Motivational changes due to individual differences and situational variations in ingroup identification can influence accessibility of memories of ingroup violence, victimization and glories. In Study 1, high identifiers recalled fewer incidents of ingroup violence and hatred than of ingroup suffering. As well, they recalled fewer incidents of ingroup violence and hatred than did low identifiers. In Study 2, a manipulation of ingroup identity produced shifts in memory. Relative to those in the low identity condition, participants in the high identity condition recalled fewer incidents of violence and hatred and more good deeds by members of their group. Participants in a control condition recalled more positive than negative group actions; this bias was exaggerated in the high identity condition and eliminated in the low identity condition. With respect to memories of ingroup tragedies, Studies 3 and 4 demonstrated that experimental reminders of ingroup suffering enhanced participants' sense of connectedness to the ingroup. The findings suggest that memories of ingroup aggressions threaten ingroup identity whereas memories of ingroup suffering enhance ingroup identity. Societal implications of the findings are discussed. The present research informs the literature on reconstructive memory by extending previous findings on the flexibility of personal memories to historical memory.

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.

Can social cohesion and solidarity persist in the face of large-scale migration? One particularly contentious hypothesis states that native majorities will be unwilling to support the provision of government-funded welfare to those whom they do not consider to be part of their own sociocultural ingroup, especially when sociocultural or ethnic otherness and socioeconomic disadvantage overlap. Consequently, majorities’ willingness to accept disadvantaged immigrant groups as legitimate and trusted members of the welfare community is central to the social cohesion of societies diversifying through migration. The dissertation consists of a comprehensive summary, followed by four original studies addressing the interplay between migration-induced diversity and social cohesion through the lens of majority attitudes and the micro and macro contexts within which they are embedded. The studies focus on Sweden and Germany, two European societies that host strong welfare states and large immigrant populations. Together, they seek to answer two central questions: First, does social distance between native-born citizens and immigrants lead the former to withdraw support from all redistributive policies, or are some types of welfare more affected than others? Second, how does the migration-induced diversification of societies come to matter for majority attitudes toward the welfare state and, as they are closely related, for majority attitudes toward the trustworthiness of others? Looking at the case of Germany, Study 1 shows that the conflict between diversity and welfare solidarity is not expressed in a general majority opposition to welfare, but rather in an opposition to government assistance benefiting immigrants – a phenomenon sometimes referred to as welfare chauvinism. Study 2 turns to the case of Sweden and investigates three pathways into welfare chauvinism: via the first-hand experience of immigrant unemployment and putative welfare receipt in the neighborhood context; via exposure to immigrant competition at the workplace; and via negative prejudice against immigrants. We find that the direct observation of immigrant unemployment in the neighborhood increases natives’ preference for spending on other Swedes over spending on immigrants, while competition with immigrants at the workplace does not. Using the same Swedish data, Study 3 hypothesizes that ethnically diverse workplaces imply trust-fostering inter-group contact. Yet, like in Study 2, we find a negative relationship between majority Swedes’ exposure to certain immigrant groups in the neighborhood and their trust in neighbors, while diverse workplaces neither seem to increase trust nor to affect the negative neighborhood-level association. Both Studies 2 and 3 show that negative attitudes toward immigrants increase welfare chauvinism and lower trust, even disregarding majority Swedes’ actual experience of immigrant presence or unemployment. Study 4 thus turns to a social force outside the realm of first-hand experience and explores German online news media debates on the welfare deservingness of various sociodemographic groups – among them, immigrants (as refugees in particular). However, rather than observing the persistent and particular stigmatization of immigrants as undeserving recipients or untrustworthy abusers of welfare, we find much more nuanced descriptions in our vast corpus of news stories. / <p>At the time of the doctoral defense, the following papers were unpublished and had a status as follows: Paper 2: Manuscript. Paper 3: Manuscript. Paper 4: Manuscript.</p>

