of the perceived societal marginalization scale. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 38(2), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000651

10.

Brandt

M. J.

Van Tongeren

D. R.

(2017). People both high and low on religious fundamentalism are prejudiced toward dissimilar groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(1), 76–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000076

11.

Brücker

Rother

Schupp

(2016). IAB-BAMF-SOEP-Befragung von Geflüchteten: Überblick und erste Ergebnisse [IAB-BAMF-SOEP-Survey on refugees: Overview and first results]. Politikberatung Kompakt, 116. http://hdl.handle.net/10419/149124.

12.

Burch-Brown

Baker

(2016). Religion and reducing prejudice. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19(6), 784–807. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430216629566

13.

Canetti

Snider

K. L. G.

Pedersen

Hall

B. 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/few012

14.

Carvacho

Zick

Haye

González

Manzi

Kocik

Bertl

(2013). On the relation between social class and prejudice: The roles of education, income, and ideological attitudes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(4), 272–285. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1961

15.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge Academic.

16.

Duckitt

Fisher

(2003). The impact of social threat on worldview and ideological attitudes. Political Psychology, 24(1), 199–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00322

17.

Duckitt

Sibley

C. G.

(2016). Personality, ideological attitudes, and group identity as predictors of political behavior in majority and minority ethnic groups. Political Psychology, 37(1), 109–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12222

18.

Duckitt

Sibley

C. G.

(2017). The dual process motivational model of ideology and prejudice. In Sibley

C. G.

Barlow

F. K.

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the psychology of prejudice (pp. 188–221). Cambridge University Press.

19.

Echterhoff

Hellmann

J. H.

Back

M. D.

Kärtner

Morina

Hertel

(2020). Psychological antecedents of refugee integration (PARI). Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 15(4), 856–879. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619898838

20.

Esses

V. M.

Hamilton

L. K.

Gaucher

(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. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12028

21.

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(4), 699–724. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1998.tb01244.x

22.

French

A.R.

Franz

T.M.

Phelan

L.L.

Blaine

B.E.

(2013). Reducing Muslim/Arab stereotypes through evaluative conditioning. The Journal of Social Psychology, 153(1), 6–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2012.706242

23.

Goodhart

(2017). The road to somewhere: The populist revolt and the future of politics. Hurst & Company.

24.

Hall

D. L.

Matz

D. C.

Wood

(2010). Why don’t we practice what we preach? A meta-analytic review of religious racism. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(1), 126–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309352179

25.

Hellmann

J. H.

Forthmann

Knausenberger

Hellmann

D. F.

Rees

J. H.

Gansel

Back

M. D.

Echterhoff

(2020). Support for refugee integration in West and East Germany: Results from two lost letter studies. Social Psychology, 51(2), 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000397

26.

Hellmann

J. H.

Schlechter

Knausenberger

Bollwerk

Geukes

Back

M. D.

(2022). Measuring perceived realistic physical threat imposed by migrants: Scale development and validation. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 38(4), 332–342. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000668

27.

Hillenbrand

(2020). Religion als Treiber oder Bremse für Bedrohungsgefühle? Eine empirische Analyse der Zusammenhänge zwischen Religion und migrationsbezogenen Bedrohungsgefühlen in Deutschland. Zeitschrift für Religion, Gesellschaft und Politik, 4(1), 45–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41682-020-00057-7

28.

Inglehart

R. F.

Norris

(2016). Trump, Brexit, and the rise of populism: Economic have-nots and cultural backlash. HKS Working Paper No. RWP16-026. Available at. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2818659

29.

Jetten

Mols

Steffens

N. K.

(2021). Prosperous but fearful of falling: The wealth paradox, collective angst, and opposition to immigration. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(5), 766–780. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220944112

30.

Landmann

Gaschler

Rohmann

(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. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2593

31.

Lockhart

Sibley

C. G.

Osborne

(2020). Religion makes—and unmakes—the status quo: Religiosity and spirituality have opposing effects on conservatism via RWA and SDO. Religion, Brain & Behavior, 10(4), 379–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2019.1607540

32.

Lynam

D. R.

Hoyle

R. H.

Newman

J. P.

(2006). The perils of partialling: Cautionary tales from aggression and psychopathy. Assessment, 13(3), 328–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191106290562

33.

Manstead

A. S. R.

(2018). The psychology of social class: How socioeconomic status impacts thought, feelings, and behavior. British Journal of Social Psychology, 57(2), 267–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12251

34.

