Advertisement

Attitudes and opinions about refugees in germany – correlates with conspiracy and political mindsets

  • Günter MolzEmail author
  • Michael Stiller
Article
  • 17 Downloads

Abstract

The introduction provides an overview of the so called “refugee crisis” in Germany. For the purpose of the study the term “refugee” is clarified. The following section briefly reviews previous research findings about attitudes towards different ethnicities and about correlated constructs: tolerance of ambiguity, conspiracist ideation, internal and external political efficacy. Scales for the measurement of the respective constructs were incorporated into an online-questionnaire, which was completed by a total of 437 respondents. Based on results of outlier-statistics, data sets of 419 cases were analyzed with structural equation modelling. The suggested model featured good fit statistics. The main finding was that external political efficacy as well as tolerance of role ambiguity were positively correlated with the attitude towards refugees. These findings are discussed in relation to the results of the 2017 German federal elections. The discussion section concludes with the recommendation for a replication study with a more representative sample.

Keywords

Conspiracist ideation Refugees Political efficacy Attitudes 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Julia Schaefer and Daniel Weppert for proof reading and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions, which helped to improve the manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Both authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent war obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Arlt, D., Hoppe, I., & Wolling, J. (2010). Klimawandel und Mediennutzung: Wirkungen auf Problembewusstsein und Handlungsabsichten [Climate change and media use: Effects on problem-awareness and operational intent]. Medien und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 58(1), 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnett, G. (2017). How voters switched parties at the German election – Visualized. Die Welt. (Retrieved from: https://www.welt.de/english-news/article169009689/).
  3. Beierlein, C., Kemper, C. J., Kovaleva, A., & Rammstedt, B. (2012). Ein Messinstrument zur Erfassung politischer Kompetenz- und Einflussüberzeugungen – Political Efficacy Kurzskala (PEKS). [An instrument for measurig policital competence and influence beliefs – Political Efficacy Shortscale]. GESIS Working Papers 2012, 18. Cologne: GESIS.Google Scholar
  4. Block, J., & Block, J. (1951). An investigation of the relationship between intolerance of ambiguity and ethnocentrism. Journal of Personality, 19(3), 303–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. (2002). Democracy, institutions and attitudes about citizen influence on government. British Journal of Political Science, 32, 335–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bredendiek, M. (2015). Menschliche Diversität und Fremdverstehen. Eine psychologische Untersuchung der menschlichen Fremdreflexion. [Human diversity and understanding foreignness: A psychological study of human reflections of the foreign.] Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Brotherton, R., French, C. C., & Pickering, A. D. (2013). Measuring belief in conspiracy theories: The generic conspiracist beliefs scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brücker, H., Fendel, T., Kunert, A., Mangold, U., Schupp, J., & Siegert, M. (2016). Geflüchtete Menschen in Deutschland: Warum sie kommen, was sie mitbringen und welche Erfahrungen sie machen. IAB-Kurzbericht, 15, 1–12.Google Scholar
  9. Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personality, 30(1), 29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Campbell, A., Gurin, D., & Miller, W. E. (1954). The voter decides. New York: Row, Peterson, and Company.Google Scholar
  11. Caprara, G. V., Vecchione, M., Capanna, C., & Mebane, M. (2009). Perceived political self- efficacy: Theory, assessment, and applications. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(6), 1002–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Decker, O., Kiess, J., & Braehler, E. (Ed.). (2016a). Die enthemmte Mitte. Autoritäre und rechtsextreme Einstellung in Deutschland [The disinhibited middle. Authoritarian and right-wing extremist attitude in Germany]. Giessen: Psychosozial-Verlag.Google Scholar
  13. Decker, O., Kiess, J., Egger, E., & Braehler, E. (2016b). Die »Mitte«-Studie 2016: Methode Ergebnisse und Langzeitverlauf [The »Middle«-study: 2016: Method, results and long-course]. In O. Decker, J. Kiess & E. Braehler (Eds.), Die enthemmte Mitte. Autoritäre und rechtsextreme Einstellung in Deutschland [The disinhibited middle. Authoritarian and right-wing extremist attitude in Germany].(p. 23–66). Giessen: Psychosozial-Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. Esses, V. M., Hamilton, L. K., & Gaucher, D. (2017). The global refugee crisis: Empirical evidence and policy implications for improving public attitudes and facilitating refugee resettlement. Social Issues and Policy Review, 11(1), 78–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Focus.de (2017). FOCUS-Online-Umfrage: Leser verraten, warum sie AfD gewählt haben [FOCUS-online-survey: Readers disclose why they elected AfD]. (Retrieved from http://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/bundestagswahl_2017/bundestagswahl-2017-focus-online-umfrage-leser-verraten-warum-sie-afd-gewaehlt-haben_id_7634823.html).
  16. Fox, J. E. (2013). The uses of racism: Whitewashing new Europeans in the UK. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36, 1871–1889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fox, J. (2016). Polycor: polychoric and polyserial correlations. R package version 0.7–9. Online [URL] https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/polycor/index.html
  18. Furnham, A., & Marks, J. (2013). Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the recent literature. Psychology, 4(9), 717–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Furnham, A., & Ribchester, T. (1995). Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the concept, its measurement and applications. Current Psychology, 14, 179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gross, T. F. (2009). Own-ethnicity bias in the recognition of Black, east Asian, Hispanic, and White faces. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 31, 128–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hackett, J. D., & Omoto, A. M. (2009). Efficacy and estrangement: Effects of voting. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 9(1), 297–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hair, Jr., J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  23. Hoffmann, A., Waubert de Puiseau, B., & Musch, J. (2016). Zum Einfluss sozialer Erwünschtheit auf die Validität von Wahlprognosen am Beispiel der Partei „alternative für Deutschland (AfD)“ [on the influence of social desirability on the validity of election prognoses using the example of the „alternative for Germany (AfD)“. SoSci panel. Retrieved from https://www.soscisurvey.de/panel/studies.php?id=356.
  24. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kemmelmeier, M. (2010). Gender moderates the impact of need for structure on social beliefs: Implications for ethnocentrism and authoritarianism. International Journal of Psychology, 45(3), 202–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kenski, K., & Stroud, N. J. (2006). Connections between internet use and political efficacy, knowledge, and participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50(2), 173–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. van Keuk, E. (2015). Aus dem Alltag in einer spezialisierten Einrichtung für Flüchtlinge. Das Psychosoziale Zentrum für Flüchtlinge Düsseldorf [from everyday life in a specialized institution for refugees. The psychosocial Center for Migrants]. Report Psychologie, 40, 436–437.Google Scholar
  29. Leiner, D. J. (2014). SoSci Survey (Version 2.5.00-i) [Computer software]. Available at https://www.soscisurvey.de
  30. Little, R. J., & Rubin, D. B. (2002). Statistical analysis with missing data (2nd ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Malik, Y. K. (1982). Attitudinal and political implications of diffusion of technology: The case of north Indian youth. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 17(1,2), 45–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McFarland, S., Webb, M., & Brown, D. (2012). All humanity is my ingroup: A measure and studies of identification with all humanity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(5), 830–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Molz, G., Stiller, M. S., Krüppel, J., & Weiher, M. (2017). Zur Erfassung von Verschwörungsdenken: Erste Validierung einer deutschsprachigen Version der „Generic Conspiracist Beliefs Scale“ [On the On the Measurement of Conspiracy Thinking: A Validation of the German Version of the “Generic Conspiracist Belief Scale”]. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  34. Ostapczuk, M., Musch, J., & Moshagen, M. (2009). A randomized-response investigation of the education effect in attitudes towards foreigners. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 920–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pinkleton, B. E., Austin, E. W., & Fortman, K. K. (1998). Relationships of media use and political disaffection to political efficacy and voting behavior. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42(1), 34–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Reese, G., Proch, J., & Finn, C. (2015). Identification with all humanity: The role of self-definition and self-investment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 426–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reis, J. (1991). Inventar zur Messung der Ambiguitätstoleranz [inventory for measuring tolerance for ambiguity]. Heidelberg: Asanger.Google Scholar
  38. Restle, G., El Moussaoui, N., & Maus, G. (2017). Talk shows. Bühne frei für Populisten [Talkshows: Presenting populists] [television reportage]. Germany. Westdeutscher Rundfunk (Retrieved from http://www1.wdr.de/daserste/monitor/sendungen/talkshows-102.html).
  39. Schweitzer, R., Perkoulidis, S., Krome, S., Ludlow, C., & Ryan, M. (2005). Attitudes towards refugees: The dark side of prejudice in Australia. Australian Journal of Psychology, 57(3), 170–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Simmons, W. P., & Parsons, S. (2005). Beliefs in conspiracy theories among African Americans: A comparison of elites and masses. Social Science Quarterly, 86(3), 582–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sommer, G., & Schmidt, T. (1993). Verzerrte information Fehlinformation über Asyl [biased information – False information about asylum]. Psychologie Heute, 5(5), 9–10.Google Scholar
  42. Sporer, S. L. (1992). Encoding strategies and the recognition of human faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 323–333.Google Scholar
  43. Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., Martinez, C., Schwarzwald, J., & Tur-Kaspa, M. (1998). Prejudice toward immigrants to Spain and Israel: An integrated threat theory analysis. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 29, 559–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Swami, V. (2012). Social psychological origins of conspiracy theories: The case of the Jewish conspiracy theory in Malaysia. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  46. United Nations. (1951). Convention relating to the status of refugees. Treaty Series, 189, 137–220.Google Scholar
  47. Wang, S. I. (2007). Political use of the internet, political attitudes and political participation. Asian Journal of Communication, 17(4), 381–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wehling, E. (2016). Politisches Framing: Wie eine Nation sich ihr Denken einredet - und daraus Politik macht. [Political framing: A cognitive scientist's guide to how a nation turns language into politics.] Köln: von Halem.Google Scholar
  49. Wiegand, E. (1992). Zunahme der Ausländerfeindlichkeit? Einstellungen zu Fremden in Deutschland und Europa. [Increasing of xenophobia? Attitudes towards foreigners in Germany and Europe]. ZUMA Nachrichten, 16(31), 7–28.Google Scholar
  50. Zick, A., & Wagner, U. (1993). Den Türken geht es besser als uns: Wie Fremde zu Feinden werden [The Turkish are better off than us: How strangers become enemies]. Psychologie Heute, 20(7), 48–53.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WuppertalWuppertalGermany

Personalised recommendations