Upload
sannevandermeer
View
212
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/23/2019 Groep 1 - Changing Negative Attitudes Towards Refugees in the Netherlands
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groep-1-changing-negative-attitudes-towards-refugees-in-the-netherlands 1/30
Changing Negative Attitudes towards Refugees in the Netherlands
Sanne van der Meer,
Elianne Lamur &
Rosa van den Akker
VU Amsterdam
23 October 2015
7/23/2019 Groep 1 - Changing Negative Attitudes Towards Refugees in the Netherlands
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groep-1-changing-negative-attitudes-towards-refugees-in-the-netherlands 2/30
Abstract
Currently the EU is facing a so-called ‘refugee crisis’, as there is a large increase in the
amount of refugees coming to European Union to seek asylum. As the government has not
taken the proper preparations to deal with this growth, there is a discrepancy between the
number of refugees and the care that is provided, which has led to tension in many European
societies. That this is also true for the Netherlands, is visible in several polls, which suggests
that a large part of the Dutch public is negative towards refugees. This is not conducive to the
goal to provide humane living conditions for arrived asylum seekers. As the government is
already very occupied in providing shelter, further help from volunteers and more donations
in necessary, something which is currently not present. The current paper attempts to
understand underlying motivations for the negative attitudes towards refugees and provide an
intervention in the form of an informational commercial in order to improve the attitudes
towards the refugees.
7/23/2019 Groep 1 - Changing Negative Attitudes Towards Refugees in the Netherlands
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groep-1-changing-negative-attitudes-towards-refugees-in-the-netherlands 3/30
Problem definition
What is the problem?
Refugee Crisis: Currently, there is a refugee crisis facing the world, and primarily
Europe. Across the world there are approximately 53 million refugees at this moment.
Moreover, recently there is a large increase in immigrants arriving in Europe from the Middle
East and Africa. At least 350.000 immigrants came into Europe between January and August
2015, where it was only 280.000 for the whole year of 2014 (British Broadcasting
Corporation [BBC], 2015). This is the most asylum seekers since 1992 (Centraal bureau voor
de statistiek [CBS], n.d.). A similar trend is visible if we look as the requests of asylum in the
EU. In 2013 in the EU28 435.385 refugees asked for asylum. This increased to 562.265 in
2014, and in the first 4 months of 2015, already 184.950 refugees have applied for asylum
(Stichting Vluchtelingenwerk Nederland, 2015). Most of the asylum seekers who are
currently entering the European Union are political refugees, mainly from Syria (117,200),
followed by Eritrea (46,200), Afghanistan (34,200) and Kosovo (32,800). (CBD, 2015)
The increase in refugees is also visible in the Netherlands, where in 2013 16.724
refugees asked for asylum, but this number rose to 29.891. For the first part of 2015, the
amount of refugees asking for asylum in the Netherlands is 14.464 (Stichting
Vluchtelingenwerk Nederland, 2015). 8,700 Syrian refugees have entered the Netherlands at
this point (CBS, n.d.).
For the most part these refugees come to Europe and the Netherlands to find more
freedom and safety than they had in their homeland. However, currently Europe has difficulty
facing the problem, as it is extensive and the required preparations have not been taking in
advance. It is thus not surprising that politics and news outlets are filled with questions and
opinions on how to treat this crisis. What should be the protocol dealing with (the increase in)
refugees? Which countries should be responsible and what is the role of Europe as a whole?
7/23/2019 Groep 1 - Changing Negative Attitudes Towards Refugees in the Netherlands
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groep-1-changing-negative-attitudes-towards-refugees-in-the-netherlands 4/30
And in this case: What should the Netherlands do in order to deal with the refugee crises?
There are multiple ideas and (political) views on these issues and some of them are
conflicting. Underneath we will address different viewpoints in the Netherlands.
Governmental views: The general policy of the Dutch government regarding Asylum
seekers in the Netherlands states: “asylum seekers may be given asylum in the Netherlands if
they need protection from persecution in their country on religious or ethnic grounds, for
instance. The immigration and Naturalization Service (IND) assesses whether an asylum
seeker needs protection… Peopl e who are granted asylum get help from the municipality in
finding a place to live.” (Dutch Government website, n.d.). The Dutch government signed the
following treaties regarding asylum policy: the Geneva Convention on Refugees, the
European Convention on Human Rights (Dutch Government website, n.d.)
In response to the growth in refugees the Netherlands will house 7.000 of 120.000
asylum seekers that are listed in the European Union (EU). Previously, the government also
allowed 2.000 non-Western refugees currently living in Italy and Greece to seek asylum in the
Netherlands (Dutch Government website, n.d.).
In cooperation with the EU, the government pleads for better shelter and housing
facilities within the neighborhood of the homeland of the refugees. However, this is a goal
that has not been reached at the moment (Dutch Government website, n.d.). Therefore,
refugees will still come to the Netherlands to seek asylum. The responsible ministries in the
Netherlands are: Ministry of Safety and Justice & Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Public views: However, despite the notion that the European Union needs to help
these refugees, citizens are more divided than ever on how to act towards the refugee crisis.
According to an opinion poll of Maurice the Hond in September 2015 only 13 % of the Dutch
citizens is willing to accommodate a refugee in their home, and only 40% thinks that the
Netherlands should allow more refugees to receive shelter in the Netherlands, thus indicating
7/23/2019 Groep 1 - Changing Negative Attitudes Towards Refugees in the Netherlands
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groep-1-changing-negative-attitudes-towards-refugees-in-the-netherlands 5/30
that a large part of the public is against the current political response (de Hond, 2015).
Research done by I &O research, commissioned by the Volkskrant (2015), gives more inside
into the views of Dutch citizens. Table 1 represents their findings. As can be seen a large part
of the public thinks less refugees should be allowed to settle in the Netherlands, especially
when they come for economic reasons. Giving information about the number of refugees in
Europe and the Netherlands less people are opposed to housing refugees, although still the
largest part of the sample wants less refugees in the Netherlands (Kanne & Kranenburg, 2015)
Without further
information
With
information
War-related
asylum seekers
Economical
asylum seekers
More refugees 24 % 31 % 42 % 8%The same amount 23% 26 % 26% 13%
Less refugees 45% 39% 26% 75%
No opinion 8 % 4% 5% 4%Table 1. Opinions of sample of Dutch citizens regarding allowing refugees to come to the Netherlands,
with and without information about the number of citizens in Europe and the Netherlands.