McAuliffe

Khadria

(2020). World Migration Report 2020 . International Organization for Migration. https://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/wmr_2020.pdf

35.

Miller

G. A.

Chapman

J. P.

(2001). Misunderstanding analysis of covariance. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110(1), 40–48. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-843x.110.1.40

36.

Perry

Sibley

C. G.

Duckitt

(2013). Dangerous and competitive worldviews: A meta-analysis of their associations with social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(1), 116–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.10.004

37.

Pettigrew

T. F.

Christ

Wagner

Meertens

R. W.

van Dick

Zick

(2008). Relative deprivation and intergroup prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 64(2), 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.00567.x

38.

Piff

P. K.

Stancato

D. M.

Côté

Mendoza-Denton

Keltner

(2012). Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(11), 4086–4091. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1118373109

39.

R Core Team . (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at. https://www.R-project.org/

40.

Rees

J. H.

Rees

Y. P. M.

Hellmann

J. H.

Zick

(2019). Climate of hate: Similar correlates of far right electoral support and right-wing hate crimes in Germany. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2328. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02328

41.

Rowatt

W. C.

Al-Kire

R. L.

(2021). Dimensions of religiousness and their connection to racial, ethnic, and atheist prejudices. Current Opinion in Psychology, 40, 86–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.08.022

42.

Rowatt

W. C.

LaBouff

Johnson

Froese

Tsang

J. A.

(2009). Associations among religiousness, social attitudes, and prejudice in a national random sample of American adults. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 1(1), 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014989

43.

Saleem

Anderson

C. A.

(2013). Arabs as terrorists: Effects of stereotypes within violent contexts on attitudes, perceptions, and affect. Psychology of Violence, 3(1), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030038

44.

Schlipphak

(2024). Threat perceptions, blame attribution, and political trust. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties, 34(1), 59–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2021.2001474

45.

Sibley

C. G.

Duckitt

(2008). Personality and prejudice: A meta-analysis and theoretical review. Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 12(3), 248–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308319226

46.

Simons

D. J.

Shoda

Lindsay

D. S.

(2017). Constraints on generality (COG): A proposed addition to all empirical papers. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 12(6), 1123–1128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617708630

47.

Six

Wolfradt

Zick

(2001). Autoritarismus und Soziale Dominanzorientierung als generalisierte Einstellungen. Zeitschrift für Politische Psychologie, 9, 23–40.

48.

Stecker

Bürkner

P. C.

Hellmann

J. H.

Nestler

Back

M. D.

(2021). First impressions of faces of refugees are more strongly influenced by target cues and perceiver attitudes than by sheer group affiliation. Collabra: Psychology, 7(1), 22160. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.22160

49.

Stephan

W. G.

Stephan

C. W.

(2017). Intergroup threat theory. In Kim

Y. Y.

(Ed.), The international encyclopedia of intercultural communication (pp. 1–12). Wiley.

50.

Stephan

W. G.

Ybarra

Bachman

(1999). Prejudice toward immigrants. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(11), 2221–2237. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00107.x

51.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In Worchel

Austin

W. G.

(Eds.), The Nelson-Hall series in psychology. Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7–24). Nelson-Hall.

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.

0.00 MB

0.21 MB

Feeling threatened by Middle Eastern immigrants: The role of RWA,SDO,subjective societal status,and religiosity in Germany

Abstract

Keywords

Perceived threat by immigrants

RWA, SDO, and threat perceptions

Subjective societal status and threat perception

Religiosity and threat perception

The present research

Method

Participants

Combined sample

Procedure

Measures

Age, income, and education

RWA and SDO

Subjective societal status

Religiosity

Threat perceptions

Transparency, openness, and reproducibility

Results

Descriptive statistics

Main regression analyses

Symbolic threat

Realistic threat

Discussion

Individual differences in RWA, SDO, and threat perceptions

The role of subjective societal status

The role of religiosity

Constraints of generality, limitations and future prospects

Conclusions

Key insights

Relevance statement

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Feeling threatened by Middle Eastern immigrants: The role of RWA, SDO, subjective societal status, and religiosity in Germany

Footnotes

Author note

Acknowledgements

Author contributions

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

Correction (March 2025):

ORCID iD

Data accessibility statement

Supplemental material

Notes

References

Supplementary Material