Show Summary Details

Page of

 PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, COMMUNICATION ( (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: null; date: 16 January 2019

Integrated Threat Theory

Summary and Keywords

Despite rises in immigration and attempts to manage immigration, anti-immigrant threat and prejudice remains a major concern at the individual and societal levels, and often surfaces as a key political, economic, and social issue. Research shows anti-immigrant prejudice is widepread. One of the explanatory factors for widespread anti-immigrant attitudes is threat perception. Attitudes towards immigrants and immigration have become less positive amidst the outbreak of the current refugee crises in Europe. This can lead to many anti-immigration demonstrations and to anti-immigration sentiment. Many nonimmigrants worry about the economic burden immigrants pose to society and the potential danger immigrants represent to the dominant culture and society. Overall, research shows that believing people from other cultures are a threat to one’s own culture and survival leads to prejudice and discrimination.

Stephan and Stephan’s integrated threat theory (ITT) offers an explanation to these feelings of threat. ITT proposes that prejudice and negative attitudes towards immigrants and out-groups is explained by four types of threats: realistic threat, symbolic threat, negative stereotype, and intergroup anxiety. Realistic threats are to the physical well-being and the economic and political power of the in-group; symbolic threats arise due to cultural differences in values, morals, and worldview of the out-group; negative stereotypes arise from negative stereotypes the in-group has about the out-group; and intergroup anxiety refers to anxiety the in-group experiences in the process of interaction with members of the out-group, especially when both groups have had a history of antagonism.

Keywords: integrated threat theory, prejudice, in-group/out-group, intergroup anxiety, immigration, intergroup communication

Integrated Threat Theory

When cultures interact there are always differences. In immigration/migration studies, research shows that when immigrants migrate to a new culture the interactions between these newcomers and host cultures (dominant cultures) is a complex political, economic, social, cultural, psychological, and communicative process. If we look to, for example, Europe and the refugee crisis (2013–2017), the Brexit and the antimigrant rhetoric surrounding the vote, and the continual fear of migrants among groups of Americans (stoked by political rhetoric in the 2016 elections), we can see current examples of how migration is increasingly politicized, innately cultural, economic, and culturally tenuous. In an attempt to theoretically explain these interactions between newcomers and the dominant culture, and to understand the conflicts that arise between these groups, W. G. Stephan and C. W. Stephan (1993, 1996) proposed the integrated threat theory (ITT) of prejudice.

The purpose of this chapter is threefold: First, it provides a description of the original integrated threat theory. The theory will be defined and linked to other relevant theoretical constructs. Second, the revised integrated threat theory will be discussed. Third, this chapter reviews key contextual areas of integrated threat theory development. Fourth, it offers some areas of future research into integrated threat theory.

Description of the Original Integrated Threat Theory


Prejudice is not a new phenomenon. Ashmore (1970) defined prejudice as “a negative attitude toward a socially defined group and toward any person perceived to be a member of that group” (p. 253). Allport (1954) defined prejudice as:

An aversive or hostile attitude towards a person who belongs to a group, simply because he belongs to that group, and is therefore presumed to have the objectionable qualities ascribed to the group. . . . Ethnic prejudice is an antipathy based upon a faulty and inflexible generalization. It may be felt or expressed. It may be directed toward a group as a whole, or towards an individual because he is a member of that group.

(p. 7)

Historically, prejudice and intergroup attitudes have been concerns for social scientists and governments. Numerous theories have been proposed exploring prejudice and intergroup conflict. Many of these theories suggest that perceptions of physical or psychological fears or threats on the part of the dominant culture are highly related to prejudicial attitudes toward minorities (including immigrants): realistic group conflict theory (Sherif, 1966), symbolic racism theory (Kinder & Sears, 1981), and the group position model (Blumer, 1958).

Stephan and Stephan’s (1993, 1996, 2000) integrated threat theory is a relatively recent theoretical development in this area and offers one useful framework for understanding prejudice and negative attitudes towards out-groups or minorities (Croucher, 2013; Scheibner & Morrison, 2009). ITT explicates various intergroup and prejudice theoretical perspectives to explain and predict negative attitudes towards out-groups, such as immigrants.

