221/1136
The Reality of Merkel’s ‘Welcome Culture’ Cosmopolitanism and Contact Differentially Predict Refugee Perception and Support Kerstin Frie, University of Oxford, UK,
[email protected] Kunalan Manokara, University of Queensland, Australia Lasana T. Harris, University College London, UK
BACKGROUND AND AIMS • In 2015 alone, Germany admitted approximately 1.1 million refugees (Hüther & Geis, 2016); the response by the public has been mixed • Research provides evidence for dehumanization of refugees and asylum-seekers: o In Canada, dehumanization of refugees was associated with feelings of contempt and the endorsement of anti-refugee beliefs (Esses, Veenvliet, Hodson, & Mihic, 2008) o In Australia, dehumanization of asylum-seekers was associated with perceived threat (Greenhalgh & Watt, 2015) • Dehumanization is characterized by an absence of spontaneous mentalization and social cognition (Harris & Fiske, 2006) • Cosmopolitan attitudes = general openness towards cultural diversity and ability to operate in divergent cultural environments (Cannon & Yaprak, 2002; Cleveland, Laroche, Takahashi, & Erdoğan, 2014) → Research question: Do cosmopolitan attitudes predict the extent to which Germans dehumanize refugees and show support for them?
METHODS
Time Donation Task
Online study (Fig 1), 118 participants, German residents (40 male, aged 18-76) Study 1a • Mentalization: Participants were asked to write a description about a day in the life of a refugee • Time donation: Participants were instructed to freely allocate ten fictitious hours to three volunteering projects: for homeless people, animal rights or refugees • Cosmopolitan attitudes: 6-item COSMOSCALE (Saran & Kalliny, 2012) Study 1b • Manipulation of cosmopolitan attitudes • Manipulation check: 5-item COS Scale (Cleveland et al., 2014) • 10-item Mind Perception Scale (Gray, Gray, & Wegner, 2007) for fictitious refugee group • Policy support: Participants evaluated sufficiency of funding for refugee-related causes
Mentalization Task
Informed Consent
COSMOSCALE Mentalization Task
Time Donation Task Filler Questions
Mind Perception Scale
Policies
Manipulation
COS Scale
General Questionnaire
Debrief
(including contact measures)
Figure 1. Procedure of the online study. Parts of study 1a are in blue, parts of study 1b are in red.
RESULTS Study 1a: • Significant main effects of cosmopolitan attitudes (β = 0.251, p = .008) and mentalization (β = 0.191, p = .041) on time donation • Trend for interaction effect: the stronger a participants’ cosmopolitan attitudes, the lesser the effect of mentalization on time donation (β = -0.194, p = .066; Fig 2) 5.5
Combined Analyses (SEM): • Measures of contact with refugees were added to the model • Results indicated that while Time Donation cosmopolitan attitudes positively E1 predict refugee Mentalization perception and support, contact Cosmopolitanism E2 E3 does so in a Mind Perception negative manner • The model had a E4 good fit (Fig 3) β = .119, p = .185
5
Time Donated to Refugees (h)
Study 1b: • Mind attribution (β = 0.191, p = .063) and cosmopolitan attitudes (β = 0.342, p < .001) independently predicted support for pro-refugee policy
4.5
Low Cosmo
4
Moderate Cosmo High Cosmo
3.5
Refugee Encounters
Direct Refugee Contact
β = .213, p = .016
3
β = -.185, p = .034
2.5 -1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
Money for Refugees
Mean Mentalization
Figure 2. Interaction of cosmopolitan attitudes and mentalization on time donation for refugees (study 1a).
Model fit: 𝜒2(11, N = 118) = 8.479, p = .670; TLI = 1.221, CFI = 1, RMSEA = 0 Figure 3. SEM testing the influence of cosmopolitanism and contact on refugee perception and support. Green lines indicate positive influences, while red lines indicate negative influences. Solid lines refer to significant connections.
CONCLUSION 1. Cosmopolitan attitudes are beneficial • Cosmopolitan attitudes positively predicted indirect and direct support for refugees • Cosmopolitan attitudes predicted mind perception, such that cosmopolites ascribed more mental life to refugees 2. Mind perception is beneficial • The more mental life a participant ascribed to the refugees, the more financial support he wanted to provide them with 3. Contact is detrimental • The more contact our participants had previously had with refugees, the fewer mental capabilities they ascribed to refugees and the lower was their willingness to help them • Research shows that intergroup contact under ideal circumstances can decrease prejudice and stereotyping (Pettrigrew & Tropp; 2006) • We argue that contact with refugees occurs under unfavorable contexts, which can exacerbate outgroup dehumanization (see Amir, 1969) o Language barriers cause frustration and ineffective communication, differences in statuses and norms are apparent and a common goal is lacking
REFERENCES Amir, Y. (1969). Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations. Psychological Bulletin, 71(5), 319-342. Cannon, H. M., & Yaprak, A. (2002). Will the real-world citizen please stand up! The many faces of cosmopolitan consumer behavior. Journal of International Marketing, 10(4), 30-52. Cleveland, M., Laroche, M., Takahashi, I., & Erdoğan, S. (2014). Cross-linguistic validation of a unidimensional scale for cosmopolitanism. Journal of Business Research, 67(3), 268-277. Esses, V. M., Veenvliet, S., Hodson, G., & Mihic, L. (2008). Justice, morality, and the dehumanization of refugees. Social Justice Research, 21(1), 4-25. Gray, H. M., Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2007). Dimensions of mind perception. Science, 315(5812), 619-619. Greenhalgh, E. M., & Watt, S. E. (2015). Preference for consistency and value dissimilarities in dehumanization and prejudice toward asylum seekers in Australia. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(1), 110-119. Harris, L. T., & Fiske, S. T. (2006). Dehumanizing the lowest of the low neuroimaging responses to extreme out-groups. Psychological Science, 17(10), 847-853. Hüther, M., & Geis, W. (2016, March 16). Zu den gesamtwirtschaftlichen Auswirkungen der aktuellen Flüchtlingsmigration. Retrieved from http://www.iwkoeln.de/studien/gutachten/beitrag/michael-huether-wido-geis-zuden-gesamtwirtschaftlichen-auswirkungen-der-aktuellen-fluechtlingsmigration-273082 Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751-783. Saran, A., & Kalliny, M. (2012). Cosmopolitanism: Concept and Measurement. Journal of Global Marketing, 25(5), 282-291.
The conference registration fee and travel expenses of Kerstin Frie were funded by the NIHR CLAHRC Oxford. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.
