Content uploaded by Islam Borinca
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Islam Borinca on Oct 21, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
J Appl Soc Psychol. 2022;00:1–13. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jasp
|
1© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
1 | INTRODUCTION
In today’s globalized world, immigration seems inevitable, whether
for social, economic, demographic, political, or environmental rea-
sons (Black et al., 2011), resulting in greater diversity in contempo-
rary nation- states (Sides & Citrin, 2007). Because such diversity,
however, tends to provoke adverse reac tions, par ticularly among
conservative quarters of the majority group, factors that may re-
duce interethnic tensions need to be identified (e.g., Thomsen &
Raf iqi, 2019a, 2 019b).
In fact, individuals who endorse a conservative ideology have
demonstrated greater opposition to immigration than their peers
who endorse a liberal ideology (e.g., Chandler & Tsai, 2001; Davidov
& Meuleman, 2012; Rustenbach, 2010; Semyonov et al., 2006; Sides
& Citrin, 2007; Thomsen & Rafiqi, 2019a, 2019b; Wilkes et al., 2008).
The reason why, according to Jost et al. (2003) and Thorisdottir
et al. (2007), is that individuals who endorse a conser vative ideol-
ogy value stability and conformity (i.e., cultural unity) and both ac-
cept and justify inequalities, whereas those who endorse a liberal
ideolog y value diversity, social change, and social equality (see also
Jost et al., 2008). Put differently, an individual with conservative
stances considers that social changes indicate cultural disintegra-
tion, whereas an individual with liberal stances views specific so-
cial changes (e.g., greater ethnic diversity) as valuable progress
(Greven, 2016; Hibbing et al., 2014; Sides & Citrin, 2007; Taber
et al., 2001; Thomsen & Rafiqi, 2019a, 2019b; Zhirkov, 2014).
By extension, political ideology can trigger some individuals
to exclude and dehumanize outgroup members (Cassese, 2019;
Crawford et al., 2013; Markowitz & Slovic, 2020). Indeed, rela-
tive to liberals, conser vatives tend to consider immigrants to be
less evolved and civilized than themselves, and are more inclined
to support aggressive, even inhumane actions against immigrants
and other outgroup members without moral compunction (e.g.,
Ames, 2019; Banton et al., 2020; DeLuca- McLean & Castano, 2009;
Markowitz & Slovic, 2020).
Dehumanization has far- reaching consequences for intergroup
relations (Kteily & Landr y, 2022). Research has shown, for example,
that U.S. residents who scored high for dehumanizing Mexican immi-
grants were more likely to cast them in threatening terms, withhold
sympathy from them, and support measures designed to bar their
entry and deport them, including surveillance, detention, expulsion,
and even erecting a wall between the United States and Mexico.
Received: 22 January 2022
|
Accepted: 5 Feb ruary 2022
DOI : 10.1111/ jasp.1286 4
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Can conservatives who (de)humanize immigrants the most be
able to support them? The power of imagined positive contact
Islam Borinca1 | Pinar Çelik2 | Martin Storme3
1Department of Psychology, University of
Limerick, Limerick, Ireland
2Centre Emile Bernheim, Solvay Brussels
School of Economics and Management,
Université Libre de Bruxelles, B russels,
Belgium
3IESEG School of Management, Univ. Lille,
CNRS, UMR 9221 - LEM - Lille Economie
Managem ent, Lille, France
Correspondence
Islam Borinca, Department of Psycholog y,
University of Limerick, V94 T9PX
Limerick, Ireland.
Email: islam.borinca@ul.ie
Abstract
Despite studies examining political ideology, group dehumanization, and intergroup
contact as predictors of intergroup support and affect, research on their interplay in
shaping such outcomes has been limited. In fact, considering the possibility that con-
servatives might view immigrants in various ways (as more or less human) is important
to understand the impact of interventions (positive imagined contact) on intergroup
relations. The results of two experiments (N = 671) with U.S. citizens in relation to two
outgroups— Muslim immigrants in Experiment 1 and Mexican immigrants in Experiment
2— consistently showed that imagined positive contact condition (vs. control/no con-
tact condition) influenced intergroup support (i.e., in both experiments) and positive
emotions (i.e., in Experiment 2) more for individuals who endorsed a conservative
ideology and scored high for dehumanizing immigrants. Participants’ willingness to
attribute positive emotions to outgroup members ultimately explained the observed
effects. In this research, we discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these
findings for intergroup relations and outgroup dehumanization.
2
|
BO RINCA et A l.
These individuals reacted similarly to Muslim immigrants by, for
example, endorsing the increased surveillance of Muslims, limiting
their entry into the United States, and restricting their religious free-
dom. On top of that, the identified associations held not only for in-
dividuals’ expressed attitudes, but also for their behavior. Individuals
who scored high for dehumanizing Mexican and Muslim immigrants
were more likely to sign petitions against such immigrants that
would enact policies derived from proposals endorsed by former
president Donald Trump during his political campaign (e.g., Kteily &
Bruneau, 2017).
Taken together, prior research indicates— that individuals who
dehumanize immigrants the most, demonstrate less support and
more negative responses toward them, and that such individuals are
more likely to adhere to a conservative ideology instead of a liberal
one (DeLuca- McLean & Castano, 2009; Markowitz & Slovic, 2020).
The question then arises as to whether there are factors that could
mitigate the adverse consequences for intergroup relations (i.e.,
more support and positive emotions toward immigrants) among
people who score high in dehumanization and endorse a conserva-
tive ideology. Even though dehumanization and conservatism are
distinct factors and predict a variety of intergroup outcomes (Kteily
et al., 2016), previous research has insufficiently examined the ef-
fect of relative dehumanization on the ef fects of social interventions
(i.e., positive imagined interaction) as a function of conservative (vs.
liberal) views.
The unique contribution of the current paper is therefore that it
explicitly considers whether relative dehumanization moderates the
effect of positive imagined contact on outgroup support and emo-
tions among people who endorse conservative (vs. liberal) ideology.
1.1 | Imagined positive contact,
dehumanization, and political ideology
Face- to- face contact with out group membe rs may often be to o threat-
ening and/or anxiety- provoking for some individuals (Allport, 1954),
thus limiting opportunities for this type of direct intergroup contact.
As a result, social scholars identified, developed, and tested a bur-
geoning array of different forms of indirect contact. In fact, indi-
rect contact does not occur in a vacuum, but rather within certain
normative settings reflected in legislation, institutions, media, and
political interest (White e al., 2020). One form of indirect contact,
imagined contact (used in our paper), that involves the mental sim-
ulation of a (positive) interaction with outgroup members (Crisp &
Turner, 2009, 2012; White et al., 2020) has been shown to improve
intergroup relations (Crisp & Husnu, 2011; Husnu & Crisp, 2010;
Turner & Crisp, 2010; Vezzali et al., 2013, 2020) even in conflictual
(Bagci et al., 2019; Borinca, Falomir- Pichastor, & Andrighetto, 2020;
Borinca, Falomir- Pichastor, Andrighetto, & Durante, 2021a; Borinca,
Andrighetto, et al., 2021) and high- prejudiced settings (West
et al., 2015).
Scholars have also examined the link bet ween intergroup
contact and group dehumanization in relation to improved
intergroup relations (Brown et al., 2007; Bruneau et al., 2020;
Capozza et al., 2013, 2014, 2017). In multiple studies, positive con-
tact (i.e., direct, extended, imagined, and virtual) was associated with
reductions in the dehumanization of outgroup members (Bruneau
et al., 2020; Capozza et al., 2014, 2017). Other related research
has treated outgroup humanization as a predicting factor, and has
shown that outgroup humanization (i.e., refined, cultured, rational,
and logical) increased willingness for contact with outgroup mem-
bers (Borinca, Falomir- Pichastor, Andrighetto, & Halabi, 2021b)
and that outgroup meta(de)humanization influenced reactions and
understandings of an imagined prosocial intergroup interaction
mediated by positive social emotions and feelings (Borinca, Tropp,
& Ofosu, 2021). Of particular relevance for the present research,
Bruneau et al. (2020) suggested that the degree to which an indi-
vidual initially dehumanizes an outgroup sets the stage for negative,
ambiguous intergroup interactions. Notably, to the extent that indi-
viduals tend to dehumanize outgroup members more strongly than
others, they may react more negatively to adverse or suspicious in-
teractions with outgroup members. Thus, examining how individu-
als, especially those who score high for dehumanizing immigrants,
react to positive, prosocial intergroup interaction (i.e., positive con-
tact) is clearly warranted.
