Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

SocietiesSocieties
PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

14 August 2026

Meta Prejudice and Acculturation Attitudes: How Perceived Outgroup Dislike Shapes Preferences Toward Immigrant Acculturation in Finland

Order Reprints
,
and
1
Department of Communication and Media Studies, California State University San Marcos, San Marcos, CA 92096, USA
2
Department of Language and Communication Studies, University of Jyväskylä, FI-40014 Jyvaskyla, Finland
3
School of Business and Economics, University of Jyväskylä, FI-40014 Jyvaskyla, Finland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Societies2026, 16(8), 257;https://doi.org/10.3390/soc16080257
Version Notes

Abstract

This study investigates the role of meta prejudice (majority group members’ perception that they are disliked by immigrants) in shaping Finnish acculturation preferences toward immigrants, specifically support for assimilation and integration. Drawing on Intergroup Threat Theory and the emerging literature on intergroup meta perceptions, we explore whether symbolic and realistic threats mediate the relationship between meta prejudice and acculturation attitudes. Using a sample of 604 native Finns, results from hierarchical regression analyses indicate that meta prejudice positively predicts support for assimilation and negatively predicts support for integration. Parallel mediation analyses reveal that both symbolic and realistic threats partially mediate the relationship between meta prejudice and support for assimilation. However, only realistic threat significantly mediates the relationship between meta prejudice and support for integration. These findings underscore the importance of meta perceptions and perceived intergroup threat in shaping public attitudes toward immigrant acculturation. The study offers theoretical and practical insights for improving intergroup relations and fostering more inclusive integration policies in increasingly diverse societies.

1. Introduction

In the 2023 elections, Finland’s new right-leaning coalition came to power, including the National Coalition Party (KOK), the Finns Party (PS), the Swedish People’s Party (RKP), and the Christian Democrats (KD). The rise of the Finns Party, known for its nationalist and anti-immigration stance, marked a major political shift [1]. The coalition implemented cuts to social spending and stricter immigration policies, such as reduced refugee quotas and tighter asylum and family reunification rules [2]. These measures sparked debates about immigration and raised concerns among business leaders about potential labor shortages [3,4].
Public attitudes toward immigrants are shaped not only by direct experiences but also by perceived intergroup dynamics. One such dynamic, meta prejudice, the belief that one’s ingroup is disliked by an outgroup [5,6], has significant implications but remains underexplored in Finland. Research on acculturation highlights two dominant preferences: assimilation, where immigrants adopt the host culture, and integration, which supports cultural diversity [7,8,9]. According to Intergroup Threat Theory (ITT) [10,11,12], perceptions of realistic (economic, security) and symbolic (cultural values) threats predict support for assimilation over integration [13,14]. This study addresses a key gap by examining whether meta prejudice influences Finns’ acculturation preferences toward immigrants, and whether symbolic and realistic threats mediate this relationship. By doing so, this study significantly contributes to understanding the psychological mechanisms shaping attitudes toward immigration and social cohesion in Finland.

1.1. Immigration in Finland

In the early 1990s, Finland began experiencing a rise in immigration from foreign citizens, with more notable growth observed during the 2000s. Initially, immigration in the 1990s primarily comprised individuals of Finnish ancestry from Russia, such as Ingrian Finns, as well as humanitarian migrants and their families [15]. However, the significant increase in immigration during the 2000s can be largely attributed to a rise in labor migration. Although Finland became a member of the European Union in 1995, labor migration, particularly from neighboring Estonia, saw a substantial surge following Estonia’s accession to the EU in 2004. Migration from Estonia is frequently driven by employment opportunities, while migration from Russia is often motivated by family ties and educational pursuits. Education emerges as a common reason for immigration among individuals from Asian countries [16]. Immigration from the Middle East and North Africa is primarily driven by humanitarian reasons. The most prevalent countries of origin for refugees include Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iran [17].
In recent years, there has been a steady increase in immigration. In 2021, the number of immigrants entering Finland was 36,364, which rose significantly to 49,998 in 2022 and further to 73,236 in 2023 [18]. This upward trend highlights the country’s evolving demographic landscape, with the total foreign-born population reaching approximately 470,000 by 2023–2024, reflecting an increasing contribution of immigrants to Finland’s population and workforce. With increasing discussion on how immigrants should acculturate and integrate into Finnish society [19], especially after the new immigration reform [20], Finland represents an important context to explore majority perceptions of how immigrants feel towards them, the extent to which it is associated with their acculturation preferences towards immigrants, and the mediating effect of immigrant threat perceptions.

