Social media and anti-immigrant prejudice: a multi-method analysis of the role of social media use, threat perceptions, and cognitive ability.

Introduction: The discourse on immigration and immigrants is central to contemporary political and public discussions. Analyzing online conversations about immigrants provides valuable insights into public opinion, complemented by data from questionnaires on how attitudes are formed. Methods: The research includes two studies examining the expressive and informational use of social media. Study 1 conducted a computational text analysis of comments on Singaporean Facebook pages and forums, focusing on how social media is used to discuss immigrants. Study 2 utilized survey data to examine the use of social media at the individual level, testing the relationships between cognitive ability, perceptions of threat, negative emotions towards immigrants, and social media usage within the Integrated Threat Theory framework. Results: Study 1 found that discussions about immigrants on social media often involved negative emotions and concerns about economic impact, such as competition for jobs and crime. Complementing these findings about perceived economic threats, Study 2 showed that individuals with higher social media usage and greater perceptions of threat were more likely to have negative emotions towards immigrants. These relationships were mediated by perceptions of threat and were stronger in individuals with lower cognitive abilities. Discussion: The findings from both studies demonstrate the role of social media in shaping public attitudes towards immigrants, highlighting how perceived threats influence these attitudes. This research suggests the importance of considering how digital platforms contribute to public opinion on immigration, with implications for understanding the dynamics of attitude formation in the digital age.

All it takes is empathy: how virtual reality perspective-taking influences intergroup attitudes and stereotypes.

Research in the past decade has demonstrated the potential of virtual reality perspective-taking (VRPT) to reduce bias against salient outgroups. In the perspective-taking literature, both affective and cognitive mechanisms have been theorized and identified as plausible pathways to prejudice reduction. Few studies have systematically compared affective and cognitive mediators, especially in relation to virtual reality, a medium posited to produce visceral, affective experiences. The present study seeks to extend current research on VRPT's mechanisms by comparing empathy (affective) and situational attributions (cognitive) as dual mediators influencing intergroup attitudes (affective) and stereotypes (cognitive). In a between-subjects experiment, 84 participants were randomly assigned to embody a VR ingroup or outgroup waiting staff at a local food establishment, interacting with an impolite ingroup customer. Results indicated that participants in the outgroup VRPT condition reported significantly more positive attitudes and stereotypes towards outgroup members than those in the ingroup VRPT condition. For both attitudes and stereotypes, empathy significantly mediated the effect of VRPT, but situational attributions did not. Findings from this research provide support for affect as a key component of virtual experiences and how they shape intergroup perceptions. Implications and directions for further research are discussed.

The Effect of VR Avatar Embodiment on Improving Attitudes and Closeness Toward Immigrants.

Past research has discussed how the embodiment of an outgroup avatar in virtual reality (VR) can reduce intergroup bias. However, little is known about the mechanisms and boundary conditions that shape this effect. This study examines how the embodiment of both outgroup and ingroup VR avatars in different orders influences attitudes and perceived closeness toward a co-ethnic immigrant outgroup in Singapore. It also investigates the role of empathy and social identity orientation (SIO) in this relationship. An experiment with four avatar embodiment conditions (ingroup-then-outgroup, outgroup-then-ingroup, ingroup-only, and outgroup-only) was carried out with 171 participants from a public university in Singapore. Results showed that embodying an outgroup avatar alone, compared to embodying an ingroup avatar alone, significantly improves both attitudes and closeness toward an immigrant outgroup. The order of embodiment matters to an extent, suggesting the greater effectiveness of outgroup-first over ingroup-first embodiment in reducing bias. Empathy mediates the effect of all three outgroup embodiment conditions on improved attitudes and closeness toward immigrants. It was also found that the stronger one's SIO is, the more effective embodiment is in improving perceived closeness with the outgroup via empathy. Theoretical implications of these findings are discussed.