In our research, we investigated how positive intergroup contact
might enhance support for immigrant s and positive emotions toward
them among individuals who dehumanize immigrants the most and
have conservative (vs. liberal) views. We predicted that the positive
effect of imagined contact on support for immigration among con-
servatives would be strongest among those who dehumanize immi-
grants the most. We also explored whether emotions concerning
outgroup members mediate how the interplay between relative de-
humanization and intergroup contact affects support for immigrants
among individuals with conservative (vs. liberal) views.
At first glance, one might think that individuals who endorse the
conservative ideology and who dehumanize immigrants the most
are the least likely to be affected by positive intergroup contact.
Indeed, these individuals are arguably the most opposed toward im-
migrants and reluctant to engage themselves in contact with them.
However, research has indicated that once they experience positive
contact, they change their perception of immigrant s and thus react
more positively (Asbrock et al., 2012; Dhont & Van Hiel, 2009). In
addition, the analysis of political discourses suggests that many indi-
viduals endorsing the conservative ideology oppose immigration for
reasons other than dehumanization, that is, for economic reasons,
arguing, for instance, that the skills of most immigrant workers do
not meet the needs of the host country (Portice & Reicher, 2018).
Thus, a positive contact intervention, as compared to no interven-
tion, may have little impact on conservatives who oppose immigra-
tion for more objective (e.g., economic, no skill, etc.) reasons rather
than human qualities. However, those who dehumanize immigrants
are more likely to be positively impacted by positive contact pre-
cisely because their drive is more affective and less rational. Once
they have established positive contact, they are relatively more
likely to change their perception.
|
3
BORINC A et Al.
Our reasoning follows from prior research that has included
beliefs and values as boundary conditions of the effects of inter-
group contact among individuals who scored high for social dom-
inance orientation (SDO) and right- wing authoritarianism (RWA)
(Turner et al., 2020). For instance, West et al. (2017) demonstrated
that imagined contact increased behavioral intentions and positive
implicit attitudes toward stigmatized outgroups among individuals
who endorsed values most opposed to ethnic diversity. Beyond that,
Asbrock et al. (2013) showed that high individuals who scored high
(vs. low) in RWA showed less negative outgroup emotions and were
more willing to engage in future contact with outgroups after imag-
ining positive contact with them. Similarly, Adesokan et al. (2011)
observed that the association between contact and prejudice pos-
itively improved intergroup relations, especially among individuals
who endorsed values most opposed to ethnic diversity (see also
Firat & Ataca, 2021; Hodson, 2008, 2011; Hodson et al., 2009). In
this context, we reason that it will be mainly conservative individuals
that dehumanize immigrants the most who will be most responsive
to positive imagined intergroup contact (vs. no contact).
To our knowledge, no study thus far has examined how the inter-
play between the dehumanization of immigrants (i.e., outgroup de-
humanization) and postive imagined contact can improve intergroup
relations among individuals who endorse a conservative ideology.
Our research was designed to bridge these gaps and illuminate an
additional route by which the interplay between relative dehuman-
ization and imagined contact can prompt improved intergroup reac-
tions and emotions among individuals with conservative views.
2 | OVERVIEW OF THE EXPERIMENTS
In the present research, we examined whether the relative dehu-
manization of immigrants and imagined contact jointly influence
support for and positive emotions toward immigrants among peo-
ple who endorse a conservative political ideology. We conducted
two experiments with U.S. citizens in which the outgroup was ei-
ther Mexican immigrants (Experiment 1) or Muslim immigrants
(Experiment 2). We focused on those two minority groups given
evidence that U.S. citizens blatantly dehumanize Mexican and
Muslim immigrants and that such dehumanization is positively as-
sociated with adverse reactions, emotions, and less support toward
them (e.g., Kteily et al., 2016; Kteily & Bruneau, 2017; Markowitz &
Slovic, 2020; Torres et al., 2011).
In the experiments, we asked participants to imagine either a
positive interaction with an immigrant— a Mexican immigrant in
Experiment 1 and a Muslim immigrant in Experiment 2— or an out-
door scene, which was the control condition in both experiments.
In both experiments, we measured political ideology and intergroup
dehumanization as individual differences, while the main dependent
variables were suppor t for immigrants (i.e., in both experiments) and
positive emotions (i.e., in Experiment 2).
In both experiments, Hypothesis 1 (H1) predicted that relative
dehumanization moderates the effect of intergroup contact (i.e., an
interaction between relative dehumanization and intergroup con-
tact) on support for immigrants among individuals who endorse a
conservative (vs. liberal) ideology. More specifically, we predicted
a positive ef fect of the imagined contact condition (vs. control/no
contact condition) on support for immigrants, especially among in-
dividuals who endorsed a conservative ideology and scored high on
dehumanizing immigrants. In experiment 2, we expected the same
pattern regarding participants’ emotions toward the outgroup. More
specifically, Hypothesis 2 (H2) predicted a positive effect of the
imagined contact condition (vs. control/no- contact condition) on
positive emotions toward immigrants, especially among individuals
who endorsed a conservative ideology and scored high for dehu-
manizing immigrants.
Finally, in Experiment 2, we used moderated moderated medi-
ation analysis (Hayes, 2018) to explore whether positive emotions
toward the outgroup account for predicted effect s on support for
immigrants. In prior research, individuals’ feelings and emotions
toward outgroups mediated the relationship between conserva-
tism and the animalistic dehumanization of outgroups (Crawford
et al., 2013), as well as explained the link between dehumanization
and attitudes toward immigrants (Utych, 2018). On top of that,
positive social emotions and greater closeness toward members
of the outgroup have explained why highly ideologically negative
participants have demonstrated the strongest reactions to positive
intergroup contact (Borinca, 2021; Hodson, 2011). Accordingly,
Hypothesis 3 (H3) predicted that positive emotions would mediate
the effect of the positive contact (vs. control condition) on suppor t
for immigrants among conservative individuals scoring high for de-
humanizing immigrants.
3 | EXPERIMENT 1
Examining the intergroup relations between U.S. citizens and
Mexican immigrants, Experiment 1 was designed to test H1, which
expected that participants who endorsed a conservative political
ideolog y and scored high for dehumanizing immigrants would show
greater support for immigrants after being exposed to a positive
contact condition (vs. control condition). Thus, we measured politi-
cal orientation and relative dehumanization as individual differences
and experimentally manipulated imagined contact (i.e., positive vs.
control). The main dependent variable was support for immigrants.
3.1 | Method
3.1.1 | Participants and design
We invited 476 U.S. citizens to participate in an online sur vey, all
recruited via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk). For their time, all
participants were compensated with US $1. After inspecting the
data, we discarded data from 144 participants: 53 whose completion
time was too short (<4 min; mean completion time = 8 min), 89 who
4
|
BO RINCA et A l.
missed one of the attention checks, and two who did not provide
consent to use their data. Therefore, the final sample consisted of
332 participants, ranging in age from 20 to 74 years (Mage = 3 9.75 ,
SDage = 12.49) and 147 of whom were women. They all were ran-
domly assigned to one of two experimental conditions: the positive
condition (n = 177) or the control condition (n = 155). A sensitivity
analysis conducted with G*Power (ver. 3.1.9.2; Faul et al., 2009) for
a multiple linear regression model with seven predictors (i.e., three
main effects, three two- way interactions, and a three- way interac-
tion), assuming a Cronbach’s alpha (α) of .05 and power of 0.80, re-
vealed that our final sample size was powered enough to detect an
effect size of f2 = 0.04, which conventionally indicates a small effect
size.
3.1.2 | Procedure
We presented the experiment as a study of how people perceive dif-
ferent social groups. Participants completed a two- part online ques-
tionnaire. The first part asked par ticipants to provide demographic
information (i.e., age and gender) and rate their ideological stances
on social, economic, and political issues as well as to indicate the
extent to which a series of human traits apply to the ingroup (i.e.,
U.S. citizens) and outgroup (i.e., Mexican immigrant s). After ward, the
second part described the scenario (i.e., the experimental manipula-
tion) and our measure of the main dependent variable. Finally, par-
ticipants were fully debriefed, thanked for their participation, and
asked for their consent to use their data.