There seems to be a correlation with the views regarding refugees and political views.
Election polls indicate that since the refugee crisis is extant, the number of votes for the PVV
has risen. If elections would be held at this moment the PVV is likely to receive most seats in
the parliament (The post online, n.d.). PVV is a party largely associated with a negative view
regarding refugees and immigrants in general, as 95 % of PVV voters do not want more
refugees to be allowed to live in the Netherlands. Voters for 50plus, VVD, SP & CDA are
also more likely to be negative towards settling of refugees in the Netherlands (Kanne &
Kranenburg, 2015)
There also seems to be a correlation between education level and the views regarding
refugees. Generally lower educated people are more reluctant to let more refugees into the
country than higher educated people (Kanne & Kranenburg, 2015).
These negative views can have serious consequences.
Consequences of negative public attitudes: Despite the fact that it is clear that these
asylum seekers were in real danger in their homeland and came here to survive, the view of
7/23/2019 Groep 1 - Changing Negative Attitudes Towards Refugees in the Netherlands
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groep-1-changing-negative-attitudes-towards-refugees-in-the-netherlands 6/30
the public is largely negative towards these refugees. This is not conducive if the goal is to
help these people and solve the refugee problem. Organizations such as the Red Cross and
various local refugee organization need all the help they can get to deal with the problem at
hand, and provide refugees with a save and stable environment. Most refugees have survived
traumatic experiences and stability is necessary to process the trauma. When a large part of
the public does not feel positively towards helping this group, these goals will not be reached.
From a moral standpoint it can be argued that not helping these people is very unethical, and
should thus be avoided at all costs.
It is therefore important to understand why many people have a negative view
regarding refugees and how we can change these views.
Why is it a problem?
The negative view regarding refugees diminishes acceptance and helping behavior.
However, refugees are a group who are most in need for help. Usually, they did not have a
chance to take a lot of belongings with them and there is a serious shortage for clothes, shoes
and other first need products. Various Facebook-pages are addressed at finding these
products, and many NGO are trying to bring as must relief as possible.
Moreover, most refugees has serious mental problems as they survived traumatic
events (Abou-Saleh & Hughes, 2015). However, in order to overcome these problems there is
a necessity for psychological help and a stable environment. For both these things support
from the citizens of the Dutch society is required. When feeling discriminated against, while
living in unsatisfying conditions, this healing process cannot take place.
Thus, in order to create a more humane living environment for these people it is
important that the attitudes towards asylum seekers changes positively. This is of ethical
concern.
7/23/2019 Groep 1 - Changing Negative Attitudes Towards Refugees in the Netherlands
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groep-1-changing-negative-attitudes-towards-refugees-in-the-netherlands 7/30
Moreover, refugees do actually perceive this negativity, and may feel unwelcome
because of it. In an interview with a refugee called Mohammed (see addendum 1), he said that
he followed politics and news very closely and is shocked by the negativity that is sometimes
shown by Dutch citizens and politicians. He even suggested that rejection from a country seen
by refugees as safe and free, may lead some asylum seekers to find affiliation in other groups,
such as IS. This is a very serious concern and should be handled adequately.
For whom is it a Problem?
Summarizing the story above it is a problem for the whole of Europe. As we are
focusing here on the Netherlands, it is a problem for Dutch citizens and the government.
However, the most negative consequences are faced by the asylum seekers. As they have to
deal directly with the consequences of negative attitudes.
What are the possible causes of the problem?
A preliminary analysis of the current situation suggests that negative views may
originate from a fear that the Netherlands will get overcrowded if we allow more refugees to
enter. Moreover, as most of the refugees come from Syria, a primarily Muslim country, there
is also the fear that Europe, and thus the Netherlands will become more Islamic than is
desired.
Another key reason may be that people believe refugees come here for economic
instead of safety reasons. They believe these people do not need help and should not be
allowed to live here. These beliefs can easily lead to intolerance and more discrimination
towards refugees in the Dutch society. However, it should be noted that these views are not
representative for the whole Dutch population. There are also numerous people who are
positive towards refugees and do everything in their power to help them and welcome them.
For example, the Red Cross has had a rise in volunteers and several fundraisers have taken
place (Pijpker, 2015).
7/23/2019 Groep 1 - Changing Negative Attitudes Towards Refugees in the Netherlands
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groep-1-changing-negative-attitudes-towards-refugees-in-the-netherlands 8/30
Furthermore, the government usually plays a huge part in forming conceptualizations
of different subjects in society. Regarding the view of refugees, a lot can be said about how
the government contributed to the negative view. According to the former and current refugee
policy it is necessary to have restrictions when assessing if refugees receive asylum or not.
During the former policy the government implied that the Netherlands would be overcrowded
already, the costs would be too high, shelter accommodations are limited and that most
refugees would want asylum out of economic considerations (Autonoom Centrum, 1993). The
before mentioned reasons were given by the government as an excuse to why a lot of people
did not receive asylum. Consequences were that refugees are seen by people in the Dutch
society as fortune-seekers who are not in need of real help. This in turn has led to a negative
conceptualization of and aversive attitude towards refugees and why they come to the
Netherlands in the first place. Some of these ideas, whether they are true or not, still play a
role in the creation of the opinion of Dutch citizens that they don’t want more refugees to
come to the Netherlands, even though the current policy of the government has changed in the
sense that they want to contribute in a positive way to solve the problem.
A considerable part of the Dutch public is afraid of the consequences of housing
refugees and offering them asylum. They argue that no restrictions will lead to Islamification
of the country and consequently also allowed terrorists to either the Netherlands. Moreover,
there are beliefs that ref ugees are ‘favored’ above the Dutch citizens; such as claims that
while refugees get free health care and receive ‘social housing’, the Dutch citizens that
actually need something are left out cold (PVV, 2015).