Original Integrated Threat Theory Defined

Stephan and Stephan’s (1993, 1996) original ITT framework included four threats that explain and predict negative/prejudicial attitudes towards out-groups: intergroup anxiety, negative stereotypes, realistic threats, and symbolic threats. Intergroup anxiety arises from a fear of embarrassment, ridicule, rejection, and exploitation, or when the out-group and the in-group have a history of antagonism, or little or no prior personal contact (Stephan, Diaz-Looving, & Duran, 2000). Negative stereotypes are common assumptions the in-group has about the out-group. Realistic threats are threats the in-group perceives from the out-group toward their economic, political power, and physical or material well-being. Symbolic threats are perceptions the dominant culture has about the out-group because of differences in morals, values, standards, beliefs, and/or attitudes between the in-group and the out-group. These are essentially threats to the in-group’s culture or way of life.

These threats are preceded by various antecedent factors: intergroup conflict, status inequalities, strength of in-group identification, knowledge of the out-group, and intergroup contact (González, Verkuyten, Weesie, & Poppe, 2008). The antecedent factors influence the extent to which an out-group is percieved as threatening by an in-group, while the threats explain or predict prejudicial feelings and beliefs towards out-groups, which in turn influences the behaviors and interactions between the in-group and out-group.

Types of Threat

Intergroup anxiety arises because of members of the dominant culture fear embarrassment, ridicule, rejection, exploitation, and the like (Stephan et al., 2000) or when the out-group and the in-group have a history of antagonism and have little prior contact, are ethnocentric, ignorant of one another, and when there are interacting competitive circumstances where the out-group has a higher status than the in-group (Islam & Hewstone, 1993). This anxiety is motivated by feelings of threat and is often caused by a dislike of out-group members. Research has shown that the higher the level of intergroup anxiety, the more negative the attitude towards the out-groups (Stephan et al., 2000; Stephan, Ybarra, & Bachman, 1999).

Realistic threats are posed to the in-group by the very existence of out-groups. González et al. (2008) stated, “the desire to protect the in-group’s interests is considered the underlying motivation responsible for negative attitudes and discriminatory behavior” (p. 669). From 2013–2017, political rhetoric in many European Union nations focused on how refugees were draining EU national resources (economics), how refugees were dangerous (particularly after attacks in Germany and France), and how nations were not structurally equipped (schools, housing, medical care, etc.) to handle the number of refugees.

Symbolic threats emerge as a result of differences in morals, values, standards, beliefs, and/or attitudes between the in-group and the out-group. These are threats to the in-group’s way of life. Out-groups that espouse different views threaten the in-group culturally and are therefore disliked (Stephan et al., 2000). In contemporary American society, as one example, GLBTQs (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queers) are often perceived negatively due to moral and cultural values (Miller & Stack, 2014). Symbolic threats as a form of prejudice are positively related to levels of homophobia or to the dislike of GLBTQs (Warriner, Nagoshi, & Nagoshi, 2013).

Negative stereotypes are common assumptions among the in-group about the out-group. They are implied threats to the in-group because while interacting, in-groups often fear negative consequences. For example, if an in-group member thinks an out-group is aggressive, they will expect interactions between a member from that group to be negative and as a consequence more than likely dislike them (Stephan et al., 2000). Many Finns have traditionally (stereotypically) perceived Russian immigrants as aggressive. This stereotype comes from the historical Russian domination of Finland (Finland was once a colony of Finland); Finland gained its independence from Russia in 1917. The stereotypical perception of Russians according to Karemaa (2004) has been transferred from one generation to another and is present in Finnish society today.

Antecedent Factors

Five antecedent factors are critical to understanding ITT. These five factors affect the extent to which the in-group perceives the out-group as a threat or danger: intergroup conflict, status inequalities, strength of in-group identification, knowledge of the out-group, and intergroup contact.

Intergroup conflict is defined as intergroup confrontations over scarce resources or differences in culture, norms, and values. Such conflicts heighten the perceptions of threat and lead to prejudice (Curşeu, Stoop, & Schalk, 2007). In Finland, for example, there is a long-standing history of Russian migration into the nation. However, there has always been conflict with Russians (Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, etc.) immigrants over resources such as jobs, power, and access to healthcare, just to name a few (Protassova, 2008). Such intergroup conflict may lead some Finns (in-group) to perceive Russian immigrants as a threat to their way of life.