3.1.3 | Measures and experimental manipulation
Political orientation
Political orientation was measured using a scale comprising three
items (Kteily et al., 2016). Two items assessed the extent to which
participants rated their social and economic views on a continuum
from 1 (very liberal) to 7 (very conservative), whereas the other as-
sessed t heir political pa rty preference, also on a sca le from 1 (strongly
Democrat) to 7 (strongly Republican). We computed an average score
to obtain each participant’s global score for political views; higher
scores indicated a more conservative ideology (α = 0.92; M = 3.83,
SD = 1.85).
Relative dehumanization of immigrants
We also assessed the amount of humanity that participants
attributed to the ingroup (i.e., U.S. citizens) and the outgroup
being studied (i.e., Mexican immigrants). We measured group
(de)humanization according to Kteily et al.’s (2016) adaptation
of Bastian et al.’s (2013) scale, on which participants indicated
the extent to which a series of human traits generally applied
to the outgroup and ingroup: refined, cultured; rational, logical;
backward, primitive (reverse scored [r]); savage, aggressive (r);
lacking in morals (r); barbaric, cold- hearted (r); scientifically or
technologically advanced; capable of self- control; and mature,
responsible (see also Borinca, Falomir- Pichastor, Andrighetto,
& Halabi, 2021b). Participants replied to items on a 7- point
Likert scale (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely so), and the order of
the target group (i.e., ingroup vs. outgroup) and order of items
within the measures were randomized. Scores for the ingroup
(α = 0.85, M = 5.00, SD = 1.01) and the outgroup (α = 0 .87,
M = 4.71, SD = 1.19) were computed by taking the mean of the
corresponding items. Last, we subtracted the score obtained for
the outgroup from the score obtained for the ingroup, which
resulted in a score of the relative dehumanization of outgroup
members (i.e., Mexican immigrants; M = 0.29, SD = 1.55), such
that higher scores indicated a greater degree of dehumanization
(Bruneau & Kteily, 2017).
Positive interaction
Combining procedures used by Borinca, Falomir- Pichastor, and
Andrighetto (2020); Borinca, Falomir- Pichastor, Andrighetto, and
Durante (2021a) and Crisp and Turner (2009), we asked par ticipants
to imagine either a positive interaction with a Mexican immigrant, or
an outdoor scene (i.e., in the control condition). To strengthen the
relevance of the experimental manipulation, we also asked them to
write what they imagined. The scenario for positive contact read as
follows:
We would like you to take five minutes and imagine
a situation in which you are waiting for a train. When
the train arrives, an elderly woman tries to exit the
train, but she cannot because multiple pieces of
her luggage are blocking her access to the station
platform.
As you go to help the woman, a Mexican immigrant
of the same gender as yours also waiting to board
the train notices the woman’s situation and helps
her by moving her luggage away from the train door.
Upon boarding the train, you and the Mexican im-
migrant are seated next to each other. Some min-
utes later, you start talking with him or her and
continue the conversation for 30 min until you
reach your destination. During the conversation,
you learn some interesting, positive things about
Mexican immigrants.
Now, please close your eyes for a moment and imag-
ine what you would have learned as a result of your
encounter with the Mexican immigrant. After open-
ing your eyes, list what you would have learned below.
By contrast, the scenario for the control/no contact condition read
as follows:
|
5
BORINC A et Al.
We would like you to take five minutes to imagine
yourself in an outdoor scene. Try to imagine aspects
of the scene (e.g., whether it is a beach or a forest,
whether there are trees or hills, and what is on the
horizon).
Now, please close your eyes for a moment and imag-
ine what you would have seen in the outdoor scene.
After opening your eyes, list what you would have
learned below.
3.1.4 | Dependent variable
We introduced two attention checks. The first determined whether
participants were paying attention to the survey (i.e., “This ques-
tion serves only to identify participants who are not reading and
responding to the survey carefully. Please do not answer this ques-
tion”), whereas the second determined whether they could accu-
rately remember the scenario that they were required to imagine in
the experimental manipulation.
Support for immigrants
Last, we assessed participants’ overall support for Mexican immi-
grants with a 20- item scale adapted from Kteily et al., 2016 (e.g.,
“The United States should offer to absorb and provide shelter for
as many Mexican immigrants as needed” and “The United States
should implement health education and awareness programs among
disadvantaged Mexican immigrants”). The order of the items was
randomized, and responses ranged from 1 (not at all) to 7 (absolutely).
From the responses, we computed an average score of support for
immigrants (α = 0.96; M = 4 .69, SD = 1.52).
3.2 | Results
We regressed the dependent variable on political orientation (i.e.,
standardized scores), relative dehumanization (i.e., standardized
scores), and intergroup contact (i.e., positive vs. control), as well as
all interactions between these three factors. Table 1 provides esti-
mated means and standard errors for the primary dependent varia-
ble, and Table 2 provides linear regression analyses for all predictors.
3.2.1 | Support for immigrants
The regression analysis indicated the main effect of participants’
political ideology (B = −0.53, SE = 0.07), t(324) = −7.19, p < .001,
95% CI = [−0.67, −0.38], η2
p = 0.13. In short, more conser vative par-
ticipants showed less support for immigrants. The main effect of
relative dehumanization was also significant (B = −0.63, SE = 0.08),
t(324) = −7.8 6, p < .001, 95% CI = [−0.79, −0.47], η2
p = 0.16. As such,
dehumanization of immigrants was associated with less support for
immigrants. The main effect of intergroup contact was significant as
well, t(324) = 1.97, p = .049, 95% CI = [0.001, −0.26], η2
p = 0.01, and
was qualified by both the interaction between contact and dehu-
manization, t(324) = 2.16, p = .031, 95% CI = [0.33, 0.01], η2
p = 0.01
and the interaction between political orientation and dehumaniza-
tion (B = 0.22, SE = 0.05), t(324) = 4.24, p < .0 01, 95% CI = [0.12,
0.33], η2
p = 0.05. More importantly, the effect was qualified by
the predicted three- way interaction between contact, relative de-
humanization, and political ideology, t(324) = 3 .51, p = .001, 95%
CI = [0.08, 0.29], η2
p = 0.03 (see Figure 1).
Exploring the three- way interaction, the main effect of relative
dehumanization was significant among participants who endorsed
a liberal ideology (B = −0.86, SE = 0.11), t(324) = −7.49, p < .001,
TABLE 1 Dependent variables as a function of political ideology, dehumanization and contact
Liberals Conservatives
Low dehumanization (−1 SD)
High dehumanization
(+ 1 SD)
Low dehumanization
(−1 SD)
High dehumanization (+
1 SD)
Experimental manipulation of imagined cont act
Experiment 1 (N = 332)
Outgroup support (DV)
Control condition 5.81 (0.14) 4.10 (0 .29) 4.67 ( 0.21) 3.12 (0.13)
Positive condition 6.11 (0.14) 4.35 (0. 25) 4.20 (0.19) 4.11 ( 0.12)
Experiment 2 (N = 339)
Outgroup support (DV 1)
Control condition 5.48 (0.11) 4.42 (0.20) 4.60 (0.18) 3 .31 (0 .10)
Positive condition 5.64 (0.12) 4.00 (0.19) 4.33 (0.15) 3.85 (0.10)
Positive emotions (DV 2)
Control condition 6.33 (0.13) 5.35 (0.24) 5.19 (0.22) 4.05 (0.12)
Positive condition 6.36 (0.15) 5.06 (0.23) 5.10 (0.19) 4.81 (0.13)
Note: Means and standard errors (in parentheses) for ingroup contact (vs. control) at condition levels of dehumanization among liberals and
conservatives.
6
|
BO RINCA et A l.
95% CI = [−1.09, −0.63], η2
p = 0.14. Nevertheless, the interaction
between contact and relative dehumanization was not significant,
t(324) = −0.10 , p = .915. Among participants who endorsed a con-
servative ideology, the main effect of relative dehumanization was
also significant (B = −0.41, SE = 0.07), t(324) = −5.50, p < .0 01, 95%
CI = [−0.55, −0.26], η2
p = 0.08. More relevant to our hypotheses,
the interaction between contact and dehumanization was signif-
icant, t(324) = 4.86, p < .001, 95% CI = [0.21, 0.51], η2
p = 0.06.