M.Ed. (Education) / Please refer to full text to view abstract

abstract: Nearly 11 million immigrants in the United States, three-quarters of which are Latino, lack legal authorization to live and work in the country; nonetheless, the majority of these individuals have resided in the U.S. for a decade or more and have profound social, emotional, cultural, and economic ties to the country (Passel & Cohn, 2018). Despite being deeply embedded in their communities, the dominant policy response involves increased immigration enforcement and advancing a hostile socio-political context (Gulasekaram & Ramakishnan, 2015). This policy approach comes at a great cost to immigrant and Latino communities throughout the U.S. and is largely ineffective. Accordingly, many advocates and stakeholders, including the National Association of Social Workers (2017), argue for policies that integrate “unauthorized permanent residents” (Martínez, Slack, & Martínez- Schuldt, 2018). The primary purpose of this study was to understand strategies that can be leveraged to build support for integrationist policymaking. Among a sample of U.S.-born white college students (n=708), intensive, community, and college contact with Latino immigrants and people of color were assessed; the relationships between intergroup contact and support for integrationist policymaking were examined. To better understand the contact-policy attitudes relationship, the deprovincialization hypothesis of the intergroup contact theory (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011) and the Latino threat narrative (Chavez, 2013) were merged and tested as a serial pathway by which contact and policy attitudes may be related. Findings revealed intensive and community contact with Latino immigrants and people of color related to more support for integrationist legislation. In most cases, these effects were direct as well as indirect through the ethnocentrismthreat attitudes pathway. Ethnocentrism fully accounted for the relationships between intensive and community intergroup contact and threat attitudes. These findings have several implications for intervention. First, in the long-term struggle for immigrant integration, intergroup interaction between whites and people of color should be promoted, and the importance of casual intergroup contact should not be dismissed. Interventions that reduce social segregation are needed, as well as efforts to effectively harness the ethnic-racial diversity that presently exists. Cross-group exposure interventions that aim to overcome ethnocentric tendencies should be implemented. / Dissertation/Thesis / Doctoral Dissertation Social Work 2019

Research on intergroup contact (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006) has shown it to be an effective measure of reducing prejudice, and further studies have shown parasocial intergroup contact to be effective as well (Ortiz & Harwood, 2007). This research is incredibly important when studying people with high Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), who tend to favor social hierarchies and disparities between groups. The present study will focus on the interaction of SDO and type of intergroup contact on prejudice. Over the course of a month-long longitudinal study, participants will either be assigned to a face-to-face contact condition, interviewing an immigrant confederate in-person, or to a parasocial contact condition, watching an interview of this confederate on a computer screen. Given past research, both types of contact are predicted to increase favorable attitudes toward immigrants and decrease racism, although face-to-face contact is likely to be most impactful. Low SDO individuals are predicted to maintain low levels of prejudice, while high SDO individuals are predicted to experience a larger difference in racism and attitudes toward immigrants. It is expected that those high in SDO and placed in the face-to-face condition will experience the largest difference in racism and attitudes toward immigrants, compared to the other groups, demonstrating an interaction effect. Implications for intergroup contact and the media will be discussed.

The Westboro Baptist Church and Phelps family are notorious for their signs proclaiming anti-homosexuality epithets such as “God Hates Fag,” and references to Biblical verses to revile homosexuality (e.g., Romans 1:24-27). Although the homonegativity bias that Westboro patrons and many traditional Christians express is often understood as being rooted in religion, I proposed the possibility that religion can be a justification rather than source of homonegativity. That is, although religion typically is seen as the source of prejudice towards LGBT+ people, I argued that this relationship might work in reverse. I examined under which conditions this “reverse” phenomena might occur in both the Pilot Study and follow-up study. My Pilot Study results suggested that there are differences in participants’ level of Religiosity after falsely being told they held LGBT+ prejudices. These differences were moderated by political alignment. Relatively liberal participants were more likely to have higher levels of Religiosity after receiving Biased Feedback compared to those who received Neutral Feedback. In terms of those who were more politically conservative, their level of Religiosity tended to be about the same regardless of which feedback they received. When it came to Biblical Literalism, however, relatively conservative participants had higher levels of literalism when given the Neutral Feedback compared to relatively liberal participants when given the same Feedback. These findings were mostly replicated in the follow-up Main Study. The results from both studies suggest that, under some circumstances, people might use religion to justify their prejudice towards LGBT+, and the strategy they use is affected by their political alignment (liberal or conservative). There could be differences in motivations between people who are more politically conservative and those who are more politically liberal. These potential differences are addressed in the discussion.