1.2. Research on Finnish Acculturation Preferences Towards Immigrants

Acculturation can be defined as “phenomena which result when groups of individuals having different cultures come into continuous first-hand contact, with subsequent changes in the original cultural patterns of either or both groups” [21] (pp. 149–152). It is also described as “the processes by which different cultural groups adapt to one another” [22] (p. 131). Berry’s [7,8,9] acculturation framework, widely regarded as the most influential psychological model in this field [23], identifies four acculturation strategies: integration, assimilation, separation, and marginalization. Among these, assimilation and integration are the most extensively discussed in contemporary Western societies [19] and are the most preferred strategies among both minority and majority groups [13,24].
Research on immigrant acculturation preferences in Finland has flourished within the past two decades [25,26,27,28,29]. However, research on Finnish/majority acculturation preferences towards immigrants is still very scarce. An online literature search reveals only four relevant studies. In the first one, [19] studied acculturation preferences towards immigrants among Finnish adolescents and found that support for integration increased with age while support for assimilation decreased with age. Moreover, women were more supportive of integration and less supportive of assimilation when compared to men. In another study, Jasinskaja-Lahtia et al. (2003) [27] studied the extent to which majority and minority acculturation preferences in Finland, Isreal, and Germany were discordant (in disagreement) or concordant (in agreement), and found that the acculturation profiles of hosts and immigrants appeared to be concordant in Israel and Germany, and discordant only in Finland, where most of the hosts preferred assimilation. On the other hand, ref. [14] explored the Finnish acculturation preferences towards immigrants, and its association with immigrant threat perceptions, prejudice, and intergroup contact and obtained mixed results. They found no significant relationship between acculturation preferences and perceived threats. In another study focusing on Finnish acculturation preferences towards Russian immigrants in particular, ref. [30] studied the relationship between prejudice and Finnish acculturation preferences towards Russian immigrants, and found that while controlling for the role of age, gender, level of education, and family’s economic condition, there was a significant positive association between prejudice and assimilation, and a negative but nonsignificant association between prejudice and integration. These findings underscore the need for further research to identify antecedents of majority acculturation preferences within Finnish society.
It is important to recognize, however, that a substantial body of research internationally has explored various factors influencing majority acculturation preferences toward minority groups [13,19,23,31,32]. Some of these factors include:
“Individual (e.g., age, sex, time in the host country, education, ethnocultural origin), psychosocial (e.g., intergroup bias, intergroup contact, mutual prejudice, perceived similarity, cultural enrichment perceived, intergroup identification, visibility, group status, etc.) or group/context (e.g., specific peculiarities of each immigrant and/or host group country, political context, cultural distance, regulations, predominant ideologies, etc.” [32] (p. 70).
Despite this extensive literature on predictors of majority acculturation attitudes, the role of meta prejudice has not been examined as a potential antecedent. The present study aims to address this gap by investigating meta prejudice as a predictor of Finnish acculturation preferences towards immigrants.

1.3. Understanding Meta Prejudice

Meta prejudice, defined as “the perception that an outgroup hates your group” [33] (p. 135), is a relatively recent line of inquiry situated within the broader concept of meta perception, how individuals believe their group is viewed by others [34]. While meta perception has long been studied at the interpersonal level [35], its intergroup applications are more recent [36]. Research on intergroup meta perceptions spans areas such as meta stereotypes [13,19,23,31,32], meta dehumanization [33,37,38,39,40,41], intergroup contact meta perceptions [42,43], meta humanization [37,44], meta perceived threat/benefit [45], and meta prejudice [5,6,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53]. Furthermore, meta perceptions have been examined across diverse intergroup contexts, including intergenerational relations [54], immigrant-host dynamics [6,49,50], interreligious interactions [47,52,53,55,56], international relations [33,34], interracial relations [57,58], and political partisanship [33,40,48].
Research on meta prejudice remains limited but growing. For example, Kunst et al. (2022) [46] demonstrated that individuals infer negative meta attitudes from outgroup members who appear phenotypically prototypical, which reduces willingness for intergroup contact regardless of personal attitudes. In Indonesia, Putra (2016) [52] found that both ingroup and outgroup meta prejudice among Muslims and Christians predicted prejudice, with effects moderated by ingroup self-evaluation. Extending this work, Putra and Wagner (2017) [53] showed that meta prejudice significantly mediated the relationship between perceived quality of intergroup relations and personal prejudice, while Putra (2014) [51] reported that outgroup meta prejudice contributed to both prejudice and identity undermining via ingroup meta prejudice.
In international contexts, Landry et al. (2022) [33] revealed that meta prejudice predicted hostility toward Russians among Americans, illustrating its role in shaping foreign relations. Moore-Berg et al. (2020) [48] examined partisan divides in the United States and found that Democrats and Republicans not only disliked and dehumanized each other, but both groups assumed that the outgroup harbored roughly twice as much prejudice and dehumanization as the outgroup actually reported. This exaggerated meta prejudice was linked to greater social distance and increased support for ingroup-favoring policies, even when such policies harmed broader national interests.
In Finland, research on meta prejudice remains scarce. Nshom [6,49,50] and Lattu [47] provide the only systematic examinations to date. Findings indicate that meta prejudice among Finns predicts perceived immigrant threat, which mediates anti-immigrant prejudice [6], while among immigrants, negative contact fosters meta prejudice and positive contact reduces it [50]. Lattu [47] found Christian-background youth often assumed Muslims held negative views of Christians, even when evidence suggested otherwise. Consistently, these studies show Finnish meta prejudice is more negative than reality, echoing international findings [48].