In line with H1, the decomposition of that interaction indicated
that conservatives who scored high for dehumanizing immigrants
showed more support for them in the positive contact condition
than in the control condition (+1 SD), t(324) = −5.40, p < .001,
95% CI = [−1.34, −0.62], η2
p = 0.08, and this difference was not
significant among conservatives who scored high for humanizing
immigrants— that is, ones who scored low for dehumanization (−1
SD), t(324) = 1.59, p = .111.
Additional analyses of participants who endorsed a conservative
ideolog y indicated that dehumanization was associated with less
support for immigrants in the control condition (B = − 0.77, SE = 0 .10),
t(324) = −7. 34 , p < .001, 95% CI = [−0.98, −0.56], η2
p = 0.14, but not in
the positive contact condition (B = −0.04, SE = 0.10), t(324) = −0.45,
p = .65.
3.3 | Discussion
The results of Experiment 1 provided evidence in support of
Hypothesis 1, according to which the relative dehumanization of
immigrants moderated the effect of intergroup contact among con-
servative individuals. More specifically, participants with conserva-
tive views who scored high for dehumanizing immigrants increased
support for immigrants in the positive contact condition than in the
control condition. We did not find these effects among conserva-
tive participants scoring low on dehumanizing immigrants and par-
ticipants with liberal political views. To provide consistent evidence
in suppor t of H1 and to test H2 and H3 (i.e., positive emotion as a
mediator), for the first time, we conducted a second experiment in
which we added a measure capturing positive emotions toward the
outgroup.
4 | EXPERIMENT 2
Experiment 2 involved using methods similar to those in Experiment 1,
albeit with a focus on Muslim immigrants. The measure of immigrant
suppor t was the same as in Experiment 1, b ut we added a new measur e
Outgroup support bSE tp95% CI
Experiment 1
Dehumanization −0.63 0.08 −7. 8 6 <.001 −0.79; −0.47
Political ideology −0.53 0.07 −7.19 <.001 −0.67; −0.38
Contact 0.13 0.06 1.97 .049 0.01; 0.26
Contac t × PI −0.003 0.07 −0.03 .970 −0.14; 0 .14
Contac t × Deh 0.17 0.08 2.16 .031 0.01; 0.33
Deh × PI 0.22 0.05 4.24 <.001 0.12; 0.33
Contac t × Deh × PI 0.18 0.05 3.51 <.001 0.08; 0.29
Experiment 2
Dehumanization −0.56 0.06 −9.39 <.001 −0.67; −0.44
Political ideology −0.43 0.05 −8.56 <.001 −0.5 4; −0.31
Contact 0.002 0.05 0.03 .969 −0.10; 0 .10
Contac t × PI 0.06 0.05 1.11 2.66 −0.04; 0.17
Contac t × Deh 0.02 0.06 0.49 .622 −0.08; 0.14
Deh × PI 0.11 0.04 2.57 .011 0.02; 0.20
Contac t × Deh × PI 0.17 0.04 3.87 <.001 0.08; 0.26
Positive emotions
Dehumanization −0.46 0.07 −6.35 <.0 01 −0.66; −0.32
Political Ideology −0.49 0.07 −7. 05 <.001 −0.62; −0.35
Contact 0.05 0.06 0.821 .412 −0.07; 0.18
Contac t × PI 0.11 0.07 1.63 .103 −0.02; 0.25
Contac t × Deh 0.06 0.07 0.90 .368 −0.07; 0.20
Deh × PI 0.10 0.05 1.90 .058 −0.004; 0.21
Contac t × Deh × PI 0.15 0.05 2.71 .007 0.04; 0.25
Notes: The acronym PI stands for political orientation, and Deh for dehumanization.
TABLE 2 Results of the linear
regression analyses on outgroup support
(Experiments 1 & 2) and positive emotions
(Experiment 2) with political ideology,
dehumanization and contact and their
interactions as predictors
|
7
BORINC A et Al.
to assess positive emotions toward immigrants. In addition to H1, we
hypothesized that participants who endorse a conservative ideology
and score high for dehumanizing immigrants would show the strong-
est increase in positive emotions toward them after being exposed to
a positive contact (vs. a control) condition (H2). We also hypothesized
that positive emotions would mediate the effect of the interplay be-
tween relative dehumanization and intergroup contact on support for
immigrants among individuals with conservative views (H3).
4.1 | Method
4.1.1 | Participants and design
We invited 535 U.S. citizens, all recruited via Amazon’s Mechanical
Turk (MTurk), to participate in an online sur vey. For their time, they
were compensated with US $1. After inspecting the data, we dis-
carded data from 196 participants: 143 whose completion time was
too short (<4 min; approx. Mean completion time = 9 min), 48 who
missed one of the attention checks, and five who did not provide
consent to participate. Therefore, the final sample consisted of
339 participants, ranging in age from 20 to 81 years (Mage = 36. 67,
SDage = 10.93) and 139 of whom were women. They all were ran-
domly assigned to one of two experimental conditions: the positive
condition (n = 170) or the control condition (n = 169). A sensitivity
analysis similar to the one in Experiment 1 revealed that our final
sample size was powered enough to detect an effect size of f2 = 0.04,
which conventionally indicates a small effect size (Faul et al., 2009).
4.1.2 | Independent variables
As in Experiment 1, we assessed political orientation (α = 0.92;
M = 3 .5 9, SD = 1.83) and relative dehumanization (M = 0.41,
SD = 1.77). After that, we introduced the experimental manipulation
in which participants were randomly assigned to one of two condi-
tions (i.e., positive contact with a Muslim immigrant vs. the control/
no contact condition).
4.1.3 | Dependent variables
We also introduced similar attention checks as in Experiment 1
while assessing suppor t for Muslim immigrants (α = 0.95; M = 4 .4 9,
SD = 1.25). Last, we additionally assessed positive emotions toward
Muslim immigrants with a 7- item scale— for example, Anger (r) and
Sympathy— adapted from Kteily et al. (2016) and responded to on a
7- point scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree; α = 0.86;
M = 2.67, SD = 1.38).
4.2 | Results
We regressed the dependent variables on political orientation (i.e.,
standardized scores), relative dehumanization (i.e., standardized
scores), and intergroup contact (i.e., positive vs. control), as well as
all interactions between these three factors. Table 1 provides esti-
mated means and standard errors for the primary dependent varia-
ble, and Table 2 provides linear regression analyses for all predictors.
4.2.1 | Support for immigrants
The regression analysis showed a main effect of participants’ politi-
cal ideology (B = −0.43, SE = 0.05), t(331) = −8.56, p < .001, 95%
CI = [−0.54, −0.31], η2
p = 0.14, indicating that more conservative
participants showed less suppor t for immigrants. The main effect of
relative dehumanization was also significant (B = −0.56, SE = 0.06),
t(331) = −9.39, p < .001, 95% CI = [−0.67, −0.44], η2
p = 0.21, mean-
ing that the more that participants dehumanized immigrants, the
less support they showed toward them. That effect was qualified by
the interaction between political orientation and dehumanization,
(B = 0.11, SE = 0.04), t(331) = 2 .57, p = .011, 95% CI = [0.02, 0.20],
η2
p = 0.2, and by the expected three- way interaction between con-
tact, relative dehumanization, and political ideology, t(331) = 3 .87,
p < .001, 95% CI = [0.08, 0.26], η2
p = 0.04.
Exploring the three- way interaction, the main effect of relative
dehumanization was significant among participants who endorsed
FIGURE 1 Support for Mexican
immigrants among individuals with
conservative versus liberal views as a
function of intergroup contact (positive
contact with an immigrant vs. control
condition) to which they were exposed
and their low (−1 SD) or high (+1 SD) levels
of relative dehumanization, experiment 1.
*p < .05. ***p < .001
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Low (-1 SD) High (+1 SD)Low (-1 SD)High (+1 SD)
Support
Dehumanization
Contact
Control/No contact
Positive
Liberals Conservatives
8
|
BO RINCA et A l.
a liberal ideology (B = −0 .67, SE = 0.08), t(331) = −7. 96 , p < .001,
95% CI = [−0.84, −0.50], η2
p = 0.16. However, the interaction be-
tween contact and relative dehumanization was not significant,
t(331) = −1 .7 0, p = .089. Among participants who endorsed a con-
servative ideology, the main effect of relative dehumanization was
also significant (B = −0.43, SE = 0.05), t(331) = −7.0 6, p < .001, 95%
CI = [−0.56, −0.32], η2
p = 0.13. More relevant to our hypotheses,
the interaction bet ween contact and dehumanization was signific ant
as well, t(331) = 3.24, p = .001, 95% CI = [0.08, 0.32], η2
p = 0.03.
As precited by H1, the decomposition of that interaction revealed
that conservatives who scored high for dehumanizing immigrants
showed more support for them in the positive contact condition
than in the control condition (+1 SD), t(331) = −3. 58, p < .001, 95%
CI = [−0.83, −0.24], η2
p = 0.03, and this difference was not signifi-
cant among conservatives who scored low for dehumanizing immi-
grants (−1 SD), t(331) = 0. 27, p = .254.
From the other perspective, the negative link between relative
dehumanization and support was significant in both control and
positive contact conditions, albeit stronger in the control condition
(B = −0.64, SE = 0.08), t(331) = −7.5 0, p < .0 01, 95% CI = [−0. 81,
−0.47], η2
p = 0.14, than in the positive contact condition (B = −0.24,
SE = 0.09), t(331) = −2.63, p = .009, 95% CI = [−0.42, −0.06],
η2
p = 0.02.
4.2.2 | Positive emotions
The regression analysis showed the main effect of participants’ po-
litical ideology (B = −0 .4 9, SE = 0.07), t(331) = −7. 05 , p < .001, 95%
CI = [−0.62, −0.35], η2
p = 0.13, such that more conservative partici-
pants showed less positive emotions for immigrants. The main effect
of relative dehumanization was significant (B = −0.46, SE = 0.07),
t(331) = −6. 35, p < .0 01, 95% CI = [−0.60, −0.32], η2
p = 0.10, meaning
that the dehumanization of immigrants was associated with fewer
positive emotions. Most importantly, that effect was qualified by the
precited three- way interaction between contact, relative dehumani-
zation, and political ideology, t(331) = 2.71, p = .007, 95% CI = [0.04,
0.25], η2
p = 0.02.
Exploring the three- way interaction, the main effect of relative
dehumanization was significant among participants who endorsed
a liberal ideology (B = −0.56, SE = 0.10 ), t(331) = −5.46, p < .001,
95% CI = [−0.77, −0.36], η2
p = 0.08. However, the interaction be-
tween contact and relative dehumanization was not significant,
t(331) = −0.80, p = 0.420. Among participants who endorsed a con-
servative ideology, the main effect of relative dehumanization was
significant (B = − 0.35, SE = 0.07), t(331) = −4.65, p < .001, 95%
CI = [−0.50, −0.20], η2
p = 0.06. More relevant to our hypotheses, the
interaction between contact and dehumanization was significant as
well, t(331) = 2.80, p = .005, 95% CI = [0.06, 0.36], η2
p = 0.02. In line
with H2, the decomposition of the interaction indicated that conser-
vatives who scored high for dehumanizing immigrants showed more
positive emotions toward them in the positive than in the control
condition (+1 SD), t(331) = −4.16, p < .001, 95% CI = [−0.12, −0.4 0],
η2
p = 0.05, and this difference was not significant among conserva-
tives who scored high for humanizing immigr ants— that is, scored low
for dehumanization (−1 SD), t(331) = 0.32, p = .748.
Additional analyses among participants who endorsed a conser-
vative ideology indicated that relative dehumanization was associ-
ated with less positive emotions toward immigrants in the control
condition (B = −0.57, SE = 0.13), t(331) = −5.42, p < .001, 95%
CI = [−0.78, − 0.36], η2
p = 0.08, but not in the positive contact condi-
tion (B = −0.14, SE = 0.11), t(331) = −1.27, p = .202.
4.2.3 | Mediation analysis
We tested our moderated moderated mediation hypothesis within
the framework of structural equation modeling (SEM) in the lavaan
package in R (Rosseel, 2012), which entailed estimating bootstrap
confidence intervals based on 5000 bootstrapped samples. As
shown in the conceptual representation of the model (see Figure 2),
we entered intergroup contact as the predictor, relative dehumani-
zation as the first moderator, political orientation as the second
moderator, and support for immigrants as the dependent variable.
In addition, the measure of positive emotions was entered as the
me diator.
First, we computed the index of moderated moderated media-
tion described by Hayes (2018) in order to test the presence of a
moderated moderated mediation in our data. In line with H3, we
found that the index was significant (Index = 0.04, 95% boot strap
CI [0.001, 0.07]). As recommended by Hayes (2018), we next com-
puted the conditional indirect effect at different levels of the first-
stage and second- stage moderators (±1 SD) in order to uncover the
specific pattern of the moderated moderated mediation. More spe-
cifically, we found that positive emotions mediated the relationship
between intergroup contact and support for immigrants only among
FIGURE 2 The conceptual path model
tested in experiment 2
Support for immigrant
Intergroup contact
(-1 control, 1 positive)
Positive Emotions
Dehumanization
1 Moderator
Political Orientation
2 Moderator
|
9
BORINC A et Al.
participants who endorsed a conservative ideology and scored high
for dehumanizing immigrants (B = 0.30, 95% bootstrap CI [0.09,
0.50]). Positive emotions did not mediate the relationship between
intergroup contact and support for immigrants, neither among par-
ticipants who endorsed a conservative ideology and scored high for
humanizing immigrants (B = −0.04, 95% bootstrap CI [−0.31, 0.24])
or among ones who endorsed a liberal ideology and regardless of
whether the latter dehumanized immigrants (B = −0.11, 95% boot-
strap CI [−0.41, 0.19]) or not (B = 0.02, 95% bootstrap CI [−0.11,
0.14]).
5 | DISCUSSION
Consistent with those observed in Experiment 1, the results of
Experiment 2 provided further evidence in support of Hypothesis
2 while focusing on a different intergroup relation, that of U.S. resi-
dents and Muslim immigrants. Participants with conservative views
who scored high for dehumanizing immigrants showed more posi-
tive emotions toward immigrants in the positive contact condition
than their peers in the control condition. Beyond that, Experiment 2
provided preliminary evidence in support of Hypothesis 3, according
to which the effect of the interaction between relative dehumaniza-
tion and intergroup contact on support for immigrants among con-
servatives is mediated by positive emotions toward the outgroup.
More specifically, participants who endorsed a conservative ideol-
ogy and scored high for dehumanizing immigrants showed greater
support for immigrants in the positive contact condition than in the
control condition. That pattern emerged because these participants
generated more positive emotions than their counterparts toward
immigrants. However, the results of the mediation analysis were
not significant among conservatives who humanized immigrants or
among participants who endorsed a liberal ideology regardless of
whether they dehumanized immigrants.
6 | GENERAL DISCUSSION
To our knowledge, our research is the first to show that the rela-
tive dehumanization of immigrants and positive imagined contact
interact to influence emotions toward immigrants and support for
immigrants (i.e., Muslim and Mexican immigrants) among individuals
with conservative views. Across two experiments, we consistently
demonstrated that relative dehumanization moderates the effects
of intergroup contact on intergroup support among individuals with
conservative views. In the second experiment, we showed that this
is also the case concerning intergroup emotions. More specifically,
individuals who scored high for dehumanizing immigrants and en-
dorsed a conservati ve ideology showe d more support fo r immigrants
(i.e., in both experiments) and generated more positive emotions to-
ward them (i.e., in Experiment 2) when they were encouraged to en-
vision positive contact with an immigrant (i.e., a Muslim immigrant in
Experiment 1 and a Mexican immigrant in Experiment 2) than when
they were encouraged to envision an outdoor scene (i.e., the control
condition in both experiments). Finally, E xperiment 2 also explored
the mechanism at work behind the observed effects on the main
dependent variable (i.e., support for immigrants) using a moder-
ated moderated mediation approach. Results showed that positive
emotions toward immigrants explained the effect of intergroup
contact on support for immigrants among individuals endorsing a
conservative ideology and dehumanizing immigrants. As expected
and consistent with previous literature, this was not the case among
individuals with conservative views who humanized immigrants, or
among liberals regardless of whether they dehumanized immigrants
or not (DeLuca- McLean & Castano, 2009; Dhont & Van Hiel, 2009;
Hodson, 2008).
Our findings could be valuable in several domains of research.
First, previous research has shown that the more individuals dehu-
manize immigrants, the more likely they are to express less support
and more animosity toward them as well (Kteily & Bruneau, 2017),
which tends to be the case especially among individuals with con-
servative views (Markowitz & Slovic, 2020). Our research extends
previous research and makes a novel contribution by showing that
individuals who scored high for dehumanizing immigrants and en-
dorsed a conservative ideology displayed more support for and
positive emotions toward immigrants after they had envisioned a
positive, pleasant interaction with them.
Second, our findings tie together previous research on the rela-
tionship between relative dehumanization and intergroup contact in
relation to individuals’ conservative views on social, economic, and
political matters. Despite research demonstrating that prejudice and
dehumanization play distinct roles in intergroup relations (Borinca,
Tropp, & Ofosu, 2021; Kteily et al., 2016), researchers have thus far
investigated only prejudice’s moderating role on imagined interac-
tion regarding intergroup attitudes and affect (Borinca, Falomir-
Pichastor, & Andrighetto, 2020). However, to our knowledge, no
research has examined the moderating role of relative dehumaniza-
tion among individuals with conservative views, despite the fact that
the association between contact with outgroup members and de-
humanization has been investigated (Bruneau et al., 2020; Capozza
et al., 2014). In our research, we examined how the interplay be-
tween relative dehumanization and intergroup contact affects inter-
group support and emotions among individuals with conservative
views. Thus, our findings enrich the literature on intergroup relations
by showing that there is hope for improved intergroup relations even
among individuals who most oppose ethnic diversity (i.e., individuals
with conservative views and who score high for dehumanizing immi-
grants; Dhont & Van Hiel, 2011; Hodson, 2011; West et al., 2017).
Our findings are also consistent with prior research showing that
individuals who score high in right- wing authoritarianism exhibited
lower levels of prejudice after having experienced more positive
contact (Asbrock et al., 2013).
Third, our research is also relevant to the literature on
imagined positive contact (Crisp & Turner, 2009, 2012; White
et al., 2020). Previous research has shown that intergroup contact
may be a means of improving intergroup relations within the most
10
|
BO RINCA et A l.
conflict- laden intergroup contexts (Bagci et al., 2019) and with in-
dividuals who endorse ideologies most opposed to ethnic diversity
(Asbrock et al., 2013). As a case in point, if individuals (e.g., who
score high for dehumanization and endorse a conservative ideology)
have positive interactions with outgroup members whom they may
not have engaged with previously, then they could see a side of the
outgroup that is inconsistent with their degree about the outgroup
human qualities (Esses et al., 2013). Because intergroup contact has
the potential to reveal that an outgroup is more capable (e.g., cogni-
tively complex and sophisticated) than might have been assumed, it
also has the potential to specifically af fect attributions of humanity
(Bruneau et al., 2020), as it could be the case with emotional attribu-
tion in our research, which might have consequently impacted indi-
viduals’ support for immigrants.
Finally, our other findings additionally revealed the moderating
role of intergroup contact on relative dehumanization in terms in-
tergroup support for immigrants and emotions toward immigrants
among people with conservative views. In particular, the negative
link between dehumanization and support (i.e., in both experiments)
and positive emotions (i.e., in Experiment 2) was either weaker or
non- significant in the positive contact condition when compared
to the control condition (i.e., in both experiments). That finding is
consistent with literature showing that intergroup contact dissolves
the link between intolerant viewpoints and negative intergroup atti-
tudes (Borinca, Andrighetto, et al., 2021).
7 | LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR
FUTURE RESEARCH
Despite the novelty and importance of our findings, we should ac-
knowledge our research’s limitations and propose directions for fu-
ture studies. First, it is worth noting that, given past findings that
individuals who score low in right- wing authoritarianism or in so-
cial dominance orientation display similar reactions to intergroup
relations whether or not they have positive contact with outgroup
members (e.g., Dhont & Van Hiel, 2009; Hodson, 2008), we did not
anticipate any significant differences between positive contact and
the control condition among individuals who endorsed a conserva-
tive ideology but humanized immigrants (i.e., scored low for dehu-
manization). Indeed, we presumed they would show nearly positive
identical reactions (e.g., similarly high intergroup support and emo-
tions) regardless of experimental manipulation. Although our results
for those individuals were consistent with previous findings regard-
ing the limited impact of positive contact, researchers should also
examine ways in which individuals with conservative views who
humanize immigrants may benefit from positive intergroup contact
compared to other experimental conditions (i.e., control or negative
contact conditions).
Second, whereas our research focused on group dehumanization
as an individual difference, researchers could determine whether
similar effects arise when using other operational definitions of de-
humanization, for example, by experimentally manipulating it (e.g.,
Capozza et al., 2017; Utych, 2018). Third, another limitation relates
to the vignette methodology used to investigate intergroup contact.
We experimentally manipulated intergroup contact by encouraging
parti cipants to envisio n a positive, plea sant interact ion with a specif ic
immigrant (e.g., Borinca, Falomir- Pichastor, & Andrighetto, 2020;
Borinca, Falomir- Pichastor, Andrighetto, & Durante, 2021a; Crisp
& Turner, 2009). Because we did not examine any other types of
intergroup contact, additional research is needed to replicate our
findings— for instance by using a different type of contact (e.g., ex-
tended, virtual contact or electronic contact; Paolini et al., 2004;
White et al., 2019, 2020) or by placing participants in a real situa-
tion (i.e., lab experiments). Furthermore, because imagined contact
exerts an inconsistent impact on long- term change (Ioannou, 2019),
researchers should also examine whether our findings of inter-
group interactions can be extended to long- term changes through
experimental- longitudinal studies.
Fourth, we used only self- reported measures as outcomes
(i.e., support for immigrant and intergroup emotions) instead of
assessing participants’ behavioral intentions or real behaviors.
Although research has shown that the degree of dehumaniza-
tion influences individuals’ behaviors (Kteily & Bruneau, 2017),
researchers should examine whether the combined effect of
relative dehumanization and intergroup contact also emerges in
relation to the actual behaviors of individuals with conservative
views. Finally, in this research, it is worth noting that we only
examined our observed findings in the context of U.S. in relation
to Muslim and Mexican immigrants, and future research should
therefore replicate these findings in a different intergroup con-
text (e.g., between dif ferent natives and immigrants, refugees
and/or social, ethnic minorities).
8 | CONCLUSION
As Western societies become increasingly diverse, both ethnically
and culturally, mutual support and positive affect between dif fer-
ent ethnic communities are far from normative. Indeed, in recent
years, overtly dehumanizing viewpoints toward social minorities
have emerged in political debates, public opinion, and mass media
(e.g., Markowitz & Slovic, 2020; Mudde, 2013; Utych, 2017, 2018).
The rise in extreme conservatism and anti- immigration political par-
ties is a clear illustration of that phenomenon (e.g., Greven, 2016).
However, our research has shown that interventions aimed at
promoting positive or prosocial interethnic encounters enhance
intergroup support for and positive emotions toward outgroups, in-
cluding immigrants, even among individuals most opposed to ethnic
diversity (i.e., individuals who endorse a conservative ideology and
who score high for dehumanization).
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The authors declare that there are no potential conflicts of interest
with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
|
11
BORINC A et Al.
INFORMED CONSENT
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants in-
cluded in the study.
REFERENCES
Adesokan, A. A., Ullrich, J., Van Dick, R., & Tropp, L . R. (2011). Diversity
beliefs as moderator of the contact– prejudice relationship. Social
Psychology, 42(4), 271– 278 . ht tps://doi.org/10.1027/1864- 9335/
a000058
Allpor t, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Persesus Books.
Ames, B. C. (2019). The dehumanization of immigrants and the rise
of the extreme right. American Institute for Contemporary German
Studies. Retrieved from https://www.aicgs.org/publi catio n/
the- dehum aniza tion- of- immig rants - and- the- rise- of- the- extre
me- right/
Asbrock, F., Christ , O., Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2012). Differential
effects of intergroup contact for authoritarians and social domi-
nators: A dual process model perspective. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 38(4), 477– 490. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461
67211 429 747
Asbrock, F., Gutenbrunner, L., & Wagner, U. (2013). Unwilling, but not
unaffected- imagined contact effects for authoritarians and social
dominators: RWA, SDO, and imagined contact. European Journal
of Social Ps ychology, 43(5), 404– 412. https://doi.org/10.1002/
ejsp.1956
Bagci, S. C ., Stathi, S., & Piyale, Z. E. (2019). When imagining inter-
group cont act mobilizes collective action: The perspective of
disadvantaged and advantaged groups. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 69, 32– 43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijint
rel.2018.12.003
Banton, O., West, K., & Kinney, E. (2020). The surprising politics of anti-
immigrant prejudice: How political conservatism moderates the
effect of immigrant race and religion on infrahumanization judge-
ments. British Journal of Social Psychology, 59 (1), 157– 170. ht tps://
doi .org/10.1111/bjso.12337
Bastian, B., Denson, T. F., & Haslam, N. (2013). The roles of dehuman-
ization and moral outrage in retributive justice. PLoS One, 8(4),
e61842. https://doi.org/10.1371/journ al.pone.0061842
Black, R ., Adger, W. N., Arnell, N. W., Dercon, S., Geddes, A., & Thomas,
D. (2011). The effect of environmental change on human migration.
Global Environmental Change, 21, S 3– S11.
Borinca, I. (2021). (Mis) understanding out- group pro- social behav-
iors. (Doctoral disser tation). University of Geneva. https://doi.
org/10.13097/ archi ve- ouver te/unige :148613
Borinc a, I., Falomir- Pichastor, J. M., & A ndrighet to, L. (2020). “How can
you help me if you are not from here?” Helper ’s familiarity with the
context shapes interpretations of prosocial intergroup behaviors.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 87, 103944. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.10394 4
Borinc a, I., Falomir- Pichas tor, J. M., Andrighetto, L., & Durante, F. (2021a).
Outgroup prejudice and perceptions of prosocial intergroup be-
haviors. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40– 53. https://doi.
org/10.1002 /ejsp. 2712
Borinca, I., Andrighetto, L ., Valsecchi, G ., & Berent, J. (2021). Ingroup
norms shape understanding of outgroup prosocial behav-
iors. Group Processe s & Intergroup Relations, 1– 23. https://doi.
org /10.1177/136 84 3 0220 98760 4
Borinc a, I., Falomir- Pichastor, J. M., Andrighetto, L., & Halabi, S. (2021b).
Overcoming negative reactions to prosocial intergroup behaviors in
post- conflict societies: The power of intergroup apology. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 95, 1– 12 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jesp.2021.104140
Borinca, I., Tropp, L. R ., & Ofosu, N. (2021). Meta- humanization en-
hances positive reactions to prosocial cross- group interaction.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 60(3), 1051– 1074. https://doi.
org /10.1111/bjso.12435
Brown, R ., Eller, A., Leeds, S., & Stace, K. (2007). Intergroup contact
and intergroup attitudes: A longitudinal study. European Journal
of Social Ps ychology, 37(4), 692– 703. https://doi.org/10.1002/
ejsp.384
Bruneau, E., & Kteily, N. (2017). The enemy as animal: Symmetric dehu-
manization during asymmetric warfare. PLoS One, 12(7), e0181422.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journ al.pone.0181422
Bruneau, E., Hameiri, B., Moore- Berg, S. L., & Kteily, N. (2020).
Intergroup contact reduces dehumanization and meta-
dehumanization: Cross- sectional, longitudinal, and quasi-
experimental evidence from 16 samples in five countries.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(1), 906– 920. https://
doi.org/10.1177/01461 67220 949004
Capozza, D., Di Bernardo, G. A ., & Falvo, R. (2017). Inter group contact
and outgroup humanization: Is the causal relationship uni- or bi-
directional?PLoS One, 12(1), e 017055 4. https://doi.o rg/10 .1371/
journ al.pone.0170554
Capozza, D., Falvo, R., Di Bernardo, G . A., Vezzali, L., & Visintin, E. P.
(2014). Intergroup contact as a strategy to improve humanness
attributions: A review of studies. TPM- Testing, Psychometrics,
Methodology in Applied Psychology, 21(3), 349– 362. https://doi.
org /10.4 473/T PM21. 3.9
Capozza, D., Trifiletti, E., Vezzali, L., & Favara, I. (2013). Can intergroup
contact improve humanity attributions?International Journal
of Psychology, 48(4), 527– 541. ht tps://doi.org/10.1080/0 0207
594.2012.688132
Cassese, E. C. (2019). Par tisan dehumanization in American politics.
Political Behavior, 43(1), 29– 50. ht tps://doi.org/10 .1007/s1110 9-
0 1 9 - 0 9 5 4 5 - w
Chandler, C. R., & Tsai, Y.- M. (2001). Social fac tors influencing immigra-
tion attitudes: An analysis of data from the general social survey.
The Social Science Journal, 38(2), 177– 18 8. https://doi.org /10.1016/
S0362 - 3319(01)00106 - 9
Crawf ord, J., Modri, S ., & Motyl, M. (2013). B leeding- he art liberal s and hard-
hearted conservatives: Subtle political dehumanization through dif-
ferential attributions of human nature and human uniqueness traits.
Available at SSRN 2310758. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2310758
Crisp, R. J., & Husnu, S. (2011). Attributional processes underlying imag-
ined contact effects. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14 (2),
275– 287. https://doi.org /10.1177/13684 3 0210 390721
Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2009). Can imagined interactions produce
positive perceptions? Reducing prejudice through simulated social
contact. American Psychologist, 64(4), 231. https ://doi.org/10.1037/
a0 014718
Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2012). The imagined contact hypothesis.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 125– 182. https://
doi.org/10.1016/B978- 0- 12- 39428 1- 4.00003 - 9
Davidov, E., & Meuleman, B. (2012). Explaining attitudes towards immi-
gration policies in European countries: The role of human values.
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 38(5), 757– 775. htt ps://doi.
org /10.1080/13691 83 X.2012. 667985
DeLuca- McLean, D., & Castano, E. (2009). Infra- humanization of ethnic
minorities: The moderating role of ideology. Basic and Appli ed Social
Psychology, 31(2), 102– 108. htt ps://doi.o rg/10.10 80/01973 53 090
2880258
Dhont, K., & Van Hiel, A . (2009). We must not be enemies: Interracial
contact and the reduction of prejudice among authoritarians.
Personality and Individual Differences, 46(2), 172– 177. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.09.022
Dhont, K., & Van Hiel, A . (2011). Direct contact and authoritarianism
as moderators between extended contact and reduced prejudice:
Lower threat and greater trust as mediators. Group Processes &
Intergroup Relations, 14(2 ), 223– 237. ht tps://doi .org /10.1177/1368 4
30210 391121
12
|
BO RINCA et A l.
Esses, V. M., Medianu, S., & Lawson, A. S. (2013). Uncertainty, threat,
and the role of the media in p romoting the dehumanization of immi-
grants and refugees. Journal of So cial Issues, 69(3), 518– 536. https://
doi .org/10.1111/josi.120 27
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.- G. (2009). Statistic al power
analyses using G* power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression
analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149– 1160. https://doi.
org /10.3758/ BRM.41.4.1149
Firat, M., & Ataca, B. (2021). Does perceived cultural distance mediate
the relationship bet ween intergroup contac t and support for ref-
ugee rights? A preliminary investigation. Journal of Community and
Applied Social Psychology, 57– 72.
Greven, T. (2016). The rise of right- wing populism in Europe and the United
States. A comparative perspective [La emergencia del populismo de
derechas en Europa y Estados Unidos. Una perspectiva comparada].
Friedrich Ebert Foundation.
Hay es, A. F. (20 18). Partial, con dit ion al, and mo derate d moder ated medi-
ation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication
Monographs, 85(1), 4– 40. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637
751.2017.1352100
Hibbing, J. R., Smith, K. B., & Alford, J. R. (2014). Dif ferences in neg-
ativity bias underlie variations in political ideology. https://doi.
org /10.1017/S0140 525X1 3 001192
Hodson, G. (2008). Interracial prison contact: The pros for (socially
dominant) cons. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47(2), 325– 351.
https://doi.org/10.1348/01446 6607X 231109
Hodson, G. (2011). Do ideologically intolerant people benefit from in-
tergroup contact?Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20 (3),
1 5 4 – 1 5 9 . h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 7 7 / 0 9 6 3 7 2 1 4 1 1 4 0 9 0 2 5
Hodson, G., Harry, H., & Mitchell, A . (2009). Independent benefits of
contact and friendship on attitudes toward homosexuals among
authoritarians and highly identified heterosexuals. European Jo urnal
of Social Psychology, 39(4), 50 9– 525. ht tps://doi.org/10.1002/
ejsp.558
Husnu, S., & Crisp, R. J. (2010). Imagined intergroup contact: A new tech-
nique for encouraging greater inter- ethnic contact in Cyprus. Peace
and Conflict, 16(1), 97– 108. ht tps://doi.org/10.10 80/10781 91090
34 847 76
Ioannou, M. (2019). The week af ter: Do the effects of imagined contact
last over time?Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 49 (7), 459– 470.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12597
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political
conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin,
129(3), 339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033- 2909.129.3.339
Jost, J. T., Nosek, B. A., & Gosling, S. D. (2008). Ideology: It s re-
surgence in social, personality, and political psychology.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(2), 126– 136. https://doi.
org /10.1111/j.1745- 6916.2 008.0 0070 .x
Kteily, N. S., & L andry, A. P. (2022). Dehumanization: Trend s, insights, and
challenges. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 222– 240.
Kteily, N., & Br uneau, E. (2017). Ba cklash: The pol itics and real- wor ld con-
sequences of minority group dehumanization. Personalit y and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 43(1), 87– 104 . htt ps://doi .org /10.1177/014 61
67216 675334
Kteily, N., Hodson, G., & Bruneau, E. (2016). They see us as less than
human: Metadehumanization predicts intergroup conflict via recip-
rocal dehumanization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
110(3), 343. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0 000044
Markowit z, D. M., & Slovic, P. (2020). Social, psychological, and demo-
graphic characteristics of dehumanization toward immigrants.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(17), 9260–
9269. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.19217 90117
Mudde, C . (2013). Three decades of populist radical right parties in
Western Europe: So what?European Journal of Political Research,
52(1), 1– 19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475- 6765.2012.02065.x
Paolini, S., Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., & Voci, A. (2004). Effects of direct
and indirect cross- group friendships on judgments of Catholics and
Protest ants in Nor thern Ireland: The mediating role of an anxiety-
reduction mechanism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
30(6), 770– 786. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461 67203 262848
Portice, J., & Reicher, S. (2018). Arguments for European disintegration:
A mobiliz ation analysis of ant i- immi gration speeches by UK politi cal
leaders. Political Psychology, 39(6), 1357– 1372.
Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation model-
ing and more. Version 0.5– 12 (BE TA). Journal of Statistical Software,
48(2 ), 1– 36 .
Rustenbach, E. (2010). Sources of negative attitudes toward immigrants
in Europe: A multi- level analysis. International Migration Review,
44(1), 53– 77. https://doi.org /10.1111/j .1747- 7379.20 09.00798.x
Semyonov, M., Raijman, R., & Gorodzeisky, A. (2006). The rise of anti-
foreigner sentiment in European societies, 1988– 2000. American
Sociological Review, 71(3), 426– 449. https://doi.org/10.1177/00031
2240 6 07100304
Sides, J., & Citrin, J. (2007). European opinion about immigration: The
role of identities, interests and information. British Journal of
Political Science, 37(3), 477– 504. https://doi.org/10.1017/S00 07
12340 7000257
Taber, C. S., Lodge, M., & Glathar, J. (2001). The motivated construction
of political judgments. In J. H.Kuklinski (Ed.), Citizens and politics:
Perspectives from political psychology (pp. 198– 226). Cambridge
University Press. ht tps://doi.org/10.1017/CBO97 80511 896941.010
Torres, H. L., O’Conor, A., Mejía, C., C amacho, Y., & Long, A. (2011). The
American dream: Racism towards Latino/as in the US and the ex-
perience of trauma symptoms. Revista Interamericana de Psicología/
Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 45(3), 363– 368. https://doi.
org /10.1521/so co.2006.24.6.753
Thomsen, J. P. F., & Rafiqi, A . (2019a). The impac t of mass- level ideologi-
cal orientations on immigration policy preferences over time. Italian
Political Science Review/Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica, 49(3), 279–
291. https://doi.org/10.1017/ipo.2018.24
Thomsen, J. P. F., & Rafiqi, A. (2019b). Intergroup cont act and its
right- wing ideological constraint. Journal of Ethnic and Migration
Studies, 45(15) , 2739– 2757. htt ps://doi .org /10.1080/13691
83X.2018.1493915
Thoris dottir, H., Jost , J. T., Liviat an, I., & Shrou t, P. E. (2007 ). Psychologic al
needs and values underlying lef t- right political orientation: Cross-
national evidence from eastern and Western Europe. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 71(2), 175– 20 3. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfm008
Turner, R. N., & Crisp, R. J. (2010). Imagining intergroup contact reduces
implicit prejudice. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49(1), 129–
142. https://doi.org/10.1348/01446 6609X 419901
Turner, R. N., Hodson, G., & Dhont, K. (2020). The role of individual dif-
ferences in understanding and enhancing intergroup contact. Social
and Personality Psychology Compass, 14(6), e12533.
Utych, S. M. (2017). Negative affective language in politics. American
Politics Research, 46(1), 77– 102 . ht tps://doi. org/10.1177/15326
73X 17 693 83 0
Utych, S. M. (2018). How dehumanization influences attitudes toward
immigrants. Political Research Quarterly, 71(2), 440– 452. https://
doi .org /10.1177/10659 12917 744 897
Vezzali, L ., Birtel, M. D., Di Bernardo, G. A., Stathi, S., Crisp, R. J.,
Cadamuro, A., & Visintin, E. P. (2020). Don’t hurt my outgroup
friend: A multifaceted form of imagined contact promotes inten-
tions to counteract bullying. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,
23(5), 643– 663. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684 30219 852404
Vezzali, L ., Crisp, R. J., Stathi, S., & Giovannini, D. (2013). The affective
consequences of imagined contact: A review and some sugges-
tions for future research. TPM: Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology
in Applied Psychology, 20(4), 3 43– 363 . htt ps://doi .org /10.4 473/
TPM20.4.4
|
13
BORINC A et Al.
West, K., Hotchin, V., & Wood, C. (2017). Imagined contact can be more
effective for participants with stronger initial prejudices. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 47(5), 282– 292.
West, K., Husnu, S., & Lipps, G. (2015). Imagined contact works in
high- prejudice contexts: Investigating imagined contact’s effects
on anti- gay prejudice in Cyprus and Jamaica. Sexuality Research
and Social Policy, 12(1), 6 0– 69. http s://doi.org/10.1007/s1317
8- 014- 0172- 7
White, F. A., Borinca, I., Vezzali, L., Reynolds, K. J., Blomster Lyshol, J. K.,
Verrelli, S., & Falomir- Pichastor, J. M. (2020). Beyond direct con-
tact: The theoretical and societal relevance of indirect contact for
improving intergroup relations. Journal of Social Issues, 77(1), 132–
153 . htt ps://doi.org /10.1111/ josi .12400
White, F. A., Turner, R. N ., Verrelli, S., Harvey, L. J., & Hanna, J. R. (2019).
Improving intergroup relations between Catholics and Protestants
in Northern Ireland via E- contact. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 49(2), 429– 438. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp. 2515
Wilkes, R., Guppy, N., & Farris, L. (2008). “No thanks, we’re full”:
Individual characteristics, National Context, and changing attitudes
toward immigration. International Migration Review, 42(2), 302– 329.
https://doi.org /10.1111/ j.1747- 7379.2008 .00126. x
Zhirkov, K. (2014). Nativist but not alienated: A comparative perspective
on the radical right vote in Western Europe. Party Politics, 20 (2),
2 8 6 – 2 9 6 . h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 7 7 / 1 3 5 4 0 6 8 8 1 3 5 1 1 3 7 9
How to cite this article: Borinca, I., Çelik, P. & Storme, M.
(2022). Can conservatives who (de)humanize immigrants the
most be able to support them? The power of imagined
positive contact. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 00,
1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.1286 4
