Ambivalent Prejudice toward
Immigrants: The Role of Social
Contact and Ethnic Origin
Hisako Matsuo, Kevin McIntyre, Ajlina
Karamehic-Muratovic, Wai Hsien Cheah,
Lisa Willoughby, & John Clements
1
Emma Lazarus’ famous poem engraved at the base
of the Statue of Liberty.
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe
free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore
--Emma Lazarus, “The New Colossus”
2
Immigrants to the US in the past (1880-)
 Irish
and Italians
Prejudice and discrimination toward
Catholics
 Chinese
and Japanese
Chinese Exclusion Act, Alien Land Act
Japanese internment during WWII
3
 WWII
through 1970’s: A positive
environment with a demand for
laborers. Immigrants were
welcomed.
 1970-1990:
Oil crisis, followed by
economic globalization. Immigrants
were seen as threat to US economy.
e.g. Killing of Vincent Chen
4
 1990-2000:
Immigrants from
Eastern Europe after the break down
of the former Soviet Union
 2001-
: Immigrants from Middle East
5
Ambivalent Attitude toward Immigrants
 The
sympathy and antipathy that
individuals express toward these
groups is hypothesized to be due to
two strong, but conflicting American
values (Biernat, et al., 1996; Katz &
Haas, 1988).
 Egalitarianism
Ethic
and Protestant Work
6

Americans value egalitarianism,
characterized by social equality, social
justice, and concern for others in need.

Americans also value the Protestant Work
Ethic (PWE), an individualistic belief in
hard work, self-discipline, and individual
achievement.
e.g. Protestant Work Ethic and
Development of Capitalism (Max Weber)
7
 Egalitarianism
is negatively
associated with all forms of
prejudice, whereas adherence to the
PWE is positively associated with
prejudice toward those outgroups
viewed to violate the PWE (Biernat et
al.1996) .
8

Immigrants are viewed as low in warmth,
perceived to be hostile to and in direct
competition with the ingroup (Lee & Fiske,
2006).

These perceptions of warmth and
competence vary across immigrants of
different nationalities, with most immigrant
groups are perceived ambivalently by the
ingroup.
e.g. Asian immigrants (cold but hard-working
people).
9
Theoretical Background

Examines whether immigrant nationality
moderates the relationship between
egalitarianism, PWE, and attitudes toward
immigrants.

Different immigrant groups (e.g., African
immigrants, European immigrants) are
perceived differently whether upholding or
threatening social values (Lee & Fiske,
2006; Sue & Kitano, 1973).
10

Contact Hypothesis: one way in which
individuals may come to reduce prejudice
is through direct social contact (Allport,
1954; Pettigrew, 1998; Wagner et al.,
2006).

Prejudice originates from unfamiliarity and
separation between groups and that
contact among the groups will lead to
more positive intergroup attitudes (Brewer
& Gaertner, 2001)
11
 Four
conditions for positive
relationship: Intergroup contact must
be socially supported, personal,
cooperative, and among individuals
of equal status (Allport, 1954;
Brewer & Gaertner, 2001; Pettigrew,
1998; Stephan, 1987).
12

Cross-group friendship potentially
addresses all four conditions of the contact
hypothesis, and thereby represents the
optimal situation for prejudice reduction
Pettigrew (1998) .

Personal contact with individual outgroup
members may generalize, thereby making
attitudes toward outgroups more positive
(Hewstone & Brown, 1986; Pettigrew,
1997).
13

Impersonal contact may actually lead to
more negative attitudes toward outgroups
in that these interactions may be difficult,
such as when individuals speak different
languages (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003;
Hewstone & Brown, 1986).
e.g. Presence of a large number of exchange
students on campus.
14
Setting of the Study

St. Louis Missouri: Ethnically diverse city
with many refugees and immigrants.

Census data indicates that the number of
immigrants in St. Louis rose by 65% from
1990 to 2000 (Mitchell, 2003).

