What Accounts for Anti-Immigrant Prejudice?

Prejudice against other groups is as old as humanity. Stanley Kubrick depicted it nicely in his epic sci-fi masterpiece “2001: A Space Odyssey.” In the opening minutes, early hominids are shown living in two separate groups, and when one group moves into the territory of the other (for food and mates), violence erupts between the two groups.

The roots of “us vs. them” prejudice, stereotypes and aggression are sometimes very simple, as research on “minimal groups” has shown. The basic idea here is that we form prejudices in favor of our own group and against other groups, even when the basis for inclusion in each group is completely random (Billig & Tajfel, 1973; Brewer, 1979; Brown, 1995; Otten, 2016; Tajfel, Billeg, Bundy, & Filament, 1971). Most prejudices, however, are multifaceted in origin and motivation (Nelson & Olson, 2024).

With this very brief backdrop into the basics of prejudice, the focus of this post is on a specific type of prejudice: prejudice against groups that move into a place where we call home (country, state, province, town, city, neighborhood). This type of prejudice, termed here as “anti-immigrant” prejudice, has also been present throughout history. In the U.S., a country of immigrants (more on that irony later), U.S. citizens have been prejudiced against the immigration of many groups. For example, in the early twentieth century, there was a peak of anti-Italian and anti-Irish sentiment in the U.S. In the late 1800s, prejudice against Chinese immigrants reached such a fervor that it became codified by Congress in the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

When they wrote the Constitution of the U.S., the founding fathers didn’t really address immigration per se in the values enshrined in that document. Rather, they spoke of what Americans believe and stand for (the rule of law, and freedom of its citizens to pursue life, liberty and happiness). Since its founding, the U.S. has also been viewed as a beacon of hope and opportunity to the world. A welcoming place of freedom and a fair chance to pursue one’s dreams.

According to the Gallup Poll organization, since 2001, Americans’ attitudes toward immigration have shown that people thought that immigration levels should be increased. However, this changed around June of 2001, when most respondents thought immigration should be decreased. Those anti-immigrant views have only increased since then. What, then, would account for the rise of anti-immigrant attitudes in the U.S.? Psychologists have researched a number of motives, and I will highlight some of them here.

Psychological Factors That Contribute to Anti-Immigrant Prejudice

Social Dominance Orientation. Some people think the world should naturally be divided up into the “haves vs. the have-nots”. They see a hierarchical division among people as natural and preferable. These people are referred to as being high in “social dominance orientation” (SDO; Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994). Those low in SDO would be people who take the opposite view, and who think that society should be comprised with everyone having equality, and that there is no hierarchy among people. High SDOs are more prejudiced against people who are in groups to which they do not belong (e.g. immigrants).

Realistic Conflict Theory. A major motivation for anti-immigration attitudes comes in the form of the belief that outsiders (like immigrants) are competing with one’s own group (e.g. country citizens) for scarce resources (e.g., jobs, houses, land, potential mates, etc.). The resentment toward these outsiders manifests in prejudice between the groups. This is the basic premise of “realistic conflict theory” (Campbell, 1965). Realistic conflict theory has been supported in a number of lab and field studies (Jones, 1997; Krosch, Tyler, & Amodio, 2017). An interesting recent study (Simunovic, et al., 2024) found that communities that devote more attention to “resources that provide direct benefits to the community or to its most vulnerable members is related to lower prejudice against immigrants.” Moreover, communities that emphasize support for resources associated with security and parochialism are more likely to be prejudiced against immigrants.

Scapegoat Theory. Some people see both their own life circumstances and that of their ingroup (be it racial, gender, age, or any number of ways one is thinking about their group membership) as falling short compared to another group. The disparity in comparison begins to foster resentment and anger, and this then is the basis for them blaming the other group for the negative circumstances of the perceiver’s own group and their own individual life circumstances. This is called “scapegoat theory” (Allport, 1954; Berkowitz & Green, 1962). However intuitive, this theory has received mixed empirical support. One issue, for example, is that people who are frustrated show no more resentment toward groups they like compared to those groups they dislike (Brown, 1995).

Right-Wing Authoritarianism. There are some people who embody a constellation of characteristics that make their personalities more likely to be prejudiced toward certain other groups. Research by Altemeyer (1981, 1994, 1996) has found that these “right-wing authoritarians” tend to be very conservative politically. They are in favor of restricting personal freedoms. They hold more orthodox religious views, and are more punitive toward criminals. As such, it may not surprise you to learn that studies show that RWAs are more prejudiced against immigrants (Duckitt & Shibley, 2010; Mayer, Berning, & Johann, 2020).

Bias Essential Reads

Why a Twist to the Monty Hall Problem Stumped So Many

10 Things You Didn’t Know About Measles

Religion. While most religions espouse peace, harmony, and respect for others, the irony of history shows that religion has been the basis for much (if not most) of humankind’s wars, inhumanity, and atrocities committed due to perceived differences in the values of different religions. Research shows that the more orthodox one is in their religious beliefs (no matter what religion it is), the more intolerant one is toward those who have different values and religions (Adorno et al., 1950; Deslandes & Anderson, 2019; Ng & Gervais, 2017).

This discussion is continued in my next blog post.