This project focuses on the perception of immigrants as criminals, but more importantly, how this negative perception of immigrants can influence the population’s support for strict punitive policies. The question I seek to answer: will common negative perceptions of immigrants affect public support for more stringent punitive policies? The literature on what makes people punitive mostly focuses on the role of race and hostile feelings that lead to punitive feelings towards an immigrant. In this project, minorities and their attitudes in contrast to past studies that focus on White Americans will be central to the analysis. Analysis of both the 2012 National Election Survey and 2001 Los Angeles Social Survey data is used to explain how the relationship between economic threat and negative perceptions of immigrants lead to respondents becoming more punitive. Although respondents who feel economic threat are more punitive, there is a difference in significance between Whites and Blacks.

This dissertation analyzes the effects of Latino immigration on the representation of Latinos and African-Americans on school boards and attempts to explain under what conditions Latino immigrants provoke opposition among whites. I consider two measures of representation based on representative bureaucracy—the membership of Latinos and African-Americans on school boards and bias in the responsiveness of white school board members toward these two groups. Whites as the major racial group in the U.S. have been the subject of much intergroup relations research focusing on competition for scarce resources, perceived threat and group biases (e.g., Evans and Giles, 1986; Giles and Evans, 1985, 1986; Esses, Jackson and Armstrong, 1998), and I also focus on their racial behaviors as voters in school board elections and as school board members. I consider Latino immigration in this research because emerging evidence suggests that Latino immigration poses a growing threat to whites, leading them to shift their support from Latinos to a countervailing group, such as African-Americans (e.g., Meier and Stewart, 1991; Rocha, 2007). It is likely that the reactions of whites to Latino immigration are conditioned by their preexisting racial attitudes, so this dissertation also tests competing theories of community racial climate—group threat and group contact. I expect that racial tensions within a community should moderate the influence of Latino immigration on these two forms of Latino and African-American representation. Overall, this dissertation expands the study of representative bureaucracy by combining past research on community racial climates with conditions influencing minority representation.

A steady increase of new immigrants to the United States has sparked a great debate on the financial impact the foreign born population has on public services. While the United States government has an extensive history on exclusions for potential public charges, the impact of negative attitudes towards immigrants has caused substantial changes in eligibility criteria for legal permanent residents and ultimately immigration policy at large. This report uses group threat theory, which predicts a punitive response from a dominant group when these individuals perceive a threat to their group interests to explain shifts in attitudes and corresponding changes in eligibility criteria for public benefit programs for immigrants. Additionally, this study examines how U.S. citizens’ misinformed perceptions of immigrants’ utilization of public programs may negatively influence public support for increased government spending on public health care programs. To quantify the implications of public attitudes, the study uses repeat crosssectional data on attitudes towards immigration from the General Social Survey (GSS) from 1994 (N=578), prior to Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996. The responses are compared to a similar survey conducted by GSS in 2004 (N=365) an era of steep economic growth and substantially higher health care costs.

A steady increase of new immigrants to the United States has sparked a great debate on the financial impact the foreign born population has on public services. While the United States government has an extensive history on exclusions for potential public charges, the impact of negative attitudes towards immigrants has caused substantial changes in eligibility criteria for legal permanent residents and ultimately immigration policy at large. This report uses group threat theory, which predicts a punitive response from a dominant group when these individuals perceive a threat to their group interests to explain shifts in attitudes and corresponding changes in eligibility criteria for public benefit programs for immigrants. Additionally, this study examines how U.S. citizens’ misinformed perceptions of immigrants’ utilization of public programs may negatively influence public support for increased government spending on public health care programs. To quantify the implications of public attitudes, the study uses repeat crosssectional data on attitudes towards immigration from the General Social Survey (GSS) from 1994 (N=578), prior to Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996. The responses are compared to a similar survey conducted by GSS in 2004 (N=365) an era of steep economic growth and substantially higher health care costs. / text

With the ongoing conflict in the Middle East and other regions of the world, the eminent influx of refugees to European nations has become a topic of great concern and discussion. An increase in research has occurred concerning attitudes towards refugees and immigration in general, which has put forth the question of whether larger numbers of foreign born correlates positively or negatively to attitudes towards immigrants. Much of the previous research has focused largely on cross-national comparisons but has overlooked the importance of contextual factors at lower levels of analysis. Using cross-sectional data, the focus of this thesis is on the proportion of foreign born in Swedish municipalities and its correlation to attitudes towards refugees. The results confirm intergroup contact theory, which stipulates interaction among different groups results in greater tolerance, which is facilitated by a larger proportion of foreign born. In addition, the results also support the negative impact of poor economic conditions. When looking at the effect of unemployment on attitudes towards refugees; less tolerant attitudes arise as a consequence of higher unemployment. More research is needed in order to understand the importance of the proportion of foreigners and socioeconomic factors in the formation of attitudes towards refugees.