The number of immigrants living in the
city of St. Louis and their American-born
children is close to 100,000, about onethird of the population of the city, making
the area one of the most ethnically diverse
cities in the Midwest (International
15
City of St Louis
North St Louis
primarily a Black
population
Area where the
Bosnian
population is
concentrated.
Referred to as
“Little Bosnia”
Central Corridor
mixed Black &
White population
South St Louis
primarily a White
population
16
Sample
 Participants
were 194 (70 male and
124 female) undergraduate students.
165 Whites, 10 Blacks, 8 Asians, 7
Latinos, and 3 classifying themselves
as “other.”
 Mean age of the sample was 20.83
(SD = 3.96), and 180 of the
participants were born in the United
States (14 were foreign born).
17
Measures
Social Contact. Participants first completed
a 10-item social contact scale based on a
revision of a previous scale devised by the
first author (Matsuo, 1992) (Cronbach’s α
= .877).
 Personal (e.g., “How many of your close
friends are immigrants?”) and impersonal
contact (e.g., “How many immigrants do
you encounter at work or school?”).

18

Attitudes toward Specific Ethnic Groups.
Participants reported their attitudes
toward Asian, African, Middle Eastern,
Bosnian, and European immigrants by
completing semantic differential items.
Six bipolar ratings for each immigrant
group on 7-point scales for the following
dimensions: cold-warm, negative-positive,
unfriendly-friendly, disrespectfulrespectful, uncomfortable-comfortable,
unwelcoming-welcoming (modified from
Voci & Hewstone, 2003).
19

General Attitudes toward Immigrants.
Participants were asked to report their
attitudes toward immigrants in general by
completing a modified version of the 10item scale used by Starr and Roberts
(1982).
“St. Louis has too many immigrants,” “It
would be better if immigrants settle in
another city or country,” and “Americans
should feel obligated to help immigrants.” A
5-point scale with endpoints ranging from 1
(Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).
(Cronbach’s α = .867).
20

Egalitarianism / Protestant Work Ethic
Scale. This 21-item scale was developed
by Katz & Haas (1988).

Responses to each item are made on a 6point scale, ranging from -3 (Strongly
Disagree) to 3 (Strongly Agree). Items
were then summed to form an Egalitarian
Scale and a Protestant Work Ethic scale
(see Katz & Haas, 1988). Cronbach’s
Alphas, 0.836 and 0.754 respectively).
21
Results

Showed different perceptions according
various ethnic origins.

Egalitarianism had a positive impact and
PWE a negative impact on attitude toward
immigrants.

Personal contact had a positive impact and
impersonal contact a negative impact
attitude toward immigrants.
22
Table 1. Perceptions of immigrants by ethnic origin: results from repeated measures ANOVA
Asian
African
Bosnian
European
Middle Eastern
Immigrants Immigrants Immigrants Immigrants Immigrants

F-statistics


Cold-Warm

M

SD

M

SD
4.94
4.51
5.16
4.37
1.38
1.47
1.38
1.26
1.45
10.630***
4.84
4.89
4.50
5.12
4.40
1.45
1.34
1.46
1.37
1.26
4.80
4.98
4.52
5.17
4.40
1.41
1.46
1.41
1.28
1.48
Unfriendly-Friendly