These kind of beliefs are also perceived by Mohammed (addendum 1), and he suggests
that some Dutch citizens have incorrect ideas about the current situation regarding refugees.
He suggests a lot of the negative attitudes may have to do with misinformation.
7/23/2019 Groep 1 - Changing Negative Attitudes Towards Refugees in the Netherlands
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groep-1-changing-negative-attitudes-towards-refugees-in-the-netherlands 9/30
According to the literature there are several theories as to how and why prejudice
emerges. One theory suggest that prejudice emerges through a socialization process, which
states that people from a young age learn to differentiate between different groups and that
members of these groups also have different points of view (Wilder, 1986). People learn to
differentiate through social, political or economic circumstances. When people hear or read
something over and over again eventually it will sink in regardless of whether it is believed
that the association has any factual basis (Gleitman, Reisberg & Gross, 2007).
Literature also provides ideas on how to change these negative beliefs and attitudes.
Prejudice can be diminished by involves active cooperation in pursuit of a shared goal
(Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). It can also be tackled through individualization of group
members, in this case refugees so that the “they are all alike” attitude will be lost (Dovidio &
Gaertner, 1999).
These theories, among others, will be discussed further in the analysis and test phases.
What is the target group?
The target group of the intervention will be people who have a negative view of
refugees in the Netherlands. These citizens are primarily PVV voters, but also some other
parties such as 50plus, VVD, etc. Moreover, these people generally have lower education and
are more likely to be male (Kanne & Kranenburg, 2015)
What are the key aspects of the problem?
Can a social psychological approach change the negative attitudes towards refugees?
We think it is possible as the problem entails several psychological processes as behavior,
group-processes and specifically attitudes. These constructs are at the heart of social
psychology.
However, it should be noted that there are several other influential factors that are
harder to change with a social psychological approach. Political and economic forces also
7/23/2019 Groep 1 - Changing Negative Attitudes Towards Refugees in the Netherlands
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groep-1-changing-negative-attitudes-towards-refugees-in-the-netherlands 10/30
impact the refugee problem and the view of the public. These things may also be harder to
change, although it may be possible to influence the views of the public nonetheless.
Therefore, we believe the problem at hand can be partly relieved, but not completely
solved, especially with a single intervention. We believe that some part of the public may
adopt more favorable views towards refugees, but as there are several non-psychological
factors also influencing the problem we believe that these also should be changed in order to
reach the whole public.
Problem definition
The problem definition can be summarized in the following manner. Currently there is
a large increase in the flow of refugees towards the European Union and the Netherlands.
However, at the moment Europe and the Netherlands have trouble handling the manner in a
satisfactory way. This is not surprising as the extent of the problem is large, and proper
preparations have not and possibly could not have been taken. The discrepancy between the
increase in refugees and the ability of the governments to shelter them, has led to tension
within societies, and this is also true for the Netherlands. According to various sources a large
part of the public has a negative standpoint towards refugees. This negative view diminishes
acceptance and helping behavior, something that is very necessary at the moment to provide
humane living conditions for the refugees, as well as providing a safe environment for
psychological healing after traumatic experiences.
A preliminary analysis indicates that the negative view towards refugees may be due
to fear from the public that the Netherlands will get overcrowded and more Islamic than
desired. Further analysis of the problem will give more inside in motivations for negative
attitudes and uncover possible interventions to change these negative attitudes.
7/23/2019 Groep 1 - Changing Negative Attitudes Towards Refugees in the Netherlands
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groep-1-changing-negative-attitudes-towards-refugees-in-the-netherlands 11/30
Analysis and Test Phase
Several theories can help to understand negative attitudes towards others better. While
considering multiple theories at first, we focused here on the three most important ones for
understanding the current negative attitudes towards refugees: Social Identity Theory, Contact
hypothesis & Integrated Threat Theory. All will be described below in the framework of the
refugee crisis & public view.
Social i denti ty theory and Prejudice
The social identity theory argues that when people see themselves as belonging to a
certain group, they will be more positive of their own group (in-group) than another group
(out-group) (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). People have the tendency to classify individuals into
groups or categories, which is a basic cognitive process that simplifies, structures and give
meaning to the social world. This process is also known as social categorization. Social
categorization often happens automatically and outside of awareness or control (Fiske, 1998;
2000). An effect of classifying individuals into categories is that intra-group similarities and
inter-group differences are enhanced, which would be fundamental to stereotyping, the
perceiver’s beliefs about the group’s attributes, according to Tajfel (1969). Research has
shown that if individuals are being categorized in terms of belonging to an in-group or out-
group there is a tendency for in-group members to view out-groups as relatively less complex,
less differentiated and less individuated than their in-group members (Judd & Park, 1988;
Wilder, 1986).
People usually have the opportunity to learn about their group and see that it is made
up of diverse and unique individuals, because they have a lot of exposure to people belonging
to their own group. Generally, we have much less exposure to other groups, therefore there is
little opportunity to learn and we are more likely to perceive the group as a mass of more or
less similar people, so called, out-group homogeneity effect (Seamon et al., 1995). This is
7/23/2019 Groep 1 - Changing Negative Attitudes Towards Refugees in the Netherlands
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groep-1-changing-negative-attitudes-towards-refugees-in-the-netherlands 12/30
definitely the case in the current conflict as there is a large increase in the arrival of refugees
as interaction with Dutch citizens does not happen on a large scale. Therefore it is not strange
that people will perceive asylum seekers as a more homogeneous group. Especially if taking
into account that this is also the way they are portrayed in the media, as a group and not as
individual people.
Only when people are seen in terms of social categorization and belonging to a group
can prejudice, a negative intergroup attitude, emerge (Duckitt, 2003). When people are seen
as individuals this is usually not the case. Brown (2000) suggested that social categorization
does not generate a negative view or prejudice towards the out-group, but rather generates
identification with and enhancement of the in-group, which may be seen more as a
precondition for prejudice than a form of prejudice. Research implies that categorization is a
necessary, but not sufficient condition for prejudice to emerge. When people are prejudiced
against a specific group, that group categorization will become highly accessible for them and
are ready to shift from person-based processing of social information to category-based
processing when coming in contact with individuals belonging to that group (Brewer &
Brown, 1998; Duckitt, 2003). For example, if people have a negative attitude towards
Muslims they are more ready to classify others from the Middle-East also as Muslims.
There are three ways in which intergroup attraction or hostility can be expressed:
positive or negative group stereotypes, positive or negative feelings towards groups and
inclinations to behave positively or negatively towards out-groups, thus via stereotypes, affect
and behavior.
Stereotypes can be positive, neutral or negative in nature, but only negative
stereotypes are usually viewed as prejudicial attitudes (Duckitt, 2003). In the current case of
the stereotypes towards refugees we can definitely argue that they are perceived by many with
negative stereotypes.
7/23/2019 Groep 1 - Changing Negative Attitudes Towards Refugees in the Netherlands
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groep-1-changing-negative-attitudes-towards-refugees-in-the-netherlands 13/30
However it should be noted that various research also suggests that intergroup affect
may play an important role in predicting prejudicial attitudes (Dovidio, 1996; Fiske, 1998;
Stangor, Sullivan & Ford, 1991). This finding is in supported by research in the Netherlands
about negative attitudes towards Muslims. Wirtz, van der Pligt and Doosje (2015) found
various emotions, such as disgust and anger, regarding the outgroup to be significant
predictors of negative attitudes. Moreover, these emotions seemed to mediate the effect of the
negative stereotypes on negative attitudes.
These stereotypes and negative attitudes will in turn predict the behavior towards the
out-group. For a certain part of the Dutch public it can be established that they behave
negatively towards refugees, asylum seekers and non-western immigrants in general.
Currently these people seem to identify a lot with the political party PVV (Kanne &
Kranenburg, 2015).
The social identity theory provides the first piece of the puzzle to understand how
negative attitudes towards others are created, but other theories can create more light onto the
underlying processes whereby more group-identification leads to negative attitudes for some
groups, but not for others.
Contact hypothesis
Another part of the puzzle is the contact hypothesis, which states that when members
of different groups are brought into contact with each other it will reduce pre-existing
prejudice and will result in more positive intergroup attitudes and stereotypes. This hypothesis
implies that the opposite is also the case, when members of different groups are kept apart or
they never come in contact with each other prejudice will stay the same or maybe even
develop over time. Currently, incoming refugees are kept in guarded housing facilities and
interaction with Dutch citizens is reduced to a minimum. This makes contact hard. Moreover,
despite the fact that there are many approved asylum seekers living in the Netherlands,
7/23/2019 Groep 1 - Changing Negative Attitudes Towards Refugees in the Netherlands
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groep-1-changing-negative-attitudes-towards-refugees-in-the-netherlands 14/30
interaction with the Dutch public, especially the ones with negative attitudes, is minimal.
Therefore, negative stereotypes and attitudes are hard to counteract with real-life contact.
It is important to note that despite the fact that early research has shown that
intergroup contact is followed by a change in prejudice, this change can be both ways.
“Favorable” conditions do tend to reduce prejudice, but “unfavorable” conditions may
increase intergroup tension and prejudice (Amir, 1969). According to Allport (1954) attitudes
can change but only if the situation is marked by four key conditions: equal group status
within the situation, common goals, intergroup cooperation, and the support of authorities,
law or custom. Equal group status is supported by other research as an important condition in
attitude change (Cagle, 1973; Riordan, 1978). Although, it is difficult to define “equal status”,
it is important that both groups expect and perceive equal status in the situation (Cohen &
Lotan, 1995; Cohen, 1982). Common goals is an important factor reducing prejudice through
contact. Attainment of common goals needs to be an interdependent effort without intergroup
competition (Bettencourt et al., 1992). The support of authorities, law or custom establishes
norms of acceptance. Intergroup contact has more positive effects if there are explicit social
sanctions (Pettigrew, 1998)
The current situation regarding the refugee problem may be seen as an “unfavorable”
situation. Refugees are housed in shelters with little contact to the rest of the community, they
do not have the same social or even legal status, there are no common goals with many of the
Dutch citizens, and little (perceived) support of the authorities. Based on above findings we
expect that because refugees who are placed in shelters with little to no contact with the Dutch
population they are more negatively viewed than if this was not the case.
The contact hypothesis gives inside in how negative stereotypes, attitudes and
prejudice can remain or change over time via intergroup contact, but it is also important to
7/23/2019 Groep 1 - Changing Negative Attitudes Towards Refugees in the Netherlands
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groep-1-changing-negative-attitudes-towards-refugees-in-the-netherlands 15/30
understand how these views develop in the first place. A helpful theory is the integrated threat
theory.
I ntegrated Th reat Theory
A complementary theory to social identity theory and the contact hypothesis is the
integrated threat theory, which can help explain how identifying with a group might cause
negative attitudes towards another. This theory argues that the perception of threats may elicit
negative attitudes towards minority groups. These threats can consist of realistic threats,
symbolic threats, intergroup anxiety threats, and threats out of negative stereotyping. Realistic
threats consists of perceived threats towards the group in the form of perception of
competition over limited resources and conflicting goals (Riek, Mania & Gaertner, 2006).
Currently, the extreme increase in refugees coming to Europe and the Netherlands,
takes its toll on the governmental system. Many people seem to feel that the government
favors asylum seekers over their own citizens. A good example is the fact that the government
has to provide or at least help with the housing for accepted asylum seekers. This sometimes
means that housing of Dutch citizens, especially of lower social economic status, may be
more difficult and take more time. As the waiting time for social housing is currently an
average of 8 years, and refugees are indeed given priority in some conditions, it can be
concluded that there is reason of realistic threat for some part of the Dutch citizens.