This thesis investigates the potential relationship between support for radical right-wing parties and the increased employment rates of women in member states of the European Union. While previous research has predominantly focused on immigration, by virtue of grievances, as a driver of radical right-wing support, this study explores whether increases in the employment ratio of women can also be perceived as a threat and contribute to this support. The rationale for examining this assumption is rooted in the understanding of radical right-wing parties as Männerparteien, being primarily supported and led by men. By analyzing time-series cross-sectional data from thirteen EU member states over twenty time periods, this study reveals a positive correlation between the employment rates of women and support for radical right-wing parties. This finding aligns with the concept of group threat theory, suggesting that increases in the employment ratio of women can indeed be perceived as a threat. The finding highlights the complex dynamics and potential resistance that arise when traditional power dynamics are challenged, emphasizing the need for comprehensive approaches to address these barriers and promote gender equality. The study also reveals a positive correlation between support for radical right-wing parties and the attainment of advanced education for men, as well as a negative correlation between radical right-wing support and increased GDP. The findings offer valuable insights to previous research and lay the groundwork for future studies in various research fields by yielding further insights into the group dynamics between men and women and by proposing the use of additional explanatory variables in explaining radical right-wing support.

No description available.

No description available.

This diploma thesis focuses on the so-called "migration crisis" and its impact on public opinion across the European Union (EU) between the years 2014 and 2017. It stems from existing literature that works with the concept of perceived group threat. The main goal is to analyze individual-level and contextual-level factors that played a key role in a certain development of native population's negative attitudes towards migrants and refugees. Such context is represented by the EU member states. An important part of the analysis deals with the relative imporance of contextual-level factors vis-à-vis individual-level determinants. Based on the results of multinomial multilevel logistic regression, the study finds that contextual-level characteristics had a substantial impact on negative attitudes towards immigrants and a large impact on negative attitudes towards refugees. Moreover, the importance of contextual determinants increased in 2015 and 2016, respectively, followed by a decline in the subsequent period. The analyses also revealed that during the "migration crisis" the impact of specific categories of explanatory variables evolved differently. Furthermore, it was shown that educational attainment, preferred social identity and different historical immigration legacies had a considerably...

Political tolerance is defined as the willingness to tolerate political ideas, actions, or practices of others that one disapproves of or finds objectionable. Tolerance is considered an indispensable democratic virtue. Contemporary debate in liberal, pluralistic societies covers a variety of controversies regarding tolerance as a concept, its exact meaning as well as its practical boundaries. Other factors such as different perceived threats by the majority group lower tolerance towards minority groups even in democratically stable countries. Sweden as a state rest on a strong liberal democratic foundation with emphasis on individual freedom and dignity as well as to the idea of political equality. Meanwhile, Sweden is confronted with increasing intolerant attitudes and public expressions of intolerance towards immigrants as well as other minority groups. Another consequence is hesitation among citizens to publicly express their opinions and a sense of self-censorship. Thus, the state fails to guarantee all individuals their equal right to political freedom and self-determination.  Although previous research has recognized the challenge of balancing political tolerance with other democratic values such as equality and autonomy, no such study has yet been conducted. This thesis is a contribution to the field of research. The aim is to empirically study how tolerance is expressed from a liberal democratic perspective on freedom of expression and thought towards three minority groups in Sweden: Jews, the Saami people, and Muslims. Applying a qualitative, comparative method, the thesis analyses how tolerance is expressed in media based on three liberal democratic core values: participation, autonomy, and equality. The chosen method provides a deeper understanding of how toleration is expressed towards each minority group. It also shows how the minority groups equal right to freedom of expression and thought is perceived. The results show that each minority group provides a different perceived threat in which toleration towards them are affected. The results therefore questions if there is an indication of a difference in the perception of citizens equal right to freedom of expression and thought in Sweden as a liberal democratic, pluralistic state.