When two or more groups interact, it is natural for the groups to consciously and subconsciously compare their power situation/status in society. In the case of a migrant group migrating to a new culture, the migrant group (a minority) will inherently have lower power status than the dominant group. However, the dominant group will perceive the minority group as a threat to their power status; this is when status inequalities become evident. The salience of the threat posed by out-groups increases as the degree of status inequality increases. Threats will be more salient if the in-group has high status or low status compared to the out-group (Stephan & Stephan, 2000). As the dominant culture perceives the minority as reversing power relations, steps are often taken by the in-group to limit the minority: the restriction of religious expression in France and Switzerland (Croucher, 2013) and modification of the Hukou registration system in China serve as examples (Zeng, 2014).

Strong identification with an in-group can increase salience in all four types of threat (Stephan & Stephan, 2000). Tajfel and Turner (1979) asserted that people have a tendency to promote a positive sense of social self (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). When an in-group and out-group interact, the level of identification the individuals have with their respective groups will influence the interaction. If a member of the dominant in-group has a strong identification with that in-group, they are less likely to relate to the out-group and will perceive more threat, as relating to the out-group could be seen as abandoning or questioning their in-group or social self (Riek, Mania, & Gaertner, 2006). On the other hand, those with weak in-group identities will experience less feelings of threat or none at all. Van Oudenhoven, Prins, and Buunk (1998), for example, found Dutch respondents who strongly identified with Dutch culture were more likely to see minorities as threatening.

The absence or lack of basic information about an out-group is strongly related to the in-group perceiving higher levels of threat from the out-group (Stephan & Stephan, 2000). When groups lack basic knowledge about one another they tend to assume information about one another and to stereotype; such assumptions and stereotypes are often not based in fact. Conversely, when groups have more knowledge about one another, they are more likely to not negatively stereotype one another and not fear one another as much.

Intergroup contact is the final antecedent factor in the original ITT model. In 1954, Allport proposed that the amount of contact, as well as the quality of contact influences intergroup relations. He argued that contact should be: voluntary; cooperative; groups should be seen as having equal status; and if contact is positive it will lead to more positive intergroup relations. The more contact (quantity), as well as the more positive contacts (quality) an in-group has with the out-group, the more likely the in-group is to see the out-group favourably (Allport, 1954). However, negative contact and negative intergroup interactions are still an area that is being analysed in the literature. Studies have overall confirmed the contact hypothesis and shown that higher levels of positive contact are related to less threat (Brown & Hewstone, 2005).

Revised Version of Integrated Threat Theory

While research has overall supported the original theoretical version of ITT, ITT has also been criticized. ITT has been criticized for having only four threats as the primary predictors and causes of prejudice towards out-groups, and thus potentially ignoring other factors that might cause prejudice and negative attitudes. However, Stephan et al. (1999) did acknowledge that these threats are not the only potential predictors of prejudice and that ITT does not predict every aspect of prejudice. Furthermore, there have been critiques of the conceptualization of some of the threats (negative stereotype and intergroup anxiety) and antecedents (Croucher, 2016; Riek, Mania, & Gaertner, 2006). Researchers have questioned whether negative stereotypes are a threat or an antecedent to prejudice (Riek et al., 2006). Aberson and Gaffney (2008), for example,e conceptualized negative stereotypes as an antecedent of threat, while Riek et al. (2006) suggested negative stereotype and intergroup anxiety could be removed from the ITT model as threats. As a result of such theoretical discussions, the ITT model was revised.

In the revised theoretical version, called intergroup threat, the original four threats (realistic threats, symbolic threats, negative stereotypes, and intergroup anxiety) are reduced to two threats: realistic and symbolic threats (Stephan, Ybarra, & Rios Morrison, 2015). Negative stereotype is now a subset of both realistic threat and symbolic threat; it is a realistic threat when the negative stereotype implies a potential harm to the in-group and a symbolic threat when the negative stereotype has the potential to undermine the culture, norms, or values of the in-group. Intergroup anxiety is also a subset of realistic threat, as it deals with fears about interacting with out-group members. Furthermore, a distinction has been made between group threats and individual threats. Group threats are those made to an in-group as a whole, and individual threats are those made to individuals because of their membership in a particular group. Therefore, in the revised theoretical model, there are four kinds of threats: realistic group threats, symbolic group threats, realistic individual threats, and symbolic individual threats (Stephan et al., 2015).

Stephan et al. (2015) asserted that when in-groups perceive out-groups as threatening, these threats have behavioral, cognitive, and emotional effects. On the behavioral level, threats can lead to discrimination, lying, cheating, stealing, protests, voting down particular policies, prejudice, violence, conflict, harassment, and even to murder, genocide, and war. On the cognitive level, the perception of threats influences an individual’s perceptions of an out-group, which can lead to negative stereotypes, ethnocentrism, intolerance, and hatred. On an emotional level, threats from the out-group can lead to many negative emotions: anger, anxiety and resentment, contempt, disgust, fear, vulnerability, guilt, rage, hatred, humiliation, dread, helplessness, despair, indignation, and panic (Stephan et al., 2015).

Contextual Areas of Development

ITT has developed in various contextual ways. Contextually, ITT has been applied in the study of migration, interethnic relations, disability studies, the academic/university context, cross-national relations, and GLBTQ studies, to name a few of the key contextual areas. In this section two contextual areas of research are reviewed: ITT and migration, and ITT and GLBTQ studies.

The most prominent area in which ITT has been applied is to the study of the perception and/or fear of immigrants and migration. Research conducted in Australia, the United States, and Europe exploring perceptions of the dominant culture toward immigrant groups have all confirmed the original and revised version of ITT. In exploring perceived threats from Latino immigrants to the U.S., research has consistently shown Latino immigrants are seen as a threat (realistic largely, but also symbolic) to White U.S. culture (Hall & Krysan, 2016; Lyons, Coursey, & Kenworthy, 2013). In research exploring immigration to and within Europe, research has overwhelmingly supported ITT, with minor deviations. Studies have explored the four kinds of threats (realistic and symbolic threats, negative stereotypes, and intergroup anxiety), and in some studies particular threats have not been significant predictors. For example, in González et al.’s (2008) analysis of prejudice toward Muslim immigrants in the Netherlands, realistic threats were not found to be a significant predictor of prejudice. In Croucher’s (2013) analysis of prejudice in Western Europe, negative stereotyping was not a significant predictor, and intergroup anxiety was not included as a variable. However, collectively, research demonstrates that members of dominant cultures in Western Europe perceive immigrants as threats to their dominant cultural way of life (symbolic threat) and as threats to their resources (realistic threat) (Croucher, Galy-Badenas, & Routsalainen, 2014; Curşeu, Stoop, & Schalk, 2007; Nshom & Croucher, 2014; Scheibner & Morrison, 2009; Wirtz, van der Pligt, & Doosje, 2016).

Researchers based predominantly in the United States have also explored how threat relates to negative attitudes toward the GLBTQ (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer) community in the U.S. In explorations of how homophobia, or fear of GLBTQs, (Olson, Cadge, & Harrison, 2006) relate to prejudice toward this community, studies have shown the following key findings regarding GLBTQ issues such as same-sex marriage. First, for many heterosexuals, approval of same-sex marriage will strain the healthcare industry and other economic systems and harm children and families, which shows how the GLBTQ community is a realistic threat (Jowett, 2014; Lane, 2015; Spence, 2015). As for symbolic threats, research has shown GLBTQs are often perceived negatively due to moral and cultural values (Miller & Stack, 2014). These values and beliefs are seen as threats to the dominant heterosexual culture (Stephan, Ybarra, Martinez, Schwarzwald, & Turk-Kaspa, 1998). Symbolic threats are positively correlated with homophobia (Warriner, Nagoshi, & Nagoshi, 2013). Intergroup contact between many self-identified heterosexuals and GLBTQs in the U.S. is limited, particularly among those individuals with higher levels of homophobia.

These two contextual areas are just a sampling of the vast areas in which ITT has been applied. Collectively, research has consistently shown in different contexts, and to differing degrees, that members of the dominant culture perceive different minority groups as threats to their cultures (symbolic threat) and as threats to their existing resources (realistic threats). As previously mentioned, ITT has been revised, as there has been debate over the place of some of the threats in the model, such as negative stereotypes. Studies have been less consistent as to the relationships between negative stereotypes, prejudice, and intergroup relationships. Moreover, as intergroup anxiety is a group-level variable, it has not been studied as often as realistic or symbolic threats or negative stereotypes. Thus, there has been less clarity on its place in the original ITT model as a threat (Croucher, 2013, 2016).

Future Lines of Inquiry

While the ITT model has been extensively used in psychological, sociological, political science, and communication research and been modified to reflect its growing development, there are lines of inquiry in which the theory and researchers could further explore. In particular, ITT researchers should consider the following: (1) moving beyond quantitative studies and conducting qualitative and critical/cultural analyses, (2) more closely considering the influence of negative contact on prejudice, and (3) continuing to analyze dominant communities under direct “pressure” from minority cultures, such as those in the EU currently (2013–2017) during the refugee crisis.

First, the overwhelming majority of studies using the ITT model are quantitative in nature. From this approach, researchers survey participants with closed-ended items about their negative attitudes (prejudice) towards a minority group. There is nothing wrong with this approach at all. In fact, we have learned a lot about how the majority perceives threats from the minority from this approach. However, we know little about how the majority understands these threats or conceptualizes these threats, fears, attitudes, behaviors, and/or prejudice. Qualitative and/or critical/cultural research would provide in-depth, personal understandings of how members of the dominant cultures understand and perceive such threats, fears, attitudes, behaviors, and so forth (Berg, 2009). In such studies, researchers could interview participants, conduct focus groups, ethnographic research, or a plethora of other qualitative research to understand the lived experiences of members of the dominant cultures.

Second, researchers studying ITT should continue to conduct investigations into the influence of negative contact on perceptions of threat. Allport’s (1954) original contact hypothesis—that increased quantity of intergroup contact along with increased quality of intergroup contact reduces prejudice between groups—has been confirmed multiple times. However, increasingly researchers are exploring the influence of negative contact/factors, such as bad feelings, poor or negative impressions, negative media coverage, and negative stereotypes (Croucher, 2016; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008). Such factors may weigh more heavily on an individual’s perception of an individual and an out-group than positive contact. For example, relating negative contact to Islam, the events of 9/11, global terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism, and the refugee/migrant crisis in the EU may all heighten negative attitudes and feelings toward Muslims, and in turn make positive contact very difficult, thus making it even harder to reduce prejudice. Research should continue to investigate the influence of negative contact on prejudice.

Third, while research using ITT has been contextually diverse, it would be advantageous to continue to sample dominant populations who are experiencing immense and evident pressures (economic, political, social, etc.) to their ways of life. Starting in 2013 the EU has grappled with a migration crisis not experienced in generations. Estimates are that between 2014–April 2016, more than 1.7 million irregular migrants entered the EU (Asylum Quarterly, Report, 2016; UNHRC/IOM, 2015). These migrants have come from various nations into the EU: Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Eritrea, the former Balkan states, North African nations, Afghanistan, and other nations. Many of these individuals have fled differing levels of war/conflict in their regions. However, many others are also fleeing poor economic states. In the wake of this mass arrival of migrants, many of which have filed for asylum, different EU states and leaders have responded in different ways. Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, opened up the German borders to tens of thousands of migrants, which in turn is partially to blame for rising criticisms of her Christian Democratic Union Party and for recent losses the party suffered in regional elections in 2016 (Germany won’t change policy after gains for anti-refugee AfD party, 2016). In the United Kingdom, many Brexit supporters argued that the rising number of asylum seekers and migrants in Europe posed threats to the U.K. culture and economy, and that it was thus essential to leave the EU to have autonomy over immigration policies (Lee, 2016). In 2015, Paris suffered a series of terrorist attacks. It was later learned that at least one of the attackers had made his way into Europe to France disguised as a refugee. Since then the French government and other governments have increased security at borders, tightened asylum seeker applicant guidelines, and public support for the migrant crisis has dwindled. As some politicians will continue to use immigration as a scapegoat, as Islamic fundamentalism looms ever-present with threats from groups like ISIS constantly on the horizon, and as long as groups continue to not understand one another on a fundamental level (Croucher, 2013), prejudice will continue to grow and diversify in the EU context. The current migrant crisis provides a current case study in which to explore intergroup relations between the dominant cultures of Europe and growing minority cultures, namely migrants (refugees, asylum seekers, immigrants, etc.).