However, this seems not to be the only threat that is present currently. Symbolic
threats are threats regarding the existence of the “morals, values, standards, beliefs and
attitudes” (Stephan et al., p. 1243) consistent with the in-group. If one inspects the quotes of
PVV leader, Geert Wilders, there is a vast amount of evidence of the perception of symbolic
threats towards current refugee seekers. For example he argues that the Netherlands will
“Islamify”, and ‘our ’ own norms and values will be replaced by the barbaric rules of the
Islam. Despite the fact that within the European Union only 5 percent is Muslim, and if all
7/23/2019 Groep 1 - Changing Negative Attitudes Towards Refugees in the Netherlands
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groep-1-changing-negative-attitudes-towards-refugees-in-the-netherlands 16/30
asylum seekers would be allowed in, it would only rise to 6 percent, the perception of
symbolic threat is still present and distributed via media and some political parties.
A third component of the integrated threat theory is also present in this instance.
Intergroup anxiety threats adds the component of possible intergroup contact, which may
elicit uncertainty and uneasiness. Intergroup anxiety has been found to be a strong predictor of
out-group attitudes and bias. In the current system incoming refugees are segregated from
others in the society, which may elicit anxiety as intergroup contact is not possible. This may
also elicit negative stereotypes towards the refugees, as they can be viewed as a group that
should not interact with the public. Despite the fact that the contact hypothesis argues that
intergroup contact is important to create mutual understanding, or at least acceptance,
integrated threat theory suggests that at least some forms of contact may just elicit intergroup
anxiety. Realistic and symbolic threats, as well and intergroup anxiety and negative
stereotyping will lead to negative attitudes towards the out-group. (Riek, Mania & Gaertner,
2006). It thus seems important that the conditions under which refugees or asylum seekers and
Dutch citizens meet should be favorable in such a way that they meet on equal foot.
Integrated threat theory has been supported by various research in numerous fields.
These findings also support the idea of several antecedents influencing whether threats will be
perceived, such as negative contact between groups and higher in-group identification.
Moreover, research by Stephen et al. (2002) suggests that the negative stereotypes may not
directly predict threat and thus negative attitudes, but do this so via the symbolic and realistic
threat and intergroup anxiety. However a meta-analysis of Riek et al. (2006) suggests that the
direct effect of stereotypes is also still valid, although it is also possible that intergroup threat
may create negative stereotypes. Although integrated threat theory provides a solid
understanding into different motivations for the origin of negative attitudes, there are still
some other factors that should also be considered.
7/23/2019 Groep 1 - Changing Negative Attitudes Towards Refugees in the Netherlands
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groep-1-changing-negative-attitudes-towards-refugees-in-the-netherlands 17/30
Other explanations and inf luential factors
Research on perception of immigrants suggests that more often men are against the
current trend regarding asylum seekers. Economic status seems also to be a significant
predictor of views regarding refugees (Kanne & Kranenburg, 2015). There are various
possible explanations for this. For one, lower SES individuals seem to be more vigilant to
threat in general (Kraus, Horberg & Goetz, 2011), and thus may be more likely to perceive
symbolic and realistic threat, as well as be more anxious about intergroup contact. Secondly,
it can be argued that there is indeed more threat for the lower SES individuals, then for the
higher class. Being secure in wealth and having a good education will create more
opportunities to remain in this status, whereas lower social class are generally less, or at least
feel less in control of their situation. This may elicit a higher perception of threat.
In the situation that is currently playing out in the Netherlands, the level of realistic
threat may have actually risen as well, especially for the lower social economic status group.
Many of them depend on help from the government, for example for housing. These housing
opportunities are now also used by asylum seekers, as the government is required to do so.
Process model:
Combining these variables, with the three proposed theories the following process
model can be proposed. The model starts with the assumption that people tend to identify
with a group and that this leads to social categorization. Social categorization is one of the
factors influencing negative stereotypes towards the out-group, which in turn predict the
perception on threats, both symbolic and realistic, and intergroup anxiety. However, whether
negative stereotypes towards refugees are elicited is also dependent on the influence of social
economic status, which also influences the amount of perceived realistic threat. Also research
has shown that generally speaking gender also influences the amount of negative stereotypes
held.
7/23/2019 Groep 1 - Changing Negative Attitudes Towards Refugees in the Netherlands
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groep-1-changing-negative-attitudes-towards-refugees-in-the-netherlands 18/30
Realistic threat, symbolic threat and intergroup anxiety are good predictors of negative
attitudes towards the out-group, in this case refugees. However, the effect on intergroup
anxiety and symbolic threat are influenced by exposure towards the out-group. When this is
done on equal ground, it is likely this will lead to more perspective taking an empathy towards
the out-group; thus leading to less anxiety of intergroup contact and less perception of
symbolic threat.
Figure 1. The process model of how in-group identification leads to negative attitudes.
Help Phase
Balance table
Some variables may have a smaller effect size or may be harder to change. Therefore
it is necessary to make a balance table with all possible changeable variables. In this balance
table the variables are rated on modifiability and effect size in order to see which variables
should be employed to create the largest change in negative attitudes. Each variable will be
discussed below in terms of modifiability and effect size. Research will be used to back up
our claims.
7/23/2019 Groep 1 - Changing Negative Attitudes Towards Refugees in the Netherlands
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groep-1-changing-negative-attitudes-towards-refugees-in-the-netherlands 19/30
In-group identification: In-group identification seems to be predict intergroup threat
weakly to moderately (Riek et al. 2006). This makes sense as in-group identification does not
always mean that one negatively evaluates another group. Moreover, modification may be
possible, but the effects will possibly be only short-term as identification with a certain group
is usually a quite stable trait, which becomes part of one’s identity.
Social categorization: Social categorization is something that will happen inevitably.
Categorizing is a behavior every human shows to interpret the world and thus also how to
evaluate the world. Despite the fact that social categorization is not avoidable, the content of
social categorization is. For example, self-categorization theory argues that people can
categorize themselves on different levels, such as individualistic, part of an in-group, and part
of humanity. On the basis of the categorization it is thus possible that refugees become part of
the in-group as one categorizes themselves as human (Hornsey, 2008). However, even though
categorization is modifiable for a certain amount of time, in our current society there are
numerous influences that may make it more likely to remain seeing refugees as an out-group.
