Groep 1 - Changing Negative Attitudes Towards Refugees 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 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



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.



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?



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



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



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.



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).



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.



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



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.



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



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.



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,



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



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



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.



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.



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.



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



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.



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



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.



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



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.



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









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.



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

http://ac.home.xs4all.nl/grensgevangenis/gevangenis11.html/

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24583286/


http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/themas/veiligheid-recht/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2015/ruim-40-procent-meer-asielzoekers-in-eu.htm/






http://ac.home.xs4all.nl/grensgevangenis/gevangenis11.html/



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.

https://www.government.nl/topics/asylum-policy

https://www.government.nl/topics/asylum-policy



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.

https://kijkonderzoek.nl/

http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2015/09/22/aantal-vrijwilliger-rode-kruis-verdubbeld-na-oproep/


http://www.pvv.nl/index.php/36-fj-related/geert-wilders/8405-inbreng-geert-wilders-bij-bootvluchtelingendebat.html/


https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/vluchtelingen/inhoud/opvang-vluchtelingen/








https://kijkonderzoek.nl/



(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.

http://politiek.tpo.nl/2015/10/04/opiniepeiling-maurice-de-hond-pvv-stijgt-nog-drie-zetels/




Groep 1 - Changing Negative Attitudes Towards Refugees in the Netherlands

Documents

Transcript of Groep 1 - Changing Negative Attitudes Towards Refugees in the Netherlands