The relationship between Black Americans and African immigrants can be described in many ways, and one of those descriptions is distant. Due to a number of reasons, relationships between the two ethnic groups sometimes result in dissociation. In understanding the dissociation between Black Americans and African immigrants, this study takes a look at cultural identity, ethnic identity, avowal and ascription, and how they connect to the issue of dissociation between the two ethnic groups. This study uses social identity theory and mediated intergroup conflict as its theoretical foundation. Narrative approach and grounded theory approach are used as the study’s methodological approaches, and the study also analyzes its findings using three phases of data analysis; memo-writing analysis, narrative analysis, and hermeneutic analysis. Only a few studies concerning the dissociation between Black Americans and African immigrants have been conducted, and it is this study’s objective to add to the current literature. It is important to note that this study is an exploratory research on the dissociation between the two ethnic groups. Overall, the study’s findings indicate that the dissociation between Black Americans and African immigrants is due to the cultural differences between the two ethnic groups and how those differences are communicated.

Past research indicates that having a similar life experience as another person leads to greater empathic concern towards that person. Two studies empirically investigated if similar experiences of race-based social identity threat can increase the empathic concern of White Americans toward African Americans. Study 1 revealed that White Americans randomly assigned to think about White privilege and then randomly assigned to read a passage about an African American whose accomplishments are attributed to Affirmative Action policies (versus an African American whose accomplishments are attributed to his hard work and merit) felt greater empathic concern toward the African American described in the passage. This effect was significantly mediated by stereotype threat feelings and moderated by group identity. Study 2 revealed that White Americans randomly assigned to think about how others think they have benefited from White privilege and then randomly assigned to read a passage about an African American whose accomplishments are attributed to Affirmative Action policies (versus an African American whose accomplishments are attributed to his hard work and merit) felt greater empathic concern toward the African American described in the passage only when mediated by stereotype threat feelings or stereotype threat cognitions. This mediated effect was moderated by merit identity. This suggests that White American participants do not see the literal similarities between the scenarios of race based social identity threat to merit but can see the similarities in internal feelings and cognitions that both experiences create. Collectively, these studies suggest a novel consideration of social identity and understanding of intergroup processes.

Previous research has indicated that outcomes of depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation could stem from religious discrimination (RLGD). However, there remains an important gap in the current literature regarding RLGD impacts with non-Muslim populations. Further, the moderating effects of sex, race, and national origin (moderating variables [MVs]) have yielded mixed findings concerning anxiety (dependent variable). The intergroup anxiety theory and the integrated threat theory elaborate on perceived threats and potential anxiety of intergroup dynamics. The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine the role of religious preferences (independent variable), the MVs, and the RLGD-anxiety relationship. The sample consisted of foreign- and nonforeign-born, Christian theist, non-Christian theist, and nontheist participants from 44 countries and 6 racial groups (N = 414). The direct impact of RLGD through religious intergroup contact (Outgroup Contact Measure) and anxiety (Beck Anxiety Inventory) was measured via regression analyses. While controlling for the MV's, results show that (a) Muslims reported the most religious outgroup contact, whereas, Evangelical/ Fundamentalists reported the least. The (b) most severe differences and the highest and (c) anxiety symptoms were reported by agnostics, atheists, and Muslim women respectively. Findings from this research help clarify that the relationship between RLGD, sex, and anxiety, and show the variation among IV and sex moderations are more unique than initially addressed with Muslims. This is an important contribution to the existing literature and enhances social change by better serving understudied and underrepresented religious preference groups.