Negative stereotyping: Negative stereotyping is strongly and significantly related to
both symbolic and realistic threats, as well as negative attitudes (Riek et al., 2006). This
suggests that this would be an appropriate variable to manipulate in order to change negative
views. Negative stereotypes are easiest to change by exposure to a subject with physical
characteristics congruent to the stereotype, but no other kind of similar (negative)
characteristics associated with the stereotype (Wolsko, Park, Judd & Bachelor, 2003). Despite
the fact that is thus changeable, it may be harder to accomplish in the Netherlands due to the
fact that intergroup contact is currently not vary prevalent.
Intergroup Anxiety: Intergroup anxiety is also a component that can be reduced by
intergroup contact (Pettigrew, 1998). This is possible, but maybe also difficult to in the
7/23/2019 Groep 1 - Changing Negative Attitudes Towards Refugees in the Netherlands
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groep-1-changing-negative-attitudes-towards-refugees-in-the-netherlands 20/30
current situation. Therefore, despite the fact that reduction of intergroup anxiety will reduce
perceived threat and thus negative attitudes, it is hard to modify (Riek et al., 2006).
Symbolic & realistic threat: Both realistic and symbolic threat are good predictors of
negative attitudes towards the out-group (Riek et al., 2006). Moreover, they may be easier to
change than intergroup anxiety as they involve for a large part misinformation in this instance.
Perceptions such as that refugees come here for economic reasons, want to stay here and will
‘Islamify’ the country, are refuted by various statistics. Therefore, these variables may be
appropriate to address in the intervention.
Exposure on equal ground: Despite the fact that exposure is a key variable in refuting
negative stereotypes and intergroup anxiety (Pettigrew, 1998), it may be hard to modify in
this case. Many of the refugees are at this moment not visible for the public. They get shelter
in places that are guarded and not easily accessible. This is mostly because of policy of the
government and other organizations. These policies are hard for us to address and thus real-
life exposure may not be viable to use in the intervention. However, it may be possible to
show refugees in a non-threatening manner via television and other media. This may also be a
way to elicit exposure and thus changes in perception of threat and negative attitudes. It
should however be noted, that this exposure does not to be on equal ground, but if you use
television and other media to create exposure, this may not be difficult to manipulate.
SES: Social economic status is also an important factor in the model as it may be
related to perceived realistic threat and the effect of social categorization on negative
stereotypes. However, this is not a variable that is easy to change, at least not in a short
amount of time. Therefore, the variable will not be used in the intervention.
Gender: gender is not something you can change and therefore it is not modifiable.
Also the effect of gender generally seems to be very small, although significant.
7/23/2019 Groep 1 - Changing Negative Attitudes Towards Refugees in the Netherlands
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groep-1-changing-negative-attitudes-towards-refugees-in-the-netherlands 21/30
Variables from the process
modelModifiability Effect Size
In-group identification 0 +
Social categorization + +
Negative stereotyping + ++
Intergroup anxiety ++ ++
Symbolic threat ++ ++
Realistic threat ++ ++
Exposure on equal ground + ++
Low SES 0 ++
gender - 0
Table 2. Balance table. Note: With regard to modifiability: ++ = high modifiability; + = medium modifiability; 0
= low modifiability; - = not modifiable
With regard to the effect size: ++ = large effect; + = moderate effect; 0 = small effect; - = no effect
Intervention
On the basis of the balance table the variables that should be tackled are mostly from
the integrated threat theory: namely realistic and symbolic threat perceptions, as well as
intergroup anxiety. However, most of these variables are in previous literature primarily
manipulated by exposing people to the out-group. This is something that may be difficult to
do in real-life in this case, as policies make it very difficult for people to interact with
incoming refugees. Therefore, instead of focusing on real life exposure, we will try to create
exposure by designing several commercials intended to expose the public to refugees in a way
that will elicit empathy and understanding. Moreover, we propose these commercials should
be combined with a debating program, in order to elicit a civilized talk whereby both
arguments can be heard. In the strategy section it will be further explained, why we feel this is
a good approach.
Channel: we choose a television commercial as the channel through which the
intervention is given. The reasoning behind this is that in this way the largest audience will be
reached. We prefer to see the commercial at the NPO 1 channel, because this is a public
7/23/2019 Groep 1 - Changing Negative Attitudes Towards Refugees in the Netherlands
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groep-1-changing-negative-attitudes-towards-refugees-in-the-netherlands 22/30
broadcasting which has the most viewers (Kijkcijfers, 2015). Exposure through this channel
will have a medium effect on individual level. We hope that by reaching multiple members of
the group with negative attitudes towards refugees, we can either change the group dynamics
in such a way that group-perception towards refugees changes, or change how individuals
identify with the group ideology and thus consequently with the group.
We also believe television is an appropriate medium, because it is currently the best
way to expose people to refugees and asylum seekers in a generally neutral or positive way
and for providing realistic information regarding the refugee crisis to the public.
Method: several methods will be used to try to c. The first method is creating empathy
towards the refugees/asylum seekers. This is a way of eliciting empathy and perspective
taking, which may in turn lead to less negative attitudes towards refugees.
Secondly we want to change the perception of realistic and symbolic threat by
argumentation. In other words, by providing realistic and factual information about the
situation, the hope is to counter the negative and incorrect beliefs that may be held by Dutch
citizens with a negative attitude towards refugees.
Strategy: we propose to change negative attitudes towards refugees by designing
commercials intended to expose the public to refugees in a way that will elicit empathy and
under standing without portraying the refugees too much as ‘survivors’. With this we mean
that we do not want to focus solely on the tragedies they faced as this may elicit unease within
the public and create mortality salience. Mortality salience may result in more perception of
threats towards the out-group, as people search for security in their original norms and values
(Weise, Arciszewski, Verlhiac Pyszczynski & Greenberg, 2012). For people who are
generally negative towards out-groups, partly due to perception of threat, this may mean that
they will perceive the out-group as more negative. This is contrary to what we want to achieve
with the intervention.
7/23/2019 Groep 1 - Changing Negative Attitudes Towards Refugees in the Netherlands
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groep-1-changing-negative-attitudes-towards-refugees-in-the-netherlands 23/30
We want to address negative stereotypes and perceptions of realistic and symbolic
threat in the commercials, by providing important facts about the refugee crisis. Negative
beliefs that come from stereotypes and perceived threat often develop from limitedly available
information, which does not have to represent the truth (Wittenbrink & Henly, 1996). As
addressed above, currently negative beliefs are that the refugees “are fortune seekers”,
“consists partly of terrorists”, “will Islamif y the Netherlands” and “will take ‘our’ houses,
money and all other forms of help from the government”. Most of these statements are easily
refuted by provided real data and policies.
Adding this component to the commercials will make it more likely that refugees are
perceived less as a threat and people will be more open for the perception of the story of the
refugee and the message that asylum seekers are mainly people in need of help. However,
some research suggests that when negative stereotypes exists, new information will be
processed in a biased manner (Lord, Ross & Lepper, 1979). Therefore, attention should also
be paid to this. A possible way to do this is by trying to change the group people identify with
in such a way that it also includes refugees. In other words, the message should be framed in
such a way that people will conclude: ‘we are all humans’. Self-categorization theory argues
that this might change the beliefs and norms people hold, as thus make them more open to the
message.
A possible commercial could have the following structure in order to achieve these
goals: the commercial would start with the notion that there is something happening that
could happen to all of us. Then a specific refugee is introduced to the public and tells his/her
story about the situation in their home land and the travel they have taken. They will argue
that they only want peace and freedom and ask the viewer to imagine what they would do in
their situation, in order to create perspective taking. Next the focus should be less negatively,
by presenting a future where the refugee is able to go home and rebuild their country and life
7/23/2019 Groep 1 - Changing Negative Attitudes Towards Refugees in the Netherlands
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groep-1-changing-negative-attitudes-towards-refugees-in-the-netherlands 24/30
in their homeland. Next more information about the refugee ‘crisis’ is given in order to take
away symbolic and realistic threat. A good way to end the commercial would be to end with a
quote such as: ‘we are all human’.
This quote could be used in a social media champagne whereby people can report
views and behavior towards refugees with a hashtag #weareallhuman. By doing this, it is
possible to create group identification which includes every individual.
Furthermore another way to provide more information about asylum seekers and
refugees in a way that will elicit people to think about the situation is by hosting a debate
program, such as ‘Pauw’, with both advocates and adversaries of refugees, and refugees
themselves. This will give the notion that every opinion is valued and a civilized debate is
possible. By doing this, it will make adversaries be more open for the arguments of the
advocates (and vice versa). However, to achieve this it is important to screen the guest in such
a way that a civilized debate is possible.
Implications
Implementation of above mentioned intervention is relatively easy to achieve, but it
may not be sufficient enough to drastically change the negative view towards refugees.
Additional interventions may be necessary to complement above strategy. A complementary
strategy could be to stimulate refugees to participate in community center programs to
establish contact with Dutch citizens. However, an important condition would be that the
refugee at least speaks English and is in the process of trying to learn the Dutch language.
7/23/2019 Groep 1 - Changing Negative Attitudes Towards Refugees in the Netherlands
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groep-1-changing-negative-attitudes-towards-refugees-in-the-netherlands 25/30
Addendum 1 - interview Mohammed (Ideas) from WhatsApp Odyssey
Mohammed talked during his presentation about the negative comments on the Facebook page and ask us (the
public) to try to put the positivity out there. After the event was over, I approached Mohammed to ask him some
questions about this. Mohammed is a Syrian refugee and in Syria he was a teacher. Further information about
his journey can be found at the following links:
http://ideasodyssey.blogspot.nl/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/445788475581450/
You were talking about the negativity dur ing your speech, do you perceive this often?
Mohammed answered that indeed lately a large part of the messages on the Facebook
page also contained much negativity and that this frightens him. He did not understand why,
because he feels that it is clear that refugees come here for a reason, that they would not be
safe in their homeland. He said: ‘I think we can all agree, nobody wants to be a refugee. But
we have no choice’.
Do you foll ow poli tics and how do you view the stand the government is taking?
Mohammed said he was quite involved in Dutch politics and found it very bad that the
government does not take a more active stand in the debate. He said that this gives the wrong
picture to the public. Moreover, he found the some politicians portray the crisis and the
reasons of refugees to come here incorrectly.
He said that if a country such as the Netherlands, which is sort of a ‘land of freedom’ does not
accept refugees as shows they are welcome, that this could have serious consequences.
Feeling rejected by something you desire for may create radical ideas he said and it might be
part of the reason that people search for meaning in organizations as IS.
What is the reason for the negative?
He suggested that a large part of the negativity comes from people with limited knowledge
about the refugee crisis. He argued that these peoples perceive the refugees as people that just
come here because they want to, not because they need to. He gave an example of friends of
7/23/2019 Groep 1 - Changing Negative Attitudes Towards Refugees in the Netherlands
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groep-1-changing-negative-attitudes-towards-refugees-in-the-netherlands 26/30
him who just tried to escape from Syria. Near the border they were captured by Syrian police
and they had to pay a lot of money in order to be let go. Mohammed said they if they didn’t
do that they would have been killed in 2 days: ‘we do not want to leave our home and become
refugees, but we have no other choice if we want to live’.
How could we make the situation better?
He said it may have a lot to do with misinformation. These negative people tend to perceive
the refugees as a threat and as ‘fortune-seekers’, instead of people just trying to survive. He
said that it would help if we could spread the message that they do not have a choice and tell
more about the circumstances of live in Syria, but also on the journey these refugees have to
take.
He talked about his live in Syria and that he had status and wealth there. If it was up to him he
would never left Syria, but fearing his live he had no other choice than to go.
7/23/2019 Groep 1 - Changing Negative Attitudes Towards Refugees in the Netherlands
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groep-1-changing-negative-attitudes-towards-refugees-in-the-netherlands 27/30
References
Allport G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Amir, Y. (1969). Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations. Psychological bulletin, 71(5), 319-
342.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy and
Management Review, 10(1), 20-39.
Autonoom Centrum. (1993, May). Vluchtelingen. Retrieved October 4, 2015, from
http://ac.home.xs4all.nl/grensgevangenis/gevangenis11.html/.
Bettencourt, B. A., Brewer, M. B., Croak, M. R., & Miller, N. (1992). Cooperation and the
reduction of intergroup bias: The role of reward structure and social orientation.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28(4), 301-319.
British Broadcasting Corporation. (2015, September 21). Why is EU struggling with migrants
and asylum? Retrieved October 4, 2015, from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-
europe-24583286/.
Brewer, M. B., & Brown, R. J. (1998). Intergroup relations. McGraw-Hill.
Brown, R. (2000). Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems and future
challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(6), 745-778.
Cagle, L. T. (1973). Interracial housing: a reassessment of the equal-status contact hypothesis.
Sociology and Social Research, 57 (3), 342-355.
Centraal bureau voor de statistiek. (n.d.). Ruim 40 procent meer asielzoekers in EU . Retrieved
October 4, 2015, from http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/themas/veiligheid-
recht/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2015/ruim-40-procent-meer-asielzoekers-in-eu.htm/.
Cohen, E. G. (1982). Expectation states and interracial interaction in school settings. Annual
review of sociology, 8, 209-235.
Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (1995). Producing equal-status interaction in the heterogeneous
7/23/2019 Groep 1 - Changing Negative Attitudes Towards Refugees in the Netherlands
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groep-1-changing-negative-attitudes-towards-refugees-in-the-netherlands 28/30
classroom. American Educational Research Journal , 32(1), 99-120.
Dovidio, J. F., Brigham, J. C., Johnson, B. T., & Gaertner, S. L. (1996). Stereotyping,
prejudice, and discrimination: Another look. In: N. Macrae, C. Stangor, & M.
Hewstone (Eds.), Stereotypes and stereotyping (pp. 276-319). New York: Guilford.
Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1999). Reducing prejudice combating intergroup biases.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(4), 101-105.
Duckitt, J. (2003). Prejudice and intergroup hostility. In Oxford handbook of political
psychology (559-600).
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human relations, 7 (2), 117-
140.
Fiske, S. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination. In Gilbert, T., & Fiske, S. T.
(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 357-411). Boston, MA: McGraw-
Hill.
Fiske, S. T. (2000). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination at the seam between the
centuries: Evolution, culture, mind, and brain. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 30(3), 299-322.
Gleitman, H., Reisberg, D., & Gross, J. (2007). Introduction to psychology (7th ed.). New
York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Government of the Netherlands. (n.d.). Asylum policy. Retrieved October 4, 2015, from
https://www.government.nl/topics/asylum-policy/.
Hond, M. (2015). De stemming van 6 september 2015. Retrieved October 4, 2015, from
http://www.noties.nl/peil.nl/?4076.
Judd, C. M., & Park, B. (1988). Out-group homogeneity: Judgements of variability at the
individual and group levels. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 778-
788.
7/23/2019 Groep 1 - Changing Negative Attitudes Towards Refugees in the Netherlands
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groep-1-changing-negative-attitudes-towards-refugees-in-the-netherlands 29/30
Kanne, P. & Kranenburg, L. K., (2015). “Fort Europa”, hoe denken Nederlanders over
migratie en vluchtelingen in Europa en Nederland? I&O Research in opdracht van
Volkskrant..
Kijkcijfers. (2015, October 14). https://kijkonderzoek.nl/.
Lord. C.G., Ross, L. & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization.
The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098-2109
Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual review of psychology, 49(1), 65-85.
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.
Pijpker, J. (2015, September 22). Aantal vrijwilligers Rode Kruis verdubbeld na oproep.
Retrieved October 4, 2015, from http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2015/09/22/aantal-
vrijwilliger-rode-kruis-verdubbeld-na-oproep/.
PVV. (2015, June 11). Inbreng Geert Wilders bij bootvluchtelingendebat . Retrieved October
4, 2015, from http://www.pvv.nl/index.php/36-fj-related/geert-wilders/8405-inbreng-
geert-wilders-bij-bootvluchtelingendebat.html/.
Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes:
a meta-analytic review. Personality and social psychology review, 10, 336-353.
Riordan, C. (1978). Equal-status interracial contact: A review and revision of the concept.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2(2), 161-185.
Rijksoverheid (n.d.). Opvang vluchtelingen. Retrieved October 4, 2015, from
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/vluchtelingen/inhoud/opvang-
vluchtelingen/.
Seamon, J. G., Williams, P. C., Crowley, M. J., Kim, I. J., Langer, S. A., Orne, P. J., et al.
7/23/2019 Groep 1 - Changing Negative Attitudes Towards Refugees in the Netherlands
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groep-1-changing-negative-attitudes-towards-refugees-in-the-netherlands 30/30
(1995). The mere exposure effect is based on implicit memory: Effects of stimulus
type, encoding conditions, and number of exposures on recognition and affect
judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
21(3), 711-721.
Stangor, C., Sullivan, L. A., & Ford, T. E. (1991). Affective and cognitive determinants of
prejudice. Social cognition, 9(4), 359-380.
Tajfel, H. (1969). Cognitive aspects of prejudice. Journal of Biosocial Science, 1, 173-191.
The Post Online. (n.d.). Opiniepeiling Maurice de Hond: PVV stijgt nog drie zegels.
Retrieved October 4, 2015, from http://politiek.tpo.nl/2015/10/04/opiniepeiling-
maurice-de-hond-pvv-stijgt-nog-drie-zetels/.
Wilder, D. A. (1986). Social categorization: Implications for creation and reduction of
intergroup bias. Advances in experimental social psychology, 19, 291-355.
Wirtz, C., van der Pligt, J. & Doosje, B. (2015). Negative attitudes towards Muslims in the
Netherlands: The role of symbolic threat, stereotypes, and moral emotions. Peace and
Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology. 1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pac0000126
Wittenbrink, B., & Henly, J. R. (1996). Creating social reality: informational social influence
and the content of stereotypic beliefs. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 22,
598-610.