Attitudes Toward U.S. Immigration Policy: The Roles of In-Group Out-Group Bias, Economic Concern, and Obedience to Law

Transcription

1 The Journal of Social Psychology, 2002, 142(5), Attitudes Toward U.S. Immigration Policy: The Roles of In-Group Out-Group Bias, Economic Concern, and Obedience to Law YUEH-TING LEE Department of Ethnic Studies Minnesota State University VICTOR OTTATI Department of Psychology Loyola University Chicago ABSTRACT. California s Proposition 187, directed primarily toward Mexican immigrants, deprives illegal immigrants of many benefits associated with U.S. citizenship and facilitates their deportation. The authors hypothesized that the respondents opinions on this proposition would be determined by in-group out-group bias (i.e., the tendency to evaluate the ethnic out-group more negatively than the ethnic in-group). In accord with that hypothesis, variations in respondent ethnicity (Studies 1 and 2) and in immigrant ethnicity (Study 3) were systematically related to the respondents opinion on that issue. Moreover, the effect of in-group out-group bias was independent of perceived reasoned economic and legal considerations that underlay the respondents opinion. Key words: economic concern, in-group out-group bias, obedience to the law, U.S. immigration policy ALTHOUGH SOCIAL SCIENTISTS have studied racial and ethnic conflict (e.g., Blanchard, Crandall, Brigham, & Vaughn, 1994; Brigham, 1971; Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000; Hacker, 1995; Jones, 1988; McCauley, 1995; Okeke, Draguns, Sheku, & Allen, 1999; Rowan, 1996; Westie, 1953), they have centered such research primarily on Black and White issues. Because conflict between African Americans and Anglo-Americans exerts a tenacious hold on U.S. social We thank Imtiaz Hussain, Jeffrey Pfeifer, and Senqi Hu for assistance in data collection. We also thank Linda Albright and Imtiaz Hussain for insightful feedback regarding this research. Address correspondence to Yueh-Ting Lee, Department of Ethnic Studies, Minnesota State University, Mankato, MN, 56001; yueh-ting.lee@mnsu.edu ( ); or to Victor Ottati, Department of Psychology, Loyola University Chicago, 6525 N. Sheridan Road, Chicago, IL 60626; vottati@luc.edu ( ). 617

2 618 The Journal of Social Psychology relations, one must emphasize the importance of continued research in this area (Jussim & Eccles, 1995; Lee, Jussim, & McCauley, 1995; McCauley, Stitt, & Segal, 1980). However, it is increasingly apparent that other racial and ethnic conflicts strongly influence social behavior both within the United States and throughout the world (e.g., Azzi, 1992; Brislin, 1993; Diaz-Loving & Draguns, 1999; Forbes, 1997; Lee, McCauley, & Draguns, 1999; McCauley, 1991; Triandis, 1994). One aspect of U.S. political policy that transcends a simple Black versus White characterization of conflict involves U.S. immigration policy, which elicits conflict between Anglo-Americans and a variety of racial and ethnic groups. Analysis of immigration statistics suggests that U.S. immigration policy has traditionally favored individuals of European or Canadian descent. U.S. immigration policy has been based on nationality quotas that favored immigrants from Canada and Europe and restricted immigrants from Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean (Edmonston & Passel, 1994, p. 1; see also Dinnerstein, Nicoles, & Reimers, 1996). The first anti-immigration law was directed against the Chinese. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 limited the number of Chinese permitted to enter the United States, and later amendments to this act ultimately prohibited immigration of all Chinese (Edmonston & Passel, p. 2). A concern with maintaining the purity of Anglo-American culture continues to exist today (e.g., Lind, 1991). U.S. immigration policy has recently focused on the purported threat to national interests posed by the influx of Hispanic and Latino immigrants across the Mexican border. California s Proposition 187, which was approved by the state of California in 1994, deprives illegal immigrants of welfare benefits, education, and all but emergency medical care. It also requires that teachers, police officers, and welfare workers report any knowledge of illegal immigrants to the Office of Immigration and Naturalization Services for purposes of deportation. Related legislation has been considered within the U.S. Senate, including proposals to allow deportation of legal immigrants who do not meet newly established immigration requirements and to preclude legal immigrants from collecting welfare during their first 10 years in the United States. The focus of the present study is the proximal, psychological determinants of attitudes toward Proposition 187. We assumed that the effects of global values and ideology on attitudes toward Proposition 187 would largely mediated by the proximal determinants that we identified. Our primary objective was to demonstrate that attitudes toward Proposition 187 may result from a simple tendency to evaluate ethnic out-group members more negatively than ethnic in-group members that is, the in-group out-group bias. When one explores that possibility, however, it is useful to consider alternative variables that may influence public opinion on this issue. One possibility is that endorsement of Proposition 187 is motivated by pragmatic concerns regarding the U.S. economy. A second possibility is that endorsement of Proposition 187 is derived from the simple belief that people should comply with

3 Lee & Ottati 619 the law. Such economic and legal considerations may arise for reasons that have little to do with ethnic identity and associated biases. In-Group Out-Group Bias Hypothesis We defined in-group out-group bias as the tendency to evaluate the ethnic out-group more negatively than the ethnic in-group. Such differential evaluation may result from in-group favoritism, prejudicial devaluation of the out-group, or both. Researchers have assumed that in-group favoritism arises from motivation to maintain a positive sense of social identity (Brewer, 1979; Lee & Ottati, 1993, 1995; Tajfel, 1981; Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Worchel, Morales, Paez, & Deschamps, 1998). If one maintains a favorable view of the in-group, then social identity fosters a positive view of the self. Prejudicial devaluation of the out-group may arise for a variety of reasons, such as displaced aggression, childhood socialization, or the belief that Hispanics undermine cherished U.S. values (e.g., the work ethic). At the extreme, this prejudice is reminiscent of early-20th-century nativists who claimed the White race would be mongrelized by excessive contact with Mexicans (Dinnerstein et al., 1996; Stoddard, 1973). The aim of the present research was not merely to demonstrate that ingroup out-group bias would predict attitudes toward Proposition 187. Rather, the primary objective was to demonstrate that in-group out-group bias would function as a unique determinant of attitudes toward Proposition 187. To obtain evidence of such an effect, we used two strategies. One involved examining the degree to which the respondent s ethnic identity would determine his or her attitudes toward Proposition 187. Because the proposition may negatively affect Mexican immigrants, we predicted that Anglo-Americans (for whom Mexicans are the out-group) would support Proposition 187 more than would Hispanics and Latinos (from Central and South American countries other than Mexico) for whom Mexicans are the in-group. That simple comparison obviates some of the ambiguities associated with more subjective measures of ethnic attachment or evaluation. Subjective measures of in-group attachment or out-group devaluation suffer from the tautology problem. Measures of subjective devaluation of Mexicans (independent variable) and endorsement of a policy that negatively affects Mexicans (dependent variable) have much in common. Finding a correlation between these two would be much like finding a correlation between something and itself. Such a correlation may also arise because endorsement of Proposition 187 provokes individuals to report attitudes toward Mexicans that coincide with their position on this issue. A second strategy provided an even more stringent test of the relation by manipulating the ethnic identity of the immigrant affected by Proposition 187. We predicted that Anglo-Americans would evince greater support for Proposition 187 when it affected a member of the ethnic out-group (i.e., a Mexican) than when it affected a member of the ethnic in-group (i.e., an Anglo-Canadian).

4 620 The Journal of Social Psychology National Economic Concern The national-economic-concern view implies that Proposition 187 was motivated by relatively rational concerns regarding the U.S. economy (cf. Bobo, 1988; LeVine & Campbell, 1972; Sherif & Sherif, 1953). From this perspective, it is largely a coincidence that Proposition 187 affects predominantly Mexican immigrants. The implication is that similar protective measures would be enacted if Northern Europeans were crossing U.S. borders at a similar rate. Does the influx of Mexicans pose a threat to the economic security of the United States? There are differing arguments and opinions. The contention that influx across U.S. borders poses a threat to U.S. economic interests is typically supported by two arguments. The first is that immigrants rob U.S. citizens of jobs. Some U.S. citizens lost low-wage jobs to Mexicans during the Great Depression; that loss led to the repatriation of more than 500,000 Mexicans between 1929 and 1935 (Aguirre & Turner, 1998). Yet, it is unclear whether that argument is valid under present economic conditions. The observation that the low-wage and menial jobs taken by Mexican immigrants are not readily sought by U.S. citizens suggests that direct competition for these jobs rarely occurs today. Some have even suggested that, by eliminating a segment of that low-wage work force, Proposition 187 harms the U.S. economy (Armbruster, Geron, & Bonacich, 1995). A second argument underlying the national-economicconcern view is that immigrants place excessive demands on the U.S. welfare system. Illegal immigrants targeted by Proposition 187 are, of course, not eligible for welfare benefits. Among legal immigrants, 5% are on welfare (Kivisto & Rundblad, 2000). Whether that proportion reflects an excessive demand on the U.S. welfare system is open to interpretation. Regardless of whether current immigration levels pose a real or objective threat to the U.S. economy, many U.S. citizens believe this to be the case. Such a belief may motivate endorsement of Proposition 187 (and related legislation) for reasons that have little to do with in-group out-group evaluative bias. Obedience to Law Social psychologists have long noted that obedience to social norms and authority significantly affects human judgment and behavior (Allport, 1934; Asch, 1955; Milgram, 1974). Cultural researchers have shown that, from the earliest of times, it has been common, or universal, to maintain and institutionally enforce laws in almost all cultures (Lee et al., 1999; Pepitone, 1975). However, ways of enforcing laws depend on specifically different cultures (Lee, Pepitone, & Albright, 1997). Obedience to laws is a normative value that influences a wide range of attitudes and behaviors. Proposition 187 is a unique political issue in that it deals specifically with illegal immigrants who have, by definition, violated the law by gaining entry into

5 Lee & Ottati 621 the United States. Indeed, because Proposition 187 denies benefits to and facilitates the deportation of illegal immigrants, one may view Proposition 187 as simply promoting the enforcement of law. Thus, some individuals may endorse Proposition 187 simply because they value obedience to law and perceive any illegal activity as a threat to social order. Moreover, commitment to the rule of law may motivate endorsement of Proposition 187 regardless of in-group outgroup bias or pragmatic economic concerns. Hypotheses and Predictions According to the in-group out-group bias hypothesis, ethnic identity accounts for attitudes toward Proposition 187. We derived two predictions from that hypothesis: (a) Anglo-Americans would support Proposition 187 more than would Hispanics and Latinos (i.e., from countries other than Mexico) when it affected a Mexican immigrant, and (b) Anglo-Americans would support Proposition 187 more when it affected a Mexican immigrant than when it affected an Anglo-Canadian immigrant. According to the national-economic-concern hypothesis, endorsement of Proposition 187 is positively associated with the belief that current immigration patterns threaten the U.S. economy. According to the obedience-to-law hypothesis, commitment to the rule of law increases endorsement of Proposition 187. Those three hypotheses are not mutually exclusive. Focusing on the in-group out-group bias hypothesis in Studies 1 and 2, we examined attitudes toward Proposition 187 as a function of the respondent s ethnic identity. In Study 3, we further investigated that hypothesis by manipulating the ethnic identity of the immigrant affected by Proposition 187. In Study 3, we also considered the roles of national economic concern and obedience to law. STUDY 1 As a preliminary step to examining the in-group out-group bias hypothesis, we compared the attitudes toward Proposition 187 of U.S. and Mexican citizens in Study 1. We predicted that U.S. citizens would evince greater support for Proposition 187 than would Mexican citizens. Participants Method Our objective in selecting samples of U.S. and Mexican citizens was not to obtain a representative sample of the two groups. Rather, we sought to maximize equivalence between the two samples by selecting respondents with equivalent levels of education (i.e., university students). We recruited 101 U.S. citizens from a university in Springfield, MA, where there is a big Hispanic community. We

6 622 The Journal of Social Psychology recruited 100 Mexican citizens, who were fluent in English, from a Mexican university in Mexico City. Demographic characteristics (e.g., age, gender) were similar in the two samples. In the U.S. sample, there were 28 men and 73 women (mean age = years, SD = 3.45). In the Mexican sample, there were 31 men and 69 women (mean age = years, SD = 3.48). However, a comparison between Mexican and U.S. citizens confounds citizenship with ethnicity. The Mexican sample was predominantly Hispanic/Latino (95%), whereas the U.S. sample was predominantly Anglo-American (91%). Measures The participants read the following scenario (written in English), supposedly from a U.S. newspaper, about Carlos Suarez s life and work in America. In 1985, Mr. Carlos Suarez emigrated from Mexico City to California (United States) without proper legal documents. He is considered an illegal alien. The reason for his immigration was to escape poverty, homelessness, and unemployment. Mr. Carlos Suarez found a manual job as a part-time worker in a small California town. In 1986, he returned to Mexico City to marry. When he returned to the United States a few months later, he brought his new wife with him. Since then, they have had three children. The eldest child is seven years old and ready for elementary school. The family lives in a tiny, inexpensive home in the barrio section of town. Carlos still works long hours for below-minimum wage and remains ineligible for social and welfare benefits. In 1994, California approved Proposition 187, which deprives illegal immigrants of welfare benefits, education, and all but emergency medical care. In addition, California teachers, police, and welfare workers are required to report any knowledge of illegal immigrants to the Immigration and Naturalization Services for the purpose of deportation. After reading the foregoing scenario, the participants reported their beliefs (a) about whether Mr. Suarez should receive various benefits commonly associated with U.S. citizenship (e.g., freedom to remain in the United States, minimum wage, and Medicaid) and (b) about whether Mr. Suarez should suffer various costs associated with denial of U.S. citizenship (e.g., economic insecurity). They responded to the statements on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). After reverse scoring the negative (cost) items, we summed the items to create a Humanistic Treatment Scale (HTS; see Appendix). High scores reflect sympathy with Mr. Suarez s plight and the belief that outcomes associated with Proposition 187 are unfair. Low scores reflect a lack of sympathy with Mr. Suarez s plight and the belief that Proposition 187 generates fair outcomes. Unlike the items composing the HTS, an eighth item focused on Mr. Suarez s children ( Because his children were born in the United States and, hence, are Americans by birth, they should not be deprived of education in the United States ). The participants responded on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Last, the participants answered yes or no to the

7 Lee & Ottati 623 question, If you were a legal resident in California, would you vote for Proposition 187? Procedures Research assistants distributed questionnaires in psychology classes at universities in the United States and in Mexico. Participants were told that this study concerned Carlos Suarez s life and work from a cross-cultural perspective. To conceal the purpose of Study 1, we included in the survey a few irrelevant items (e.g., I would like Mexico to be a U.S. state and Texas was part of Mexico ) and mixed them with our measures described earlier. Finally, after collecting the data, we debriefed and thanked the participants. Results Preliminary analyses revealed that the HTS had adequate reliability for the total sample (α =.83). Reliability estimates were somewhat higher in the U.S. sample (α =.87) than in the Mexican sample (α =.64). Although the Mexican respondents were proficient in English, their native tongue was Spanish. The difference in language may explain the lower reliability in the Mexican sample. Before reporting the results, we should clarify that we obtained no significant gender or age effect on the HTS and other dependent measures. Thus, we discuss no further gender or age data. We analyzed responses to the attitude items as a function of citizenship. The Mexican participants scored higher (M = 10.40, SD = 0.92) on the HTS than did the U.S. participants (M = 8.25, SD = 2.91), t(182) = 4.10, p <.001. A similar difference emerged for the item regarding Mr. Suarez s children. The Mexican participants were more likely (M = 6.38, SD = 1.19) than the U.S. participants (M = 5.73, SD = 1.34) to grant his children the opportunity for education in the United States, t(179) = 2.45, p <.01. We also analyzed votes for Proposition 187 (yes vs. no) as a function of citizenship. Whereas 76% of the U.S. participants favored the proposition, only 5% of the Mexican participants favored it, yielding a significant ethnicity effect, χ 2 (1, N = 167) = 88.10, p < In sum, the Mexican participants exhibited greater sympathy for Mr. Suarez s plight and, therefore, greater opposition to Proposition 187 than did the U.S. participants. The findings consistently confirmed the in-group out-group bias hypothesis when we computed and analyzed effect size for each test (Aamodt, 1999; 1 Two issues should be made clear here. First, economic status was unrelated to scores on the HTS, the children s-education item, and voting preference (ps >.35 in all cases). Second, missing data were related partly to the procedure by which we used the SYSMIS (systematic missing) command when we reversed and recoded scale values such as (1 = 7), (2 = 6), (3 = 5), (4 = 4), (5 = 3), (6 = 2), (7 = 1), and (else = sysmis) for our measures. The missing data from the voting responses that we tested by the chi-square were abstentions.

8 624 The Journal of Social Psychology Cohen, 1988). The effect size for the HTS was fairly large (d = 0.60); the effect size for the children s-education measure was statistically adequate (d = 0.37), and the effect size for voting, or the chi-square test, was very large (d = 2.12). Although the effect size for the children s-education item was not as large as the effect size for the HTS or for voting, the large sample size (N = 179) provided a 90% chance of detecting effect if the alpha level was set at.05 (α =.05) and the effect size was.37 (d = 0.37), per Cohen s power table (Cohen, 1988, p. 31). Overall, the Mexican participants were more likely to show sympathy for Mr. Suarez s plight and, therefore, opposition to Proposition 187 than were their U.S. counterparts. Discussion The results of Study 1 provide preliminary support for the in-group outgroup bias hypothesis. The Mexican participants were more likely than the U.S. participants to grant privileges commonly associated with citizenship to an illegal Mexican immigrant and his children. The Mexican participants were also more likely than the U.S. participants to vote against Proposition 187. Yet, a fundamental problem with Study 1 was that it confounded citizenship with ethnicity. Thus, the differences between the Mexican and U.S. samples may not necessarily have reflected a clash between distinct ethnic groupings. To the contrary, analogous differences might emerge even if one compared Mexican and U.S. citizens, all with Anglo-Saxon backgrounds. To isolate the effect of ethnicity, one must control for citizenship to demonstrate that ethnicity influences attitudes toward Proposition 187. Such was our approach in Study 2. STUDY 2 To control for citizenship, we restricted Study 2 solely to U.S. citizens. We examined reactions to Proposition 187 as a function of respondent ethnicity within a sample selected to vary along that dimension. Participants Method We recruited 286 U.S. citizens (mean age = years, SD = 5.56; 154 women, 132 men), all students from colleges and high schools in medium-sized cities on the East Coast. There were 99 Anglo-Americans, 96 African Americans, 10 Asian Americans, and 56 Hispanic Americans. We dropped from the sample 25 respondents who did not identify their ethnicity. We grouped the sample into three categories: Anglo-Americans, Hispanic Americans (primarily Puerto Ricans), and African and Asian Americans. We

9 Lee & Ottati 625 assumed that Anglo-Americans would regard Mexicans as an ethnic out-group and that Hispanic Americans would regard Mexicans as an ethnic in-group. As subsequently becomes apparent, the African Asian American group fell between the extremes. Although the ethnic backgrounds of African and Asian Americans are different from those of Mexicans, both share with Mexican Americans minority status in the United States. Materials and Procedures The materials, measures, and procedures in Study 2 were identical to those in Study 1. Results and Discussion Before reporting the results, we should make clear that we obtained no significant gender, age, or education differences for the HTS scores and other dependent measures. Preliminary analyses revealed that the HTS had adequate reliability (α =.85). The HTS scores revealed that (a) the Hispanic Americans were most likely to advocate that Mr. Suarez should receive benefits commonly associated with citizenship (see Table 1); (b) the Anglo-Americans were least likely to do so; and (c) the African Asian Americans fell in between the first two groups, F(2, 254) = 89.25, p <.001. Pairwise comparisons revealed that the Anglo- and Hispanic Americans significantly differed, t(254) =11.15, p < TABLE 1 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for Attitude as a Function of Ethnic Group Attitude measure Children s Group HTS education Anglo-American (N = 99) M SD Hispanic American (N = 56) M a 6.43 b SD Asian African American (N = 106) M a 6.07 b SD Note. HTS = Humanistic Treatment Scale. Numbers with the same subscripts are not different at α =.05.

10 626 The Journal of Social Psychology The contrast between the Hispanic Americans and the African Asian Americans achieved only borderline significance, t(254) = 1.78, p =.10. Ratings for the children s-education item revealed a similar pattern: The Hispanic Americans were most likely to endorse that item; the Anglo-Americans were least likely to do so; and the African Asian Americans fell in between, producing an overall ethnicity effect, F(2, 254) = 23.48, p <.001. Pairwise comparisons revealed that the Anglo- and Hispanic Americans significantly differed, t(254) = 5.91, p <.001. The contrast between the African Asian and the Hispanic Americans achieved borderline significance, t(254) = 1.30, p =.10. Analysis of the voting data yielded a similar pattern. Of the Anglo-Americans, 70% voted in favor of Proposition 187, in comparison with 12.6% of the African Asian Americans and 3.5% of the Hispanic Americans. Dropping abstaining participants produced a strongly significant ethnicity effect, χ 2 (2, N = 240) = , p <.001. Pairwise comparisons revealed that the Anglo-Americans significantly differed from the Hispanic Americans, χ 2 (1, N = 140) = 80.15, p <.001, and from the African Asian Americans, χ 2 (1, N = 186) = 87.53, p <.001. However, the difference between the African Asian and the Hispanic Americans did not achieve significance, χ 2 (1, N = 154) = 3.45, p >.10. Again, as indicated earlier, we obtained no significant effect attributable to the participants age, education, or gender. In sum, the results of Study 2 offer further support for the ethnic in-group favoritism hypothesis. In a sample of U.S. citizens, the Anglo-Americans were more likely than the Hispanic Americans to favor Proposition 187 (statistically, there was no significant difference between the Hispanic Americans and the African Asian Americans). STUDY 3 In Studies 1 and 2, we compared the attitudes toward Proposition 187 of Anglo-Americans and Hispanic Americans. As predicted, results of both studies revealed that the Anglo-Americans supported the proposition more than did the Hispanic Americans. Although we found a relationship between in-group outgroup bias and attitudes toward Proposition 187, other variables may be related to attitudes toward Proposition 187. For example, Anglo-Americans may be more likely than Hispanic Americans to believe that current immigration patterns negatively affect the U.S. economy. If this is the case, then the previous findings may actually have been explained by national economic concern. Alternatively, it is possible that Anglo-Americans value obedience to law more than Hispanic Americans do. If this is the case, then the previous findings may actually have been explained by commitment to legal obedience. In Study 3, we used two methodological strategies designed to discount the alternative interpretations noted in the preceding paragraph. First, we incorporated measures of national economic concern and obedience to law as additional

11 Lee & Ottati 627 predictors in the design. We thereby tested the effects of in-group out-group bias after controlling for those potential confounds. Second, instead of examining attitudes toward Proposition 187 as a function of respondent s ethnicity, we examined those attitudes as a function of the ethnicity of the immigrant affected by Proposition 187. Specifically, we randomly assigned Anglo-American participants to conditions in which Proposition 187 affected a Mexican or, alternatively, an Anglo-Canadian immigrant. On the basis of the in-group out-group bias hypothesis, we predicted that the Anglo-American participants would support Proposition 187 more when it affected a Mexican immigrant (ethnic out-group member) than when it affected an Anglo-Canadian immigrant (ethnic in-group member). Our strategy of experimental manipulation of immigrant ethnicity strengthened our claim that in-group out-group bias is a major determinant of attitudes toward Proposition 187. Our methodological strategy in Study 3 also sheds light on the role of national economic concern and obedience to law as predictors of attitudes toward Proposition 187. For example, expressions of national economic concern (or commitment to obedience to the law) may merely justify attitudes toward Proposition 187 that have, in fact, been determined by in-group out-group bias. If this is the case, then (a) expressions of national economic concern or commitment to obedience to the law should be greater in the Mexican-immigrant than in the Canadian-immigrant condition, and (b) effects of national economic concern (or commitment to obedience to the law) on attitudes toward Proposition 187 should be largely redundant with the effect of immigrant ethnicity. Such findings would suggest (a) that attitudes toward Proposition 187 were determined primarily by in-group out-group bias and (b) that more reasoned economic and legal considerations merely served to justify this effect. A more plausible scenario, however, is that each of those variables exerts its own influence on attitudes toward Proposition 187. If this were the case, then the effects of national economic concern and commitment to legal obedience would be largely independent of the effect of immigrant ethnicity. Expression of national economic concern and commitment to obedience to law are most likely to serve as justifications for in-group out-group bias when they follow (as opposed to precede) manipulation of immigrant ethnicity. If economic and legal considerations are predictors even under such conditions, then such a result is strong evidence of their unique influence. To provide such evidence, we assessed those predictors after manipulating immigrant ethnicity. Participants Method Different from the respondents in Studies 1 and 2, 125 Anglo-American college students (79 women, 46 men; mean age = years, SD = 4.22) at a California university participated in Study 3.

12 628 The Journal of Social Psychology Materials, Measures, and Procedures In Study 3, we randomly assigned 37 participants to read a scenario identical to that used in Studies 1 and 2, describing Mr. Carlos Suarez, an illegal Mexican immigrant from Mexico City. The remaining 88 participants read an equivalent scenario describing Mr. Ben Johnson, an illegal Canadian immigrant from Vancouver. Because Study 3 was a judgmental experiment, three issues are worth clarifying. First, we accidentally made more copies of the material about Mr. Ben Johnson. Second, people may wonder that Ben Johnson is also the name of a 100-m sprinter disqualified from the Olympics. It seems very unlikely, however, that the participants assumed that the scenario referred to the sprinter. Many, including the present authors, were probably unaware of the existence or name of this sprinter. Furthermore, the description of the immigrant (previously unemployed, homeless, and poverty stricken; currently working for below-minimum wage) is a complete mismatch for the Olympic sprinter. Third, people may question realism that is, how realistic our scenarios were. We would like to offer two explanations. First, there is a distinction between experimental realism and mundane realism (Aronson, Wilson, & Brewer, 1998). In Study 3, we focused on experimental realism. In a sense, the experiment is realistic if the situation is involving participants, if they are forced to take it seriously, if it has impact on them (Aronson et al., p. 131). The other explanation is that, although in reality it is more likely for Mexicans than for Canadians to immigrate legally to the United States, both Canadians and Mexicans who seek better opportunities outside their countries must have legal document to cross the border and live or work in the United States. The measures were identical to those in the previous studies except for the following changes: After administration of the HTS and the children s-education item, the participants completed measures of perceived economic threat and commitment to legal obedience. On a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly agree, 7 = strongly disagree), the participants rated three items that assessed perceived economic threat ( The current influx of immigrants across U.S. borders is harmful to the U.S. economy, The current influx of immigrants across U.S. borders robs U.S. citizens of jobs, and The current influx of immigrants across U.S. borders places inappropriate demands on the U.S. welfare system ). We reverse scored and summed those items to produce a summary score for perception of economic threat. Higher scores on this index reflect higher levels of perceived economic threat. To rate their beliefs about obedience to the law, the participants also responded on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly agree, 7 = strongly disagree) to the following five items: It is the duty of all citizens to follow the law, right or wrong ; All people should obey and respect the law ; I am in favor of very strict enforcement of the law, no matter what the consequences are ; Violating the law is never justified and, thus, should be severely punished ; and Lawbreakers should be always caught and punished. We based those statements,

13 Lee & Ottati 629 slightly rephrased, on measures of liberalism conservatism (Robinson, Rusk, & Head, 1972). After reverse scoring the items, we summed the responses to create a total obedience-to-law score. Higher scale scores reflect greater commitment to obedience to law. As was discussed in the procedure section in Study 1, we separated the measures of perceived economic threat and obedience to law and mixed them with other irrelevant statements to hide the purpose of our research. The HTS and the children s-education item were the dependent measures. Results Preliminary analyses revealed that the HTS (α =.85) and the scales for perception of economic threat (α =.79) and obedience to the law (α =.90) possessed adequate reliability. We obtained no significant gender or age effect on our dependent measures, as subsequently noted. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that HTS scores were significantly higher for the Anglo-Canadian target (M = 10.12, SD = 2.59) than for the Mexican target (M = 8.98, SD = 2.05), F(1, 112) = 4.72, p <.05. By the forced enter method, we also regressed the HTS scores on target ethnicity, perceived economic threat, and obedience to law. For this regression analysis, we coded target ethnicity as 0 for the Anglo-Canadian target and 1 for the Mexican target. This regression analysis revealed that target ethnicity, perceived economic threat, and obedience to law all exerted a significant and unique effect on the participants scores for humanistic treatment of the immigrant (see Table 2). TABLE 2 Scores on the Humanistic Treatment Scale (HTS) and the Children s-education Item, as Predicted by Target Ethnicity, Perceived Economic Threat, and Obedience to Law Score/predictor b p ΔR 2 HTS Target ethnicity Perceived economic threat Obedience to law Children s-education item Target ethnicity Perceived economic threat Obedience to law Note. Higher scores on the HTS and children s-education item indicate more humanistic attitudes toward illegal immigrants and their children s education, respectively. In the regression analysis, we coded target ethnicity as 0 for the Anglo-Canadian Ben Johnson and as 1 for the Mexican Carlos Suarez. For the predictors, higher scores indicate greater perceived economic threat and greater obedience to law.

14 630 The Journal of Social Psychology We performed similar analyses by using the children s-education item as the dependent variable. An ANOVA revealed that endorsement of this item was higher for the Anglo-Canadian target (M = 6.23, SD = 1.33) than for the Mexican target (M = 5.50, SD = 1.66), F(1, 122) = 6.74, p <.01. The regression analysis revealed that target ethnicity continued to exert a significant effect (Table 2), whereas effects of perceived economic threat, and obedience to law did not achieve significance. For both the HTS and the children s-education item, we found no significant joint effect by regression analysis. When the HTS was a predicted variable and we also entered the predicting variables of ethnic target and perceived economic threat with obedience to law, we found no significant interaction between ethnic target and economic threat, b = 1.32, p =.20, or between ethnic target and obedience to law, b = 0.18, p =.49. For the children s-education item, we obtained a significant interaction neither between ethnic target and economic threat, b = 0.001, p =.98, nor between ethnic target and obedience to law, b = 0.15, p =.42. Discussion In sum, the results of Study 3 indicate that ethnicity, perceived economic threat, and commitment to the rule of law each exerted a unique and significant impact on the participants scores for humanistic treatment of an illegal immigrant. The same was not true, however, when the participants considered the illegal immigrant s children. Although ethnicity affected the belief that the immigrant s children should be eligible for U.S. education, perceived economic threat and commitment to the rule of law did not. The participants may have perceived economic and legal concerns as less relevant when they focused specifically on education opportunities for the children of illegal immigrants. GENERAL DISCUSSION A central finding of the research on intergroup relations (Brewer, 1979) is that individuals typically evaluate out-group members more negatively than they evaluate in-group members. The present results demonstrate that such-group outgroup bias was a primary determinant of attitudes toward Proposition 187. In Studies 1 and 2, we examined attitudes toward Proposition 187 under conditions in which the policy negatively affected an illegal Mexican immigrant. As predicted by the in-group out-group bias hypothesis, the results of both studies revealed that the Anglo-American participants (for whom Mexicans are the outgroup) expressed greater support for Proposition 187 than did the Hispanic American participants (for whom Mexicans are the in-group). Although the finding just noted supports the in-group out-group bias hypothesis, it demonstrates only that in-group out-group bias was one of the

15 Lee & Ottati 631 major determinants of attitudes toward Proposition 187. For example, respondent ethnicity may be confounded with other variables (e.g., economic concern, commitment to obedience to the law) that are the actual determinants of attitudes toward that policy. To discount such alternative interpretation, we used a different methodological strategy in Study 3: We exposed Anglo-American participants to scenarios in which Proposition 187 negatively affected a Mexican immigrant and, alternatively, an Anglo-Canadian immigrant. As predicted by the ingroup out-group bias hypothesis, the Anglo-American participants evinced greater support for Proposition 187 when it affected the Mexican immigrant (ethnic out-group member) than when it affected the Anglo-Canadian immigrant (ethnic in-group member). Because we manipulated (rather than measured) immigrant ethnicity, that finding indicates that in-group out-group bias may have been a primary determinant of attitudes toward Proposition 187. In addition to manipulating immigrant ethnicity, we included in Study 3 measures of economic concern and commitment to obedience to law. The results of Study 3 demonstrated that immigrant ethnicity, economic concern, and commitment to obedience to law were unique predictors of attitudes toward Proposition 187. That finding discounts the claims (a) that attitudes toward Proposition 187 are determined solely by in-group out-group bias and (b) that reasoned economic and legal considerations function simply to justify this bias (Brewer, 1979; Hacker, 1995). To the contrary, that finding suggests that in-group out-group bias and reasoned economic and legal considerations all played unique roles when the respondents rated their opinions toward Proposition 187. Nevertheless, there limitations to this research that need further investigation. First, there are rival, or other, explanations for attitudes toward illegal immigrants. For example, party affiliation, ideological values, and a prejudiced or authoritarian personality may also have affected the participants perceptions of illegal immigrants or their attitudes toward Proposition 187. That possibility sheds light on our other studies that is, attitudes toward immigration policy have multiple determinants (e.g., personality, party affiliation, and values ideologies). We found that obedience to law was related to individual attitudes toward immigration policy (Lee, Ottati, & Hussain, 2001). Second, our dependent measures were far from perfect in two ways: First, certain measures may have involved the floor effect (i.e., the truncation of data at the bottom of a distribution because of a limit on the lowest score possible), and the participants may have been susceptible to this bias. Second, although the present reliability scores were high, we did not examine the validity of our measures. The research would have been more scientific if we have had correlated our measures with other standardized measures. In future research, we should definitely address all such limitations. Attitudes toward U.S. immigration policy and immigrants depend on multiple variables. One might argue that economic concern and commitment to the rule of law constitute normatively appropriate determinants of attitudes toward Proposition 187. In contrast, effects based on ethnicity or in-group out-group

16 632 The Journal of Social Psychology bias violate the normative requirement that all people be treated equally regardless of their ethnic origin. Our findings suggest that a descriptive model of the etiology of public opinion on this issue must include both of the foregoing considerations. The implications of our research deserve mention. First, today s ethnic problem in the United States is not just a White and Black issue. We took a different approach to U.S. ethnic conflict in our three studies and investigated immigration as part of today s social psychological problems. Second, this research is important cross-culturally and internationally because any problem in the United States is related to what happens in the rest of the world (Lee et al., 1999). The United States is one part of the global village. Our collection of data in Mexico and comparison between Canadian Ben Johnson and Mexican Carlos Suarez show evidence that we have much cross-cultural interaction at the global village. REFERENCES Aamodt, M. (1999). Applied industrial and organizational psychology. Boston: Brooks/Cole. Aguirre, A., & Turner, J. H., (1998). American ethnicities: The dynamics and consequences of discrimination. New York: McGraw-Hill. Allport, F. H. (1934). The J-curve hypothesis of conforming behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology, 5, Armbruster, R., Geron, K., & Bonacich, E. (1995). The assault on California s Latino immigrants: The politics of Proposition 187. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 19, Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Brewer, M. B. (1998). Experimentation in social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp ). New York: McGraw-Hill. Asch, S. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193, Azzi, A. (1992). Procedural justice and the allocation of power in intergroup relations: Studies in the U.S. and South Africa. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 18, Blanchard, F. A., Crandall, C. S., Brigham, J. C., & Vaughn, L. A. (1994). Condemning and condoning racism: A social context approach to interracial setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, Bobo, L. (1988). Group conflict, prejudice, and the paradox of contemporary racial attitudes. In P. A. Katz & D. A. Taylor (Eds.), Eliminating racism: Profiles in controversy (pp ). New York: Plenum Press. Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, Brigham, J. C. (1971). Ethnic stereotypes. Psychological Review, 76, Brislin, R. (1993). Understanding culture s influence on behavior. Forth Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Diaz-Loving, R., & Draguns, J. (1999). Culture, meaning, personality in Mexico and in the United States. In Y-T. Lee, C. R. McCauley, & J. Draguns, (Eds.), Personality and person perception across cultures (pp ). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

17 Lee & Ottati 633 Dinnerstein, L., Nicoles, R. L., & Reimers, D. M. (1996). Natives and strangers: A multicultural history of Americans. New York: Oxford University Press. Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2000). Aversive racism and selection decisions: 1989 and Psychological Science, 11, Edmonston, B., & Passel, J. S. (1994). Immigration and ethnicity. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press. Forbes, H. D. (1997). Ethnic conflict: Commerce, culture, and the contact hypothesis. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Hacker, A. (1995). Two nations: Black and White, separate, hostile and unequal. New York: Ballantine Books. Jones, J. M. (1988). Racism in Black and White. In P. A. Katz & D. A. Taylor (Eds.), Eliminating racism (pp ). New York: Plenum. Jussim, L., & Eccles, J. (1995). Are teacher expectations biased by students gender, social class and ethnicity? In Y-T. Lee, L. Jussim, & C. R. McCauley (Eds.), Stereotype accuracy: Toward appreciating group difference (pp ). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Kivisto, P., & Rundblad, G. (2000). Multiculturalism in the United States: Current issues, contemporary voices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Lee, Y-T., Jussim, L., & McCauley, C. (1995). Stereotype accuracy: Toward appreciating group differences. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Lee, Y-T., McCauley, C. R., & Draguns, J. (1999). Personality and person perception across cultures. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Lee, Y-T., & Ottati, V. (1993). Determinants of ingroup and outgroup perceptions of heterogeneity: An investigation of Sino American stereotypes. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 24, Lee, Y-T., & Ottati, V. (1995). Perceived ingroup homogeneity as a function of group membership salience and stereotype threat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, Lee, Y-T., Ottati, V, & Hussain, I. (2001). Attitudes toward illegal immigration into the United States: California Proposition 187. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 23, Lee, Y-T., Pepitone, A., & Albright, L. (1997). Descriptive and prescriptive beliefs about Justice: A Sino U.S. comparison. Cross-Cultural Research, 31, LeVine, R. A., & Campbell, D. T. (1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes and group behavior. New York: Wiley. Lind, W. S. (1991). Defending Western culture. Foreign Policy, 84, McCauley, C. R. (1991). Terrorism research and public policy. Portland, OR: Frank Cass. McCauley, C. R. (1995). Are stereotypes exaggerated? A sampling of racial, gender, academic and occupational and political stereotypes. In Y-T. Lee, L. Jussim, & C. R. McCauley (Eds.), Stereotype accuracy: Toward appreciating group difference (pp ). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. McCauley, C. R., Stitt, C. L., & Segal, M. (1980). Stereotyping: From prejudice to prediction. Psychological Bulletin, 87, Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority. New York: Harper & Row. Okeke, B., Draguns, J., Sheku, B., & Allen, W. (1999). Culture, self, personality in Africa. In Y-T. Lee, C. R. McCauley, & J. Draguns (Eds.), Personality and person perception across cultures (pp ). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Pepitone, A. (1975). Social psychological perspectives on crime and punishment. Journal of Social Issues, 31, Robinson, J. P., Rusk, J. G., & Head, K. B. (1972). Measures of political attitudes. Ann

18 634 The Journal of Social Psychology Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research. Rowan, R. T. (1996). The coming race war in America: A wake-up call. Boston: Little, Brown. Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. (1953). Group in harmony and tension. New York: Harper & Brother. Stoddard, E. (1973). Mexican Americans. New York: Random House. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7 24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Triandis, H. C. (1994). Cultural and social behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill. Westie, F. R. (1953). A technique for the measurement of race attitudes. American Sociological Review, 18, Worchel, S., Morales, F., Paez, D., & Deschamps, J-C. (1998). Social identity: International perspectives. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage. APPENDIX Humanistic Treatment Scale (HTS) 1. Mr. Carlos Suarez should have a job with minimum pay for being in the United States long enough to have a sizable family; he should not be deported. 2. Mr. Carlos Suarez should be eligible to receive from his employer the full benefits of a worker. 3. Mr. Carlos Suarez and his family should not be deprived of Medicaid because he was in the United States long before Proposition 187 was approved. 4. Mr. Carlos Suarez should be allowed to stay rather than being deported. 8. Illegal immigrants like Mr. Carlos Suarez should be considered a burden for the United States in the hard times of the 1990s. (R) 9. Illegal immigrants like Mr. Carlos Suarez should be made insecure economically in the United States. (R) 10. Illegal immigrants like Mr. Carlos Suarez should be made to feel stressed out psychologically in the United States. (R) Note. (R) indicates that the items were reverse scored. Received July 31, 2000 Accepted February 8, 2001