在全球化背景下,群际边界通透性对移民偏见的影响颇具热点性和争议性。当前这一领域的研究存在着群际边界通透性增加、减少和不影响移民偏见三种不同结论,然而导致不一致结论背后的心理机制尚不清楚。本文在梳理群际边界通透性对移民偏见影响的基础上,提出了二者之间的作用机制模型。群际边界通透性对移民偏见的影响可能受到内群体、移民和环境等因素的调节作用。此外,群际边界通透性也可能通过影响不同的心理路径,继而对移民产生不同的偏见。对群际边界通透性影响移民偏见心理机制的探讨,对改善群际关系和移民治理工作具有重要的理论和现实意义。
Abstract
International migration in the process of globalization and rural-to-urban migration in the process of urbanization highlight the importance of group boundary permeability on prejudice toward immigrants, which has received substantial attention. However, the existing theoretical and empirical evidence has suggested that the impact of group boundary permeability on prejudice toward immigrants was inconsistent. Overall, there were three opinions. That is, group boundary permeability had positive, negative, and no effect on prejudice toward immigrants. This was mainly because the psychological mechanisms underlying the complex relationship between group boundary permeability and prejudice were still unclear. Two possible psychological mechanisms are proposed in the present study to explain the inconsistent results between group boundary permeability and prejudice toward immigrants.
Firstly, the complicated relationship between group boundary permeability and prejudice toward immigrants was moderated by individual, group, and situational factors. First of all, for ingroup factors, previous studies revealed that individual's diversity beliefs moderated the impact of group boundary permeability on prejudice toward immigrants. It has been shown that individuals with high diversity beliefs had an adverse impact on prejudice when the group boundary was permeable (vs. impermeable). Conversely, individuals with low diversity beliefs increased prejudice when the group boundary was permeable (vs. impermeable). Moreover, socioeconomic status of the members of the ingroup may be another moderator factor between group boundary permeability and prejudice toward immigrants. Then, for factors of migrant groups, previous studies have shown that the status of immigrants moderated the relationship between group boundary permeability and prejudice. It has been shown that group boundary permeability decreased the prejudice toward immigrants from European Union countries (i.e., high status), but increased the prejudice toward those from Third World countries (i.e., low status). Additionally, the size of immigrants may be another moderator factor between group boundary permeability and prejudice toward immigrants. At last, from the perspective of situational factors, previous studies demonstrated that the culture moderated the relationship between group boundary permeability and prejudice. Specifically, a robust positive relationship was found between group boundary permeability and cooperation for collectivism culture as opposed to individualism culture.
Secondly, the direction-of-effect between group boundary permeability and prejudice was unclear. We proposed that there were two opposing psychological paths between group boundary permeability and prejudice. Group boundary permeability triggered the intergroup threat and common ingroup identity. When the group boundary was permeable, people from diverse outgroups were considered as competitors to the scarce resources and cultures. According to the intergroup threat theory, the threatened individuals are more likely to manifest prejudice toward the outgroup. Meanwhile, a permeable group boundary also blurs the salience of the subgroup boundaries, and then, highlights the salience of superordinate boundaries. Based on the common ingroup identity model, common ingroup identity negatively predicts prejudice toward the outgroup. Therefore, we proposed that the intergroup threat and common ingroup identity played the opposing mediated roles underlying the relationship between group boundary permeability and prejudice.
Future studies should pay attention to the following fields. Firstly, from the perspective of cross-sectional research, future studies should explore the integrated psychological mechanisms underlying the relationship between group boundary permeability and prejudice toward immigrants. Secondly, from the perspective of longitudinal study, future studies are likely to consider longitudinal studies to explore the effect of intergroup boundary permeability on prejudice toward immigrants over time. Finally, from the perspective of practical intervention, future research should explore possible intervention approaches to reduce the prejudice caused by group boundary permeability
关键词
移民 /
偏见 /
群际边界通透性 /
心理机制
Key words
immigrants /
prejudice /
group boundary permeability /
psychological mechanisms
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
[1] 高承海, 万明钢. (2018). 群际接触减少偏见的机制: 一项整合的研究. 心理科学, 41(4), 922-928.
[2] 管健, 荣杨. (2020). 共同内群体认同: 建构包摄水平更高的上位认同. 西北师大学报(社会科学版), 57(1), 39-49.
[3] 梁芳美, 肖子伦, 包燕, 赵玉芳. (2020). 共同内群体认同对心理融合的促进效应及其机制. 心理科学, 43(5), 1147-1153.
[4] 孙连荣, 杨治良. (2013). 社会偏见与群际威胁在群际冲突发生过程中的作用. 心理科学, 36(4), 949-955.
[5] 杨玉芳, 郭永玉. (2017). 心理学在社会治理中的作用. 中国科学院院刊, 32(2), 107-116.
[6] Aberson C. L., Ferguson H., & Allen J. (2021). Contact, threat, and prejudice: A test of intergroup threat theory across three samples and multiple measures of prejudice. Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology, 5(4), 404-422.
[7] Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
[8] Armenta B. M., Stroebe K., Scheibe S., van Yperen N. W., Stegeman A., & Postmes T. (2017). Permeability of group boundaries: Development of the concept and a scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(3), 418-433.
[9] Bauer, C. A., & Hannover, B. (2020). Changing "us" and hostility towards "them"—implicit theories of national identity determine prejudice and participation rates in an anti-immigrant petition. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(4), 810-826.
[10] Benoit, V. (2021). Opposing immigrants in Europe: The interplay between religiosity, values, and threat. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 60(3), 555-589.
[11] Echabe, A. E., & Castro, J. L. G. (1996). Images of immigrants: A study on the xenophobia and permeability of intergroup boundaries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26(3), 341-352.
[12] Ehrke F., Berthold A., & Steffens M. C. (2014). How diversity training can change attitudes: Increasing perceived complexity of superordinate groups to improve intergroup relations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 53, 193-206.
[13] Ellemers N., van Knippenberg A., De Vries N., & Wilke H. (1988). Social identification and permeability of group boundaries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18(6), 497-513.
[14] Etchezahar E., Ungaretti J., & Marchiano F. (2022). "Economic support? They don't really need it". Prejudice towards Latin American immigrants in Argentina. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 87, 37-41.
[15] Fleischmann A., Lammers J., Conway P., & Galinsky A. D. (2019). Paradoxical effects of power on moral thinking: Why power both increases and decreases deontological and utilitarian moral decisions. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(1), 110-120.
[16] Gaertner S. L.,& Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model The Psychology Press The common ingroup identity model. The Psychology Press.
[17] Goedert C., Albert I., Barros S., & Ferring D. (2019). Welcome or not? - Natives' security feelings, attachment and attitudes toward acculturation of immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 69, 24-31.
[18] Han Q., Zheng B., Leander N. P., Agostini M., Gützkow B., Kreienkamp J., & Bélanger J. J. (2022). Impact of national pandemic lockdowns on perceived threat of immigrants: A natural quasi-experiment across 23 countries. Social Psychological and Personality Science. Advance online publication.
[19] Heizmann, B., & Huth, N. (2021). Economic conditions and perceptions of immigrants as an economic threat in Europe: Temporal dynamics and mediating processes. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 62(1), 56-82.
[20] Jackson L. A., Sullivan L. A., Harnish R., & Hodge C. N. (1996). Achieving positive social identity: Social mobility, social creativity, and permeability of group boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(2), 241-254.
[21] Johnson D., Terry D. J., & Louis W. R. (2005). Perceptions of the intergroup structure and anti-Asian prejudice among white Australians. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 8(1), 53-71.
[22] Kauff M., Asbrock F., & Schmid K. (2021). Pro-diversity beliefs and intergroup relations. European Review of Social Psychology, 32(2), 269-304.
[23] Kauff, M., & Wagner, U. (2012). Valuable therefore not threatening: The influence of diversity beliefs on discrimination against immigrants. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(6), 714-721.
[24] Kende J., Sarrasin O., Manatschal A., Phalet K., & Green, E. G. T. (2022). Policies and prejudice: Integration policies moderate the link between immigrant presence and anti-immigrant prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123(2), 337-352.
[25] Kunst J. R., Thomsen L., Sam D. L., & Berry J. W. (2015). "We are in this together": Common group identity predicts majority members' active acculturation efforts to integrate immigrants. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(10), 1438-1453.
[26] Laurence J., Igarashi A., & Ishida K. (2022). The dynamics of immigration and anti-immigrant sentiment in Japan: How and why changes in immigrant share affect attitudes toward immigration in a newly diversifying society. Social Forces, 101(1), 369-403.
[27] Leong, C. H. (2008). A multilevel research framework for the analyses of attitudes toward immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(2), 115-129.
[28] Leong, C. H., & Ward, C. (2011). Intergroup perceptions and attitudes toward immigrants in a culturally plural society. Applied Psychology, 60(1), 46-65.
[29] Loh J., Restubog S. L. D., & Gallois C. (2010). Attitudinal outcomes of boundary permeability: A comparison of Australian and Singaporean employees. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 17(2), 118-134.
[30] Nshom, E., & Arzamastseva, E. (2021). Are Chinese immigrants in Cameroon perceived as a threat? Africa Review, 13(1): 61-75.
[31] Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(6), 922-934.
[32] Plante C. N., Roberts S. E., Snider J. S., Schroy C., Reysen S., & Gerbasi K. (2015). 'More than skin-deep': Biological essentialism in response to a distinctiveness threat in a stigmatized fan community. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54(2), 359-370.
[33] Ren D. Y., Tan X. Y., Dang J. N., Liu L., Zhao X., Li C., & Wei C. (2019). Open or close the door to the outgroup? Diversity beliefs moderate the impact of group boundary permeability on attitudes toward the outgroup. International Journal of Psychology, 54(6), 712-721.
[34] 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(4), 336-353.
[35] Seate, A. A., & Mastro, D. (2016). Media's influence on immigration attitudes: An intergroup threat theory approach. Communication Monographs, 83(2), 194-213.
[36] Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 23-46). Lawrence Erlbaum.
[37] Tajfel H., Billig M. G., Bundy R. P., & Flament C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149-178.
[38] Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Brooks/Cole.
[39] Vallejo-Martín M., Canto J. M., García, J. E. S. M., & Novas F. P. (2021). Prejudice towards immigrants: The importance of social context, ideological postulates, and perception of outgroup threat. Sustainability, 13(9), 4993.
[40] van Knippenberg, D., & Haslam, S. A. (2003). Realizing the diversity dividend: Exploring the subtle interplay between identity, ideology, and reality In S A Haslam, D van Knippenberg, M J Platow, & N Ellemers (Eds), Social identity at work: Developing theory for organizational practice (pp 61-77) Psychology Press Exploring the subtle interplay between identity, ideology, and reality. In S. A. Haslam, D. van Knippenberg, M. J. Platow, & N. Ellemers (Eds.), Social identity at work: Developing theory for organizational practice (pp. 61-77). Psychology Press.
[41] Wang X., Zhang Y., Wang S. G., & Zhao K. (2021). Migrant inflows and online expressions of regional prejudice in China. Public Opinion Quarterly, 85(1), 123-146.
[42] Zhang X. X., Zheng J., Liu L., Zhao X., & Sun X. M. (2014). The effect of group boundary permeability on intergroup prejudice: The case of rural-to-urban migrants in China. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 8(2), 53-61.
[43] Zolfagharian, M., & Iyer, P. (2020). The effects of intergroup boundary permeability and hierarchy legitimacy on immigrant entrepreneurs' affective states, exchange strategies, and intentions toward suppliers. Industrial Marketing Management, 89, 373-388.
基金
*本研究得到国家社会科学基金重大项目（18ZDA332）、北京师范大学应用实验心理北京市重点实验室开放课题项目和西北师范大学青年教师科研能力提升计划项目（2592）的资助
PDF(909 KB)