M

SD

4.76
Negative-Positive


15.595***
11.074***
Disrespectful-Respectful

M
5.23
4.78
4.56
5.15
4.60

SD
1.41
1.46
1.44
1.28
1.43

Uncomfortable-Comfortable

M
4.70
4.78
4.46
5.17
4.25

SD
1.37
1.43
1.33
1.31
1.48

1.128
20.823***
Unwelcome-Welcome

M
4.81
4.86
4.50
5.11
4.37

SD
1.46
1.44
1.42
1.33
1.47
6.518*

23
Table 2. Attitudes Toward Immigrants by Race, Age, Gender, American Values and Social Contact
General
Race
(1=white,
0=non-white)
Age
Gender
(1=Male,
0=Female)
Religion
(1=nonChristian,
0=Christian)
Egalitarian
Asian
African
-1.419 -1.488
(-.087) (-.073)
.188
-.025
(.147) (-.016)
1.441
-.426
(.109) (-.026)
-2.182
(-.129)
.916
(.044)
Bosnian
Middle
European
Eastern
1.625
-1.138
-1.847 -2.509
(.072)
(-.054)
(-.085) (-.129)
.046
(.026)
-1.798
(-.100)
.186
(.116)
-1.210
(-.069)
.109 -.150
(.065) (-.101)
-.758 -.781
(-.044) (-.050)
-.447
(-.020)
.595
(-.027)
1.598 .837
(.721) (.417)
.220*
(.211)
-.267**
(-.258)
-.010
(-.006)
-.531
(-.215)
.204*
(.204)
-.020
(-.020)
.212
(.132)
-.410
(-.176)
.203* .093
(.200) (.103)
-.114 -.049
(-.115) (-.056)
.121 .255
(.073) (.173)
-.266 -.243
(-.111) (-.113)
PersonalContact
ImpersonalContact
.310*** .251**
(.404) (.261)
-1.21†
-.092
(-.161) (-.099)
.418*** -.128
(.333) (-.083)
-.197* -.085
(1.107) (-.038)
Constant
R2
F Statistic
30.930***29.634***32.100***20.018***25.071***34.584***
.321
.094
.153
.091
.080 .051
6.214*** 1.323
2.321*
1.214
1.113 0.694
Protestant WE
Note: Standardized Beta coefficients are reported in parentheses.
†p=.057, *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001.
24
Demographic variables (e.g., race, age, gender,
religion) were not significantly predictive of general
attitudes toward immigrants.
Egalitarianism had a significant positive effect on (B
= 0.310, p < 0.001), such that as participants who
reported more egalitarian values had more favorable
attitudes regarding immigrants.
PWE had a near significant negative impact on
general attitudes (B = -0.121, p = 0.057), such that
greater adherence to the PWE was associated with
more negative attitudes toward immigrants in
general.
Personal social contact had a significant positive
impact on general attitudes (B = 0.418, p < 0.001),
such that greater personal contact was associated
with more positive attitudes; whereas high amounts
of impersonal social contact had a significant
25
For all five immigrant nationalities except
European immigrants, egalitarianism was a
significant predictor of attitudes toward
immigrants (B = .251, p < 0.01 for Asians, B=
0.220, p < 0.05 for Africans, B = 0.204, p <
0.05 for Bosnians, B = 0.203, p < 0.05 for
Middle Easterners, and B = 0.093, p > 0.05 for
European immigrants).
PWE had a negative impact on attitudes
toward African immigrants (B = -.267, p < .
01), such that as adherence to the PWE
increased, perceptions of African immigrants
became more negative.
26
Discussions

In general, adherence to egalitarianism was associated with
more favorable attitudes toward immigrants, whereas
adherence to PWE was associated with more unfavorable
attitudes.

Interplay between egalitarianism and PWE is dependent on
the nationality of the immigrant group. Specifically,
whereas PWE predicted negative attitudes toward African
immigrants, this relationship did not hold for other specific
immigrant groups.

These results may provide a preliminary explanation for
why prejudice toward some immigrant groups has
diminished substantially over the last fifty years, while
prejudice towards other groups remains unchanged.
Further research is needed to test this assertion more
explicitly.
27
 Contact
with outgroup members
plays an important role in
determining attitudes toward
immigrants, but only when that
contact is personal, it will lead to less
prejedice.
28
 Attitudes
toward immigrants, as was
shown in this study, are ambivalent,
and therefore addressing only one
aspect of the ambivalence may not
be sufficient to promote prejudice
reduction.
 Programs designed to reduce
prejudice (diversity programs at
higher educations, for example)
should not only promote egalitarian
values, but may also benefit by
suggesting that immigrants are hardworking, contributing members of
29

Only when social contact is
personal and cooperative,
prejudice reduction occurs.
 Impersonal
contact negatively
impacts individuals perceptions of
immigrants.

Integration of various ethnicities
may not serve to reduce prejudice
without additional work to ensure
that personal and close contact
occurs.
30
Questions and Comments to be addressed
to:
Hisako Matsuo, Ph.D.
Department of Research Methodology
Saint Louis University
[email protected]
31