1.4. The Relationship Between Meta Prejudice and Majority Acculturation Preferences

Meta prejudice creates a psychological asymmetry in intergroup relations. Whereas prejudice reflects personal feelings toward an outgroup, meta prejudice concerns perceptions of how the outgroup views and feels towards the ingroup [5,51]. This can be especially threatening because it violates expectations of reciprocity [59,60]. According to social identity theory [61], when people believe their group is disliked, they may respond defensively to protect group esteem, often by favoring assimilation as a way to reinforce cultural dominance. Although integration is often seen as the most adaptive strategy [7], it depends on mutual respect. Meta prejudice undermines this foundation: if majority members perceive immigrants as resentful or unwilling to engage positively, support for integration declines [23,46]. Assimilation, in turn, may be perceived as a safeguard against threat and a way to impose social harmony.
In Finland, where national identity is strongly tied to cultural and linguistic unity [62], immigration debates are highly sensitive to issues of loyalty and compatibility [14,19]. Media portrayals often depict immigrants as culturally distant or problematic [15,63,64], amplifying meta prejudice and shaping attitudes toward assimilation over integration [65].
Based on this reasoning, we propose the following hypotheses:
H1. 
Meta prejudice will positively predict a preference for assimilation among Finns.
H2. 
Meta prejudice will negatively predict a preference for integration among Finns.

1.5. The Mediating Effect of Intergroup Threats

Intergroup Threat Theory [10,11,12] explains negative intergroup attitudes as responses to two types of perceived threats: symbolic threats, which challenge cultural values, language, and identity, and realistic threats, which involve competition over jobs, resources, or safety. Both forms of threat have been consistently linked to anti-immigrant attitudes [10].
Meta prejudice can intensify these threats. When majority members believe immigrants dislike them, they are more likely to view immigrants as symbolically and realistically threatening [6]. Conversely, perceptions of being humanized reduce threat and promote openness [37]. Research shows that higher perceived threats are associated with reduced support for integration and multiculturalism and stronger endorsement of assimilation [13,14,23,66]. For example, Florack et al. (2003) [66] found that Germans who felt threatened by Turks favored assimilation and exclusion, whereas those perceiving less threat supported integration.
Recent work reinforces this mediational pathway. Nshom (2024) [6] demonstrated that meta prejudice predicted anti-immigrant attitudes through heightened threat perceptions. Similarly, threat has been shown to increase social distance [67], aggressive tendencies [68], and preference for assimilation over integration. When majority members perceive immigrants as unwilling to adopt host norms or as resentful, perceived threat rises, further reducing support for integration [69]. Together, these findings support a model in which meta prejudice fuels symbolic and realistic threat perceptions, which in turn shape acculturation attitudes. Specifically, assimilation is seen as a way to enforce conformity and restore cohesion, while integration becomes less attractive under threat. To test this, we propose the following hypotheses:
H3. 
Symbolic and realistic threats will mediate the relationship between meta prejudice and Finnish acculturation preferences (assimilation and integration).
In societies like Finland, where debates about immigration are increasingly politicized, meta perceptions can have a tangible impact on social cohesion and the success of integration efforts. By integrating these theoretical perspectives, this study provides a more comprehensive understanding of the social psychological processes that underpin support for acculturation strategies and informs interventions that can promote more inclusive and resilient societies.

2. Method

2.1. Participants and Procedure

Participants in this study were all native Finns. The data was collected online through an online questionnaire. We utilized a professional data collection platform, Qualtrics, to administer the survey. In addition, the survey link was distributed by the researchers and their personal and professional networks on different social media platforms such as WhatsApp and Facebook. It took participants on average 15 min to answer all the questions. No question requiring the disclosure of personal information such as names was asked. As such, the study was completely anonymous. It was also clearly stated on the questionnaire that participation was voluntary and that they could decline at any point in the participation process. Moreover, it was clearly indicated that participation was free and that participants would not be compensated for their participation. The study successfully went through all stages of the ethical approval process of California StateUniversity San Marcos (project number 1819230-1). After the data was collected, it was analyzed using the statistical software SPSS 29.0. Out of the 604 participants, 272 (45%) identified as men while 332 (55%) identified themselves as women. The youngest respondent was 18 and the oldest respondent was 81 resulting in (M = 41.7 years).