All in all, ITT is a rich and easy-to-understand approach to describing prejudice in our world. As we look to the world around us, we can see that when a dominant group perceives a minority group as threatening them in some way, these perceived threats lead to negative attitudes, behaviors, and emotions. In turn, these negative reactions limit, and in some cases completely break down, intergroup communication. Throughout history we can see examples of this happening, and we still see it happening today. While this theory offers a step-by-step approach to understanding and predicting prejudice and has been applied in various contexts, there are still opportunities to develop the theory. In particular, increased use of qualitative methods and a stronger focus on negative contact will improve the overall theoretical and methodological rigor of ITT. Ultimately, ITT is a sound theoretical lens for understanding prejudice, intergroup communication, and intergroup dynamics in an ever-complex communicative world.

Further Readings

Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Find this resource:

    Croucher, S. M. (2013). Integrated threat theory and acceptance of immigrant assimilation: An analysis of Muslim immigration in Western Europe. Communication Monographs, 80, 46–62.Find this resource:

      Islam, R. M., & Hewstone, M. (1993). Dimensions of contact as predictors of intergroup anxiety, perceived outgroup variability, and out-group attitude: An integrative model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 700–710.Find this resource:

        Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783.Find this resource:

          Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 922–934.Find this resource:

            Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and the integrate threat theory: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 336–353.Find this resource:

              Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1993). Cognition and affect in stereotyping: Parallel interactive networks. In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception (pp. 111–136). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Find this resource:

                Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1996). Predicting prejudice. International Journal ofIntercultural Relations, 20, 409–426.Find this resource:

                  Stephan, W. G., Stephan, C. W., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1999). Anxiety in intergroup relations: A comparison of anxiety/uncertainty management theory and integrated threat theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23, 613–628.Find this resource:

                    Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Rios Morrison, K. (2015). Intergroup threat theory. In T. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of Prejudice (pp. 255–278). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Find this resource:


                      Aberson, C., & Gaffney, A. (2008) An integrated threat model of explicit and implicit attitudes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 808–830.Find this resource:

                        Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Find this resource:

                          Ashmore, R. D. (1970). Prejudice: Causes and cures. In B. E. Colling (Ed.), Social psychology: Social influence, attitude change, group processes, and prejudice (pp. 245–339). Boston: Addison-Wesley.Find this resource:

                            Asylum Quarterly Report. (2016). First time asylum applicants and first instance decisions on asylum applications: First quarter 2016. Retrieved from

                            Berg, B. L. (2009). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Find this resource:

                              Blumer, H. (1958). Race prejudice as a sense of group position. The Pacific Sociological Review, 1, 3–7.Find this resource:

                                Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 255–343). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Find this resource:

                                  Croucher, S. M. (2013). Integrated threat theory and acceptance of immigrant assimilation: An analysis of Muslim immigration in Western Europe. Communication Monographs, 80, 46–62.Find this resource:

                                    Croucher, S. M. (2016). Further development of integrated threat theory and intergroup contact: A reply to Aberson (2015). Communication Monographs, 83, 269–275.Find this resource:

                                      Croucher, S. M., Galy-Badenas, F., & Routsalainen, M. (2014). Host culture acceptance, religiosity, and the threat of Muslim immigration: An integrated threat analysis in Spain. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 35. Retrieved from this resource:

                                        Curşeu, P. L., Stoop, R., & Schalk, R. (2007). Prejudice toward immigrant workers among Dutch employees: Integrated threat theory revisited. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 125–140.Find this resource:

                                          Germany won’t change policy after gains for anti-refugee AfD party. (2016, March 14). The Guardian Online.Find this resource:

                                            González, K. V., Verkuyten, M., Weesie, J., & Poppe, E. (2008). Prejudice towards Muslims in the Netherlands: Testing integrated threat theory. British Journal of Social Pyschology, 47, 667–685.Find this resource:

                                              Hall, M., & Krysan, M. (2016). The neighborhood context of Latino threat. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity.Find this resource:

                                                Islam, R. M., & Hewstone, M. (1993). Dimensions of contact as predictors of intergroup anxiety, perceived outgroup variability, and out-group attitude: An integrative model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 700–710.Find this resource:

                                                  Jowett, A. (2014). “But if you legalise same-sex marriage . . .”: Arguments against marriage equality in the British press. Feminism and Psychology, 24, 37–55.Find this resource:

                                                    Karemaa, O. (2004). Foes, fiends, and vermin: Ethnic hatred of Russians in Finland 1917–1923.

                                                    Kinder, D., & Sears, D. (1981). Negative attitudes and politics: Symbolic racism versus racial threats to the good life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 414–431.Find this resource:

                                                      Lane, C. (June 29, 2015). The economic reality of the same-sex marriage ruling. NPR Online.Find this resource:

                                                        Lee, T. N. (June 25, 2016). Brexit: The 7 most important arguments for Britain to leave the EU. Vox Online.Find this resource:

                                                          Lyons, P. A., Coursey, L. E., & Kenworthy, J. B. (2013). National identity and group narcissism as predictors of intergroup attitudes toward undocumented Latino immigrants in the United States. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 35, 323–335.Find this resource:

                                                            Miller, S. J., & Stack, K. (2014). African-American Lesbian and Queer women responds to Christian-based homophobia. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 10, 243–268.Find this resource:

                                                              Nshom, E., & Croucher, S. M. (2014). Threats and attitudes towards Russian speaking immigrants: A comparative study between younger and older Finns. Russian Journal of Communication, 6, 308–317.Find this resource:

                                                                Olson, L. R., Cadge, W., & Harrison, J. T. (2006). Religion and public opinion about same-sex marriage. Social Science Quarterly, 87, 340–360.Find this resource:

                                                                  Pettigrew, T. F. (2008). Future directions for intergroup contact theory and research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 187–199.Find this resource:

                                                                    Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three nations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 922–934.Find this resource:

                                                                      Protassova, E. (2008). Teaching Russian as a heritage language in Finland. Heritage Language Journal, 6, 127–152.Find this resource:

                                                                        Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and the integrated threat theory: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 336–353.Find this resource:

                                                                          Scheibner, G., & Morrison, T. (2009). Attitudes towards Polish immigrants to the Republic of Ireland: An integrated threat analysis. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 32, 1431–1448.Find this resource:

                                                                            Sherif, M. (1966). Group conflict and cooperation. London: Routledge.Find this resource:

                                                                              Spence, P. (2015, July 10). Same-sex marriage will make us all richer, say economists. The Telegraph Online.Find this resource:

                                                                                Stephan, W. G., Diaz-Looving, R., & Duran, A. (2000). Integrated threat theory and intercultural attitudes: Mexico and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 240–249.Find this resource:

                                                                                  Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1993). Cognition and affect in stereotyping: Parallel interactive networks. In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception (pp. 111–136). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Find this resource:

                                                                                    Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1996). Predicting prejudice. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 409–426.Find this resource:

                                                                                      Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 225–246). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Find this resource:

                                                                                        Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Bachman, G. (1999). Prejudice toward immigrants: An integrated threat theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2221–2237.Find this resource:

                                                                                          Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., Martinez, C., Schwarzwald, J., & Turk-Kaspa, M. (1998). Prejudice toward immigrants to Spain and Israel: An integrated threat theory analysis. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 29, 559–576.Find this resource:

                                                                                            Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Rios Morrison, K. (2015). Intergroup threat theory. In T. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice (pp. 255–278). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Find this resource:

                                                                                              Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Find this resource:

                                                                                                UNHRC/IOM. (2015, December 22). A million refugees and migrants flee to Europe in 2015.

                                                                                                Van Oudenhoven, J. P., Prins, K. S., & Buunk, B. P. (1998). Attitudes of minority and majority members towards adaptation of immigrants. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 995–1013.Find this resource:

                                                                                                  Warriner, K., Nagoshi, C. T., & Nagoshi, J. L. (2013). Correlates of homophobia, transphobia, and internalized homophobia in gay or lesbian and heterosexual samples. Journal of Homosexuality, 60, 1297–1314.Find this resource:

                                                                                                    Wirtz, C., van der Pligt, & Doosje, B. (2016). Negative attitudes toward Muslims in the Netherlands: The role of symbolic threat, stereotypes, and moral emotions. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 22, 75–83.Find this resource:

                                                                                                      Zeng, C. (2014). Organizational dissent and workplace freedom of speech: A qualitative study of young professional intra-urban migrant workers in Shanghai. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland.Find this resource: