Stereotype content of refugee subgroups in Germany
Open accessAbstract
Stereotypes of refugee subgroups are still understudied. We contribute to this body of research by investigating differences in stereotype content, meaning warmth and competence ratings, of refugee subgroups in Germany (N = 264). Most extant Stereotype Content Model research is based on observed warmth and competence mean values. We applied latent variable modelling using the alignment optimisation to ensure meaningful and reliable mean value comparisons. Generic refugees were rated as lacking warmth and competence. Warmth assessments of refugee subgroups varied depending on flight motives, geographical origin, and religious affiliation, implying that perceptions of threat and competition differed between these subgroups. Fewer differences emerged in competence assessments, indicating that refugee groups are generally regarded as lacking status. Our results enhance knowledge of the stereotype content of refugee subgroups and make a methodological contribution to stereotype content research.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Generic immigrants and undocumented immigrants in the United States and refugees in Germany are seen as low in both warmth and competence, whereas most immigrant groups are viewed as higher on one dimension than the other.
“Though generic immigrants and undocumented immigrants in the United States and refugees in Germany are seen as low in both warmth and competence, most immigrant groups are viewed as higher on one dimension than the other (Fiske 2012, Kotzur et al. 2019).”
From Prejudice and Discrimination Toward Immigrants (2021) · cites this paper as Kotzur et al. 2019
Cites
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003) · Department of Psychology - University of Koblenz-Landau · doi:10.23668/psycharchives.12784 · Cited by 8,975 · see citing works
Chen, F. F. (2008) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0013193 · Cited by 962 · see citing works
How economic, humanitarian, and religious concerns shape European attitudes toward asylum seekers
Bansak, K., Hainmueller, J., & Hangartner, D. (2016) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aag2147 · Cited by 811 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Prejudice and Discrimination Toward Immigrants
Esses, V. M. (2021) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-080520-102803 · Cited by 273 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kotzur, P. F., Friehs, M., Asbrock, F., & van Zalk, M. H. W.
- Affiliations
- Philipps University of Marburg (DE)
- Osnabrück University (DE)
- Chemnitz University of Technology (DE)
- University of Osnabrück Osnabrück Germany
- Corresponding author
- Kotzur, Patrick F.
- Venue
- European Journal of Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019-05-17
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1344-1358
- ISSN
- 0046-2772 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-0992
- OpenAlex
- W2922703553
- Cited by
- 64
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4
- FWCI
- 15.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- European Journal of Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- osnaDocs (Osnabrück University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Migration, Refugees, and Integration
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › European Cultural and National Identity
- Keywords
- stereotype content, warmth and competence, stereotype content model, religious affiliation, geographical origin, threat perception, perceived competition, intergroup perception, Germany
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review