2.2. Measures

In addition to collecting demographic information such as age, education, and gender, the study employed five primary psychological measures: meta prejudice, assimilation, integration, realistic threat, and symbolic threat. See Table 1 for descriptive statistics and correlations between the study variables.
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlations for all study variables.
Meta prejudice: The measure for meta prejudice used in this study was adapted from the feeling thermometer [70]. It has been used in previous studies to study meta prejudice [6,49,50]. Participants were asked to rate the extent to which they believed immigrants had cold (unfavorable) or warm (favorable) feelings towards Finns on a scale of 1 (extremely unfavorable) to 10 (extremely favorable) rather than 1 to 100 as in the original measure. This measure was reverse-scored, such that higher scores indicated greater levels of meta prejudice, whereas lower scores reflected lower levels.
Assimilation: This measure was adapted from previous work by Berry (1997, 2001, 2005) [7,8,9]. Assimilation was measured by asking participants the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the following statements: “I want immigrants to adopt the Finnish culture and not keep their own”, “I want immigrants to be more fluent in our (Finnish) language than in their own”, “I want immigrants to take part in social activities which do not involve immigrants”, and “I want immigrants to be friends with Finns”. Participants had to respond on a scale of (1) absolutely disagree to (5) totally agree. Higher scores meant a greater preference for assimilation while lower scores meant a lesser preference for assimilation. This measure has been used in previous studies in Finland [19,30]. This scale showed an alpha reliability of 0.79 for study 1.
Integration: This measure was equally adapted from Berry (1997, 2001, 2005) [7,8,9]. Integration was measured by asking participants the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the following statements: “I want immigrants to keep their own culture, but also to adapt to ours”, “I want immigrants to be fluent in their own and our (Finnish) language”, “I want immigrants to take part in social activities which involve both immigrants and Finns”, and “I want immigrants to be friends with Finns and other immigrants”. Participants had to respond on a scale of (1) absolutely disagree to (5) totally agree. Higher scores meant a greater preference for integration while lower scores meant a lesser preference for integration. This measure has been used in previous studies in Finland [19,30]. This scale showed an alpha reliability of 0.82.
Realistic threat: Perceptions of realistic threat were assessed using three items. Participants rated their agreement with the following statements: (1) “Due to the presence of immigrants, Finland has become insecure,” (2) “Due to the presence of immigrants, unemployment in Finland is rising,” and (3) “Due to the presence of immigrants, it is more difficult for Finns to find housing”. Responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Totally disagree) to 5 (Totally agree), with higher scores reflecting greater perceptions of realistic threat. The items were adapted from Nshom and Croucher (2019) [14] and demonstrated high internal consistency in the current study (Cronbach’s α = 0.87).
Symbolic threat: On the other hand, perceptions of symbolic threat were assessed using three items. Participants rated their agreement with the following statements: (1) “Finnish identity is threatened because there are too many immigrants in Finland,” (2) “Finnish norms and values are threatened because there are too many immigrants in Finland,” and (3) “Immigrants are a threat to Finnish culture.”. Responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Totally disagree) to 5 (Totally agree), with higher scores reflecting greater perceptions of realistic threat. The items were adapted from Nshom (2024) [6] and demonstrated high internal consistency in the current study (Cronbach’s α = 0.91).

3. Results

To test Hypothesis 1, which posited that meta prejudice would be positively associated with support for assimilation toward immigrants, a three-step hierarchical regression analysis was performed. Previous research in Finland suggests that education levels, a right-wing political orientation, and age predict higher perceptions of immigrant threat, negative attitudes, and support for an assimilationist viewpoint [6,14,19]. Accordingly, age, education, and political orientation were entered as control variables in the first step, with assimilation as the dependent variable. Meta prejudice was added in the second step, and realistic and symbolic threat were entered simultaneously in step 3 of the model.
In Step 1, the control variables collectively accounted for 4% of the variance in assimilation, R2 = 0.04, F(3, 600) = 8.13, p < 0.001. Age was not a significant predictor (b = 0.06, p = 0.14). However, level of education was negatively associated with assimilation (b = −0.15, p < 0.001), whereas political orientation was positively associated with assimilation (b = 0.12, p = 0.004). Thus, participants with lower levels of education and those with higher scores on political orientation reported stronger preferences for assimilation.
In Step 2, meta prejudice was entered while continuing to control for age, level of education, and political orientation. The model explained 8% of the variance in assimilation, R2 = 0.08, representing a significant 4% increase in explained variance, ΔR2 = 0.04, ΔF(1, 599) = 23.79, p < 0.001. Meta prejudice was a significant positive predictor of assimilation (b = 0.20, p < 0.001). Among the control variables, age remained nonsignificant (b = 0.03, p = 0.41), whereas level of education remained a significant negative predictor (b = −0.11, p = 0.005) and political orientation remained a significant positive predictor (b = 0.13, p = 0.001).
In Step 3, realistic and symbolic threat were added while controlling for age, level of education, political orientation, and meta prejudice. The final model accounted for approximately 20% of the variance in assimilation preferences, R2 = 0.20, adjusted R2 = 0.19, F(6, 597) = 24.54, p < 0.001. The addition of realistic and symbolic threat explained an additional 12% of the variance, ΔR2 = 0.12, ΔF(2, 597) = 45.42, p < 0.001.
In the final model, both realistic threat (b = 0.22, p = 0.001) and symbolic threat (b = 0.18, p = 0.007) were significant positive predictors of assimilation. Meta prejudice also remained a significant positive predictor, although its association was reduced after the threat variables were introduced (b = 0.09, p = 0.03). None of the control variables were significant in the final model: age (b = 0.01, p = 0.78), level of education (b = −0.06, p = 0.15), and political orientation (b = 0.04, p = 0.37). Overall, the results indicate that greater meta prejudice, realistic threat, and symbolic threat were associated with stronger support for assimilation, with realistic threat emerging as the strongest predictor in the final model. Full regression details are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Meta prejudice predicting assimilation.
To test Hypothesis 2, which proposed that meta prejudice would be negatively associated with support for integration toward immigrants, a three-step hierarchical regression model was equally computed, with integration as the outcome variable. Age, education, and political orientation were entered as predictors in the first step, meta prejudice was added in the second step, and realistic and symbolic threat were included in the third step of the model. The results were as follows:
In Step 1, the control variables collectively accounted for 3% of the variance in integration preferences, R2 = 0.03, F(3, 600) = 6.50, p < 0.001. Age was a significant positive predictor of integration preferences (b = 0.10, p = 0.01), as was level of education (b = 0.13, p < 0.001). Political orientation was not significantly associated with integration (b = 0.05, p = 0.23).
In Step 2, meta prejudice was entered while continuing to control for age, level of education, and political orientation. The model accounted for 12% of the variance in integration, R2 = 0.12, representing a significant 9% increase in explained variance, ΔR2 = 0.09, ΔF(1, 599) = 59.68, p < 0.001. Meta prejudice was a significant negative predictor of integration (b = −0.31, p < 0.001). Among the control variables, age (b = 0.14, p < 0.001) and level of education (b = 0.08, p = 0.04) remained significant positive predictors, whereas political orientation remained nonsignificant (b = 0.03, p = 0.46).
In Step 3, realistic and symbolic threat were added while controlling for age, level of education, political orientation, and meta prejudice. The final model accounted for 19% of the variance in integration preferences, R2 = 0.19, adjusted R2 = 0.18, F(6, 597) = 23.44, p < 0.001. The addition of realistic and symbolic threat explained a significant additional 7% of the variance, ΔR2 = 0.07, ΔF(2, 597) = 26.34, p < 0.001.
In the final model, meta prejudice remained a significant negative predictor of integration (b = −0.22, p < 0.001). Realistic threat was also a significant negative predictor (b = −0.21, p = 0.002), whereas symbolic threat was not significantly associated with support for integration (b = −0.10, p = 0.17). Among the control variables, age remained a significant positive predictor (b = 0.16, p < 0.001), level of education was no longer significant (b = 0.04, p = 0.35), and political orientation emerged as a significant positive predictor (b = 0.10, p = 0.01). Thus, greater meta prejudice and realistic threat were associated with weaker support for integration after accounting for the control variables and symbolic threat. Full regression results are presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Meta prejudice predicting integration.
To test Hypothesis 3, which proposed that realistic and symbolic threats would significantly mediate the relationship between meta prejudice and Finnish acculturation preferences (assimilation and integration) toward immigrants, two parallel mediation analyses were conducted using PROCESS Model 4 [71] with 5000 bootstrap samples and 95% confidence intervals. In the first model, meta prejudice served as the predictor and assimilation as the dependent variable. In the second model, meta prejudice was the predictor, and integration the dependent variable. Both realistic and symbolic threats were included as parallel mediators in both models.
For the first mediation model, the total effect of meta prejudice on assimilation was significant, b = 0.11, t(602) = 5.38, p < 0.001. The direct effect of meta prejudice on assimilation, controlling for symbolic and realistic threats, was also significant, but reduced, b = 0.05, t(600) = 2.34, p = 0.02, indicating partial mediation. Bootstrapping analyses (5000 samples) confirmed significant indirect effects through both symbolic threat (b = 0.03, 95% CI [0.01, 0.06]) and realistic threat (b = 0.03, 95% CI [0.01, 0.06]). These results indicate that the association between meta prejudice and support for assimilation is partially explained by heightened perceptions of symbolic and realistic threats. Full mediation results are presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Total, direct, and indirect effects of meta prejudice on assimilation.
In the second mediation model, the total effect of meta prejudice on integration was significant, b = −0.15, t(602) = −7.76, p < 0.001. The direct effect remained significant after controlling for symbolic and realistic threats, b = −0.11, t(600) = −5.68, p < 0.001. Bootstrapping analyses (5000 samples) revealed a significant indirect effect through realistic threat (b = −0.03, 95% CI [−0.06, −0.01]) but not through symbolic threat (b = −0.01, 95% CI [−0.03, 0.02]). These findings suggest that realistic threat, but not symbolic threat, significantly mediates the relationship between meta prejudice and support for integration. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was partially supported. Full mediation results are presented in Table 5.
Table 5. Total, direct, and indirect effects of meta prejudice on integration.

4. Discussion

The current study sought to examine how meta prejudice, defined as the ingroup’s perception of how the outgroup feels towards them [6] relates to native Finns’ acculturation preferences toward immigrants, specifically integration and assimilation, and whether these associations are mediated by perceptions of symbolic and realistic threat. Drawing from Intergroup Threat Theory [10,11,12] and intergroup meta perception frameworks [36,72], we tested three hypotheses that collectively advance our understanding of how intergroup meta prejudice shapes support for acculturation preferences among Finns.
Consistent with Hypothesis 1 and 2, findings revealed that meta prejudice was differentially associated with Finnish acculturation preferences. Specifically, higher meta prejudice was significantly positively associated with support for assimilation and significantly negatively associated with support for integration. These results align with social identity theory [61] (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and past literature showing that when majority group members believe they are disliked by outgroup members, they are more likely to have anti-immigrant attitudes that favor conformity-based approaches such as assimilation and reject multicultural or inclusive ones such as integration [6]. Assimilation, which requires immigrants to relinquish their cultural distinctiveness in favor of adopting the host culture, may be seen by the majority group as a way to reduce perceived intergroup tensions stemming from negative meta perceptions. In contrast, integration, which supports biculturalism and mutual accommodation, might be perceived as threatening in such contexts, especially if intergroup relations are already strained. In addition, research on meta humanization suggests that when individuals perceive that an outgroup views their own group as fully human, this perception can reduce intergroup threat, foster openness, and enhance the willingness to engage in peaceful and cooperative contact [37]. Consequently, individuals who report higher levels of meta humanization or conversely, lower levels of meta prejudice, are more likely to endorse integrative intergroup strategies over assimilationist strategies.
To further investigate the psychological mechanisms underlying these associations, we tested Hypothesis 3 using parallel mediation models with realistic and symbolic threats as mediators. As expected, symbolic and realistic threat perceptions significantly mediated the relationship between meta prejudice and assimilation. Participants who believed that immigrants viewed the Finnish ingroup negatively were more likely to perceive immigrants as a threat to Finnish values and resources, which in turn predicted greater support for assimilation. This mediating effect is consistent with prior work indicating that perceptions of threat serve as a psychological bridge between intergroup attitudes, acculturation attitudes, and policy preferences towards immigrants [10,11,12,13,14,23,66,73,74]. For example, in a study carried out in Spain exploring majority acculturation preferences towards immigrants, a mediation model found that participants’ meta-acculturation attitudes, defined as majority perception of minority cultural adoption, predicted stereotypes. These stereotypes predicted the perception of threat from immigrants, which in turn predicted acculturation preferences towards immigrants [23]. In this current study, both types of perceived threats significantly contributed to the indirect effect, highlighting the dual nature of perceived intergroup threats as rooted in both identity and material concerns [10,11,12].
In the case of integration, the mediation pattern was more nuanced. While meta prejudice was also negatively associated with support for integration, only realistic threat significantly mediated this relationship. Symbolic threat did not have a significant indirect effect. This suggests that when it comes to supporting integration, concerns about economic competition, strain on public resources, or other tangible costs may weigh more heavily than concerns about cultural or identity-related threats. Such a finding underscores the domain-specific nature of threat perceptions in shaping majority attitudes towards immigrant acculturation. It also resonates with prior research indicating that realistic threat is more directly tied to opposition to inclusive immigrant policies [75].
The evidence of partial mediation in both models indicates that while threat perceptions are important explanatory mechanisms, other factors may also influence the relationship between meta prejudice and acculturation preferences. These may include factors such as ideological orientations such as right-wing authoritarianism or social dominance orientation, intergroup trust, and social norms, just to name a few. Moreover, the relatively low R2 values suggest that although statistically significant, meta prejudice and threat perceptions account for a modest proportion of variance in acculturation attitudes. This highlights the complexity of majority attitudes toward immigrant acculturation, which are likely shaped by a confluence of psychological, cultural, and structural factors.
Overall, the findings from this study make several contributions. First, they provide empirical support for the notion that intergroup meta perceptions matter, not just for interpersonal dynamics but for broader societal attitudes and policy preferences. Second, they confirm that perceptions of threat, particularly realistic threat, are pivotal in understanding majority group members’ openness to immigrant integration. Third, by focusing on the Finnish context, the study adds to the growing body of cross-national research on intergroup relations and immigration attitudes in Nordic countries, which have experienced rising diversity alongside debates over national identity and inclusion.
From a practical standpoint, these findings have several implications. Policymakers and educators should not only focus on reducing explicit prejudice but also challenge distorted beliefs about how different groups view one another [38,40,41,76]. This is important because as illustrated by this study, meta perceptions can have significant negative implications on intergroup relations [6,48,49,50]. Public messaging that emphasizes mutual respect, and shared goals may be effective in altering meta perceptions and thereby improving societal cohesion. Reducing meta prejudice can enhance personal relationships by allowing individuals to form meaningful connections with people from diverse backgrounds. This fosters personal growth and learning, as exposure to different perspectives broadens one’s understanding and empathy [77]. Moreover, integration policies should directly address material concerns and safety issues, given their strong link to realistic threat perceptions, by offering transparent information about the impacts of immigration and emphasizing inclusive economic and social policies.
Journalists and media professionals play a critical role in shaping societal perceptions of the “other” through processes of representation and framing. In the Finnish context, where institutional trust and media quality are relatively high, even subtle instances of framing can exert considerable influence. A recent study by Khalimzoda, Sadaf, and van Oosten (2025) [78] illustrates how both news content and reader commentary can engage in the othering of minority groups, thereby reinforcing social boundaries. However, the media also holds the potential to counteract such tendencies. By intentionally presenting diverse and inclusive narratives, the media can disrupt stereotypes and foster greater intergroup understanding. Research has consistently demonstrated that media portrayals of ethnic minorities and marginalized communities significantly shape public attitudes toward these groups [79,80].

5. Limitations and Future Research

Several limitations of this study should be acknowledged and provide important directions for future research. First, one of the measures used in the study consisted of a single item. Although single-item measures can be useful in some research contexts, they may be considered less reliable than multi-item measures and may not fully capture the complexity of the construct being assessed. In addition, the relatively small sample size may have implications for statistical power and the stability of the observed relationships. Although the study was not preregistered, data collection was not contingent on the statistical significance of the observed results. Nevertheless, future research would benefit from preregistering hypotheses, analytic decisions, and sample-size determination procedures to further enhance transparency and distinguish confirmatory from exploratory analyses.
Although the present study examined symbolic and realistic threats, future research could consider additional dimensions of intergroup threat, including negative stereotypes and intergroup anxiety. Other theoretically relevant mechanisms, such as intergroup empathy, trust, and national identification, could also be examined as potential mediators. Similarly, future research could investigate whether individual differences moderate the relationships among meta-prejudice, threat perceptions, and acculturation preferences.
It is also important to recognize that assimilation and integration represent only two possible acculturation orientations. Future studies could examine other acculturation orientations and alternative conceptualizations of acculturation to provide a more comprehensive understanding of host-society preferences. Moreover, whereas the present study examined acculturation preferences and meta-prejudice from the perspective of the majority population, future research could investigate these processes from the perspectives of immigrants and minority-group members. Examining both majority- and minority-group perspectives may provide a more reciprocal and comprehensive understanding of the role of meta-perceptions in intergroup relations.
The research design also limits conclusions regarding the directionality of the observed relationships. Although establishing directionality was not the primary objective of this study, future research should employ longitudinal or experimental designs to clarify the direction of the relationships among acculturation preferences, meta-prejudice, and intergroup threat. Furthermore, the national context of the study presents both strengths and limitations. Finland provides an important context for understanding intergroup dynamics within a relatively homogeneous welfare state; however, the extent to which these findings generalize to more culturally diverse societies or contexts characterized by greater skepticism toward immigration remains an empirical question. Cross-national and comparative research would therefore be particularly valuable.
Finally, qualitative approaches could complement quantitative research by providing richer insights into how individuals understand and experience meta-prejudice, intergroup threat, and acculturation in their everyday lives. Such approaches may reveal nuances in these processes that are difficult to capture through standardized measures alone.

6. Conclusions

In conclusion, the findings underscore the importance of meta-perceptions and intergroup threat in shaping host-society preferences regarding immigrant acculturation. In particular, understanding how majority-group members perceive immigrants’ attitudes toward them, and how these perceptions contribute to feelings of threat, may provide important insights into support for different acculturation orientations. Efforts aimed at improving mutual perceptions, reducing perceived intergroup threat, and fostering more constructive intergroup relations may therefore represent important pathways toward more inclusive and integrative societies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.N.; Methodology, E.N.; Software, E.N.; Validation, E.N.; Formal analysis, E.N.; Investigation, E.N.; Resources, E.N.; Data curation, E.N.; Writing—original draft, E.N., I.K. and M.S.; Writing—review & editing, E.N., I.K. and M.S.; Visualization, E.N.; Supervision, E.N.; Project administration, E.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The research described in this manuscript has been granted an exemption by the authors’ institutional ethics committee. This exemption was granted because the survey was completely anonymous and did not involve the collection of personally identifiable information. Therefore, there are no significant ethical concerns. The Institutional Review Board at California State University, San Marcos approved the authors’ request for ethical exemption on 20 October 2021. Furthermore, the authors explicitly state that their research was conducted in accordance with their research proposal.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author due to privacy restrictions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Finér, L. Finland’s Far-Right Government Runs Down the Welfare State. Foundation for European Progressive Studies. 2025. Available online: https://feps-europe.eu/finlands-far-right-government-runs-down-the-welfare-state/?utm_source=chatgpt.com (accessed on 2 May 2025).
  2. Reuters. Finnish Law to Halt Migrants at Russia Border Makes Progress in Parliament. 18 June 2024. Available online: https://www.rferl.org/a/finland-russia-border-migration-nato-rights/32997935.html (accessed on 11 January 2025).
  3. O’Dwyer, G. Finland: The Fight for Immigration. Global Finance Magazine. 6 December 2023. Available online: https://gfmag.com/economics-policy-regulation/finland-immigration-debate (accessed on 17 January 2025).
  4. O’Dwyer, G. Finnish Tech Sector Opposes Government’s Immigration Reforms. Computer Weekly. 16 July 2024. Available online: https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366593779/Finnish-tech-sector-opposes-Governments-immigration-reforms (accessed on 17 January 2025).
  5. Gordijn, E.H. Meta stereotypes and meta prejudice: Some suggestions for future research. Rev. Psicol. Soc. 2002, 3, 283–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  6. Nshom, E. Understanding Finnish-immigrant relations: Meta prejudice, perceived threat, and prejudice towards immigrants. Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 2024, 100, 101981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  7. Berry, J.W. The psychology of immigration. J. Soc. Issues 2001, 57, 615–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  8. Berry, J.W. Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Appl. Psychol. 1997, 46, 5–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  9. Berry, J.W. Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 2005, 29, 697–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  10. Stephan, W.G.; Ybarra, O.; Morrison, K.R. Intergroup threat theory. In Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination; Nelson, T.D., Ed.; Psychology Press: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 43–60. [Google Scholar]
  11. Stephan, W.G.; Stephan, C.W. Intergroup threats. In The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice; Sibley, C.G., Barlow, F.K., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2017; pp. 131–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  12. Stephan, W.G.; Stephan, C.W. Intergroup Relations; Westview Press: Boulder, CO, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  13. Callens, M.; Meuleman, B.; Valentova, M. Perceived Threat, Contact and Attitudes towards the Integration of Immigrants. EVIDENCE from Luxembourg; Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER) Working Paper Series 2015-01; Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research: Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  14. Nshom, E.; Croucher, S.M. Exploring the relationship between acculturation preferences, threat, intergroup contact, and prejudice towards immigrants in Finland. In The Routledge Companion to Migration, Communication, and Politics; Croucher, S.M., Caetano, J., Campbell, E., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 307–320. [Google Scholar]
  15. Khalimzoda, I. Russian Speakers’ Acculturation in Finland and Latvia: The Role of Language and News Media Engagement. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  16. Busk, H.; Jauhiainen, S. The careers of immigrants in Finland: Empirical evidence for genders and year of immigration. J. Int. Migr. Integr. 2022, 23, 2009–2030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  17. Croucher, S.M.; Galy-Badenas, F.; Condon, S.M.; Sharapan, M.; Salonen, M. Perceptions of immigrants towards refugees and Finns. In Migration and Media in Finland: Perceptions and Depictions of Natives, Immigrants and Refugees; Croucher, S.M., Galy-Badenas, F., Condon, S.M., Sharapan, M., Salonen, M., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 73–90. [Google Scholar]
  18. Statistics Finland. Immigration to Finland by Year (2021–2023). 2023. Available online: https://pxdata.stat.fi/PxWeb/pxweb/en/StatFin/StatFin__muutl/statfin_muutl_pxt_119z.px/table/tableViewLayout1/ (accessed on 3 May 2025).
  19. Nshom, E.; Croucher, S.M. Acculturation preferences towards immigrants: Age and gender differences among Finnish adolescents. Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 2018, 65, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  20. Nshom, E. Chapter 27: Prejudice and the fear of immigrants in three Finnish cities: Helsinki, Jyväskylä, and Joensuu—A comparative approach. In Research Handbook on Communication and Prejudice; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK. [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  21. Redfield, R.; Linton, R.; Herskovits, M.J. Memorandum for the study of acculturation. Am. Anthropol. 1936, 38, 149–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  22. Brown, R.; Zagefka, H. The Dynamics of Acculturation: An Intergroup Perspective. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2011; Volume 44, pp. 129–184. [Google Scholar]
  23. López-Rodríguez, L.; Zagefka, H.; Navas, M.; Cuadrado, I. Explaining majority members’ acculturation preferences for minority members: A mediation model. Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 2014, 38, 36–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  24. Van Oudenhoven, J.P.; Eisses, A. Integration and assimilation of Moroccan immigrants in Israel and the Netherlands. Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 1998, 22, 293–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  25. Abdulhamed, R.; Lonka, K.; Ranta, M. Entrepreneurial intentions among immigrant-origin and native youth: Exploring the roles of a sense of belonging, acculturation attitudes, and self-esteem. Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  26. Abdulhamed, R.; Lonka, K. Acculturation orientations among immigrant-origin youth: How is acculturation associated with self-esteem, sense of belonging, and discrimination? J. Int. Migr. Integr. 2024, 26, 669–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  27. Jasinskaja-Lahtia, I.; Liebkinda, K.; Horenczyk, G.; Schmitz, P. The interactive nature of acculturation: Perceived discrimination, acculturation attitudes and stress among young ethnic repatriates in Finland, Israel and Germany. Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 2003, 27, 79–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  28. Khalimzoda, I.; Siitonen, M. Russian speakers’ media engagement and acculturation in Finland and Latvia. Comp. Migr. Stud. 2022, 10, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  29. Khalimzoda, I.; Siitonen, M. Language and Acculturation: The case of Russian speakers in Latvia and Finland. Nord. J. Migr. Res. 2024, 14, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  30. Nshom, E.; Khalimzoda, I. Prejudice and acculturation preferences towards Russian immigrants in Finland. Migr. Dev. 2020, 9, 222–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  31. Zagefka, H.; Brown, R. The relationship between acculturation strategies, relative fit and intergroup relations: Immigrant-Majority relations in Germany. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 32, 171–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  32. Navas, M.; Rojas, A.J.; García, M.; Pumares, P. Acculturation Strategies and Attitudes According to the Relative Acculturation Extended Model (RAEM): The Perspectives of Natives versus Immigrants. Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 2007, 31, 67–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  33. Landry, A.P.; Ihm, E.; Schooler, J.W. Hated but still human: Meta dehumanization leads to greater hostility than meta prejudice. Group Processes Intