To reduce stigma,describing ACEs is better than “words matter”: Study

“Words matter” is the refrain of anti‐stigma proponents in the United States, who state that person‐first language will improve attitudes toward drug users. But a recent study conducted in the U.K. has found that portraying people as having adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) does far more to reduce stigma than changing language, which does nothing.     

The Flag or the Pocketbook: To What are Immigrants a Threat

An increasing number of immigrants and rising unemployment rates are widely thought to contribute to the electoral success of extreme right parties in Western Europe. However, no study explicitly posits the causal mechanism that links the aggregate level factors of immigration and unemployment to the electoral success of extreme right parties, and systematically analyzes whether and how this mechanism works. Thus, the causal connection between immigration, unemployment and extreme right success remains at best ambiguous. I argue that the causal mechanism linking immigration and unemployment to extreme right electoral performance is the development of anti‐immigrant attitudes at the individual level. In this paper, I examine how unemployment and immigration affect individuals’ attitudes toward immigrants. This examination furthers our understanding of the actual dynamics of how unemployment and immigration influences the electoral success of extreme right parties. I find that greater unemployment rates increase the probability that an individual will have an anti‐immigrant attitude only when immigration is already at a high level. Similarly, increasing immigration alone does not always increase the probability that an individual will have an anti‐immigrant attitude.     

The political consequences of contemporary immigration

This article synthesizes research on political outcomes associated with increasing immigration, with an emphasis on cross‐national studies of European countries, where immigration is a relatively newer phenomenon compared to the United States and other traditional immigrant destinations. We begin with explanations of and research on anti‐immigrant sentiment, not a political phenomenon in itself but considered an important precursor to other relevant political attitudes. Next, we review scholarship on the relationship between immigration and support for the welfare state, as well as exclusionary attitudes regarding immigrants' rights to welfare benefits. Then, we review research on immigration and political party preferences, in particular radical right parties, whose platforms often combine anti‐immigration and welfare chauvinistic positions. We conclude by discussing how these processes may ultimately shape social policies, which may in turn influence immigration itself.     

Explaining Pro‐Immigrant Sentiment in the U.S.: Social Class,Cosmopolitanism, and Perceptions of Immigrants1

In the U.S., research on attitudes toward immigrants generally focuses on anti‐immigrant sentiment. Yet, the 1996 General Social Survey indicates that half the population believes that immigrants favorably impact the U.S. economy and culture. Using these data, we analyze theories of both pro‐ and anti‐immigrant sentiment. While we find some support for two theories of intergroup competition, our most important finding connects a cosmopolitan worldview with favorable perceptions of immigrants. We find that cosmopolitans – people who are highly educated, in white‐collar occupations, who have lived abroad, and who reject ethnocentrism – are significantly more pro‐immigrant than people without these characteristics.     

Is a “Christian America” a More Patriarchal America? Religion,Politics, and Traditionalist Gender Ideology

Recent research shows that Americans who adhere to Christian nationalism—an ideology that idealizes and advocates a fusion of Christianity and American civic life—tend to hold authoritarian and exclusionary attitudes, particularly regarding ethno‐racial minorities and nontraditional family forms. Such findings suggest a fundamental connection between Christian nationalism and rigid symbolic boundaries, which would likely extend to Americans’ understanding of gender roles. Drawing on notions connecting religious nationalism with defenses of patriarchal norms and utilizing a recent national, random sample of American adults, the current study examines the link between contemporary Christian nationalism and traditionalist gender ideologies. Our analyses reveal that Christian nationalism is the strongest predictor of holding a more traditionalist gender ideology, even after taking into account a host of political and religious characteristics. Moreover, the relationship between Christian nationalism and gender traditionalism holds across religious traditions, including more gender‐egalitarian groups like Mainline Protestants and even the unaffiliated. We conclude by highlighting the implications of these findings for understanding contemporary populist support for Donald Trump, which previous studies have shown is undergirded by both Christian nationalism and sexism.     

American Attitudes toward Guest Worker Policies

In this study we use data from a 2004 New York Times/CBS News national survey to analyze public opinion toward a guest worker program and to compare predictors of support for guest worker and general immigration policies. In general, Americans tend to be divided in their attitudes toward a guest worker program, although support for temporary worker policies is stronger when legalization for unauthorized immigrants is conditioned on certain requirements, and when the program is coupled with enhanced border security. The results of the bivariate probit analysis indicate that individuals who favor reducing the immigration level also tend to oppose instituting a guest worker program. Perceptions of the “costs” of immigration emerged as the most important determinant of individuals’ attitudes toward immigration policies; such beliefs contributed to opposition to a guest worker policy and support for reducing the immigration level. We also found that residents of high‐immigration states and Latinos were more likely to support a temporary worker program. However, these characteristics do not appear to influence individuals’ judgments about the number of immigrants who should be admitted to the United States. Findings regarding the impact of political partisanship and ideology on attitudes toward the two policies were more ambiguous.     

Relocating Prejudice: A Transnational Approach to Understanding Immigrants' Racial Attitudes

Immigration is changing the racial composition of many societies. Yet leading theories of racial prejudice, even in a multiracial context, focus on dynamics in a single nation‐state and fail to account for the experiences of the foreign‐born. We adopt a transnational approach that incorporates processes creating prejudice from both inside and outside the receiving society and that shows how attitudes move across borders through immigration, transnationalism, and globalization. We draw upon two in‐depth studies of immigrants and those who stay in the home countries, focusing on Koreans' and Dominicans' attitudes toward Black Americans. By situating existing theories of racial prejudice within a transnational framework, we illustrate how models of transnationalism are relevant not just within immigration scholarship, but to more general processes of social change.     

“Police,Public Safety,and Race‐Neutral Discourse”

In the final decades of the 20th century policing in America was refashioned in the public image of community policing. Race‐neutral discourses dominate public and professional support for community‐oriented policing philosophies. In the contemporary era of hyper‐incarceration a focus on ethnoracial divisions grounded in the sociology of peculiar institutions is essential for documenting transformations in how the municipal police services are legitimized. Here I analyze how the public discourses of law‐and‐order center on distortions of social fact and public safety. Today the criminalization of immigrants is the latest turn in public discourses shaping patterns of ethnoracial visions and divisions. The carceral breadth of the neoliberal penal state extends beyond social structure, repackaged as race‐neutral ideology across the public sphere.     

Immigration Attitudes Before and After Tragedy in Copenhagen: The Importance of Political Affiliation and Safety Concerns

This research analyzes attitudes on immigration before and after the February 14–15, 2015 Copenhagen shootings. Little research has been conducted on changes in immigration beliefs pre‐ and postcrisis events, and, further, this research has not closely considered how political views and safety concerns may operate within immigration beliefs in an additive, interactive, or mediating fashion. Using the 2014 and 2015 Copenhagen Area Surveys, the latter conducted shortly after the February shootings, our findings show that taking the survey either before or after the shootings did not shape immigration policy preferences. Instead, the findings reveal that right‐leaning political affiliation and a greater fear of crime are the strongest predictors of anti‐immigration attitudes. Implications center on new approaches to understanding societal responses to crisis events.     

Recollection and Relocation in Immigration: Russian‐Jewish Immigrants “Normalize” Their Anti‐Semitic Experiences

This study conceptualizes the relationship between recollection of the past and relocation in the context of immigration. Combining symbolic interactionist and narrative paradigms, it explores how immigrants'representations of past experiences inform their identity construction and the process of entering the host society. Our interpretive analysis of personal narratives related spontaneously by eighty‐nine Russian‐Jewish immigrants in Israel and Germany reveals that they choose to “normalize” their anti‐Semitic experiences by representing them as secondary, expected, and “normal.” They do so via four narrating tactics of normalization: obscuring, self‐exclusion, vindication, and essentializing stigma. Each tactic devalues the cultural depiction (grand narrative) of anti‐Semitic experiences as transformative and traumatic. By normalizing their past, the immigrants deconstruct and resist the authority and moral commands of the national narrative they encounter in both societies. Putting forward normalization as an alternative interpretation, the immigrants claim ownership of their biography and cultural identity.     

GLOBALIZATION,CULTURE WARS,AND ATTITUDES TOWARD SOCCER IN AMERICA: An Empirical Assessment of How Soccer Explains the World†

This study examines the “culture wars” using the lens of attitudes toward soccer. Despite soccer's increasing popularity in the United States, anti‐soccer rhetoric is fairly common. In his widely read book, How Soccer Explains the World (2004), Foer contends that the “culture wars,” including divisions over soccer, are better explained by reactions to globalization than social class or political ideology. Using data from a survey of Nebraskans, we find that attitudes about cultural globalization are the best predictor of soccer sentiment. Contrary to popular claims about the “culture wars,” most respondents were moderate in their attitudes toward both soccer and globalization.     

Determinants of Attitudes towards Immigration: Testing the Influence of Interculturalism,Group Threat Theory and National Contexts in Time of Crisis

Since 2008 a profound crisis, not only economic but also political, has been affecting the EU. The Eurobarometers carried out by the European Commision show an increased percentage of people who see their country as not having benefitted from being an EU member. In addition, the presence of extreme‐right parties has grown recently in several democracies. These parties adopt not only an anti‐European but also an anti‐immigrant stance. It is precisely the growing strength and visibility of this link between anti‐Europeanism and anti‐immigration in ideological positions that has prompted our research. Using data from the Eurobarometer 71.3 (2009) for eleven countries, we confirm a correlation between intercultural dialogue – measured using a proxy variable: European identification – and tolerance. Results also corroborate group threat theory. However, the best model takes into account national contexts. These findings show the relevance of studying national historical and cultural traditions to understand how prejudices develop.     

The Diffusion of Tolerance: Birth Cohort Changes in the Effects of Education and Income on Political Tolerance

Political tolerance—the willingness to extend civil liberties to traditionally stigmatized groups—is pivotal to the functioning of democracy and the well‐being of members of stigmatized groups. Although political tolerance has traditionally been more common among American elites, we argue that as tolerance has increased, it has also diffused to less educated and less affluent segments of the population. The relative stability of political attitudes over the life course and the socialization of more recent birth cohorts in contexts of increased tolerance suggest that this diffusion of tolerance occurs across birth cohorts rather than time periods. Using age‐period‐cohort models and more than three and a half decades of repeated cross‐sectional survey data, we find persistent and robust across‐cohort declines in the importance of both income and higher education in determining levels of political tolerance. Declines in the effects of socioeconomic status are evident with tolerance toward all five out‐groups in the analysis—anti‐religionists, gays and lesbians, communists, militarists, and racists—but to varying degrees. These findings fit with a model of changes in public opinion, particularly views of civil and political rights, through processes of cultural diffusion and cohort replacement.     

RACE,CLASS, GENDER,AND SOCIAL SPACE: Using an Intersectional Approach to Study Immigration Attitudes

This study uses an intersectional approach to predict attitudes toward immigrants by examining the intersections of race, class, gender, and social space. With data from the 2004 General Social Survey and the 2000 Census, generalized hierarchal linear modeling generates significant two‐way and three‐way interactions in predicting attitudes toward immigrants taking jobs, improving the economy, committing crime, and migrating to the United States. Important differences in attitudes between groups and within groups only emerge when particular intersections are considered in the analysis. One implication is that pro‐immigrant organizations may gain greater support by devising political strategies from an intersectional perspective.     

The Moral Economy of Neoliberalism: How Voters Use Neoliberal Ideology to (De)Legitimate Undocumented Worker Access to Labor Markets

Neoliberalism is prevalent in American life. While researchers have documented the use of neoliberal ideology in institutional and macrolevel policy contexts, they have yet to investigate how voters use neoliberal ideology to legitimate their position on economic policy. I use data from semi‐structured interviews with 85 Tucsonans about why they voted the way they did on Proposition 202 (2008): “Arizona Stop Illegal Hiring”—which sought to reregulate undocumented worker labor market access—to address this gap. I found evidence of two distinct neoliberal ideological legitimations: “fair market competition” and “individual responsibility.” Furthermore, I use these data to shed light on the debate over whether neoliberalism spans partisan affiliation or converges with American conservatism. I found that voters across party lines who supported the measure paired neoliberal legitimations with conservative legitimations. We can interpret this bipartisan use of neoliberal ideology as evidence of a neoliberal “moral economy”—or consensus about the moral principles in which market action is embedded. Evidence of this moral economy indicates that moral principles from neoliberal ideology are simultaneously bipartisan and converge with American conservatism. These findings suggest that there could be a broader moral consensus among voters concerning the legitimacy of anti‐immigration economic policies.     

Explaining Attitudes toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy: A Review of the Theoretical Literature

In the research literature on immigration attitudes, there are a number of theories that explain why individuals hold positive or negative opinions of certain immigrant groups and immigration policies. In this review of the literature, the theories are summarized into five categories: personal and social identity, self and group interest, cultural values and beliefs, social interaction, and multilevel theories. The majority of the theories offer explanations that favor one causal direction, focus on social psychology or the social structural environment, and assume that effects are additive rather than interactive. It is argued in this review that scholars would benefit by using multilevel theories, such as group position theory and intersectionality, in order to extend their explanatory reach past the theoretical standards and, in doing so, be able to better examine some understudied but important questions, such as why individuals often hold pro‐ and anti‐immigrant opinions simultaneously. Multilevel theories have the potential to offer a nuanced understanding of immigration attitudes.     

Attitudes toward Immigrants,Immigration, and Multiculturalism in New Zealand: A Social Psychological Analysis1

The research examines attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy based on a random sample of 2,020 New Zealand households. The analyses revealed that New Zealanders have positive attitudes toward immigrants and endorse multiculturalism to a greater extent than Australians and EU citizens. In addition, structural equation modeling produced an excellent fit of the data to a social psychological model commencing with multicultural ideology and intercultural contact as exogenous variables, leading, in turn, to diminished perceptions of threat, more positive attitudes toward immigrants, and, finally, support for New Zealand's policies on the number and sources of migrants.     

“The Politics of the HealthCare Reform Debate: Public Support of Including Undocumented Immigrants and Their Children in Reform Efforts in the U.S.”

Although U.S. immigration and health care policies appear to be highly correlated, scholarship has yet to gauge the public's views toward providing undocumented immigrants with health coverage at the state level. We analyze support for including undocumented immigrants in health care reform in New Mexico. Utilizing an original public opinion survey of New Mexico adults, we find that individuals are more supportive of the state providing health care to the children of undocumented immigrant than to their parents. Multivariate logistic regression analyses suggest that factors such as liberal ideology and perceptions of commonalities with Latinos increase support levels. Despite a lack of support among a majority of respondents, the influence of perceived commonalities with immigrants suggests that reform advocates and political elites who mobilize along ethnic or human solidarity may be successful in creating conditions for the inclusion of undocumented immigrants in the public provision of health care at the state level.     

How Watershed Immigration Policies Affect American Public Opinion Over a Lifetime

Important political events are known to influence political socialization and development (Green, Palmquist, and Schickler 2002 ). It is also possible that such events impact political socialization within particular age cohorts, and also across important social groups who may be impacted differently by landmark events. This paper examines whether landmark immigration events can leave a permanent mark on an individual's views toward immigrants and immigration, and whether that impact varies across different ethnic/racial groups in the United States Specifically, we examine the cohort of individuals who were in their formative years during the passage of major US immigration bills that were proposed or enacted from 1965 to 2010. Altogether, we focus on four pieces of landmark immigration legislation. The findings reveal variations on the effect of these events depending on the group in question; a relationship also emerges between these landmark legislative events and attitudes on immigration policies. The analysis contributes to an ongoing debate regarding the ways in which political elites influence attitudes, and we discuss how the findings may apply to other contexts outside the US.     

Women’s Status in the Context of International Migration

International migration creates unique gendered work‐family contexts that profoundly affect individual lives in various ways. This paper examines how immigration impacts women’s status in the labor force and in the family. Immigrant women who are laborers, self‐employed entrepreneurs, and professionals experience very different changes in gender relations and work status resulting from immigration. While some become more egalitarian, others remain patriarchal; some enter the paid labor force for the first time, whereas others retreat from prominent careers to become homemakers; some are powerful in certain areas but vulnerable in others. Immigrant women’s gains and losses in their work and family domains are full of variations, contradictions, and constraints. In addition to reviewing the current state of knowledge in this area of study, this paper discusses parallels across scholarly work, inadequacies in the literature, and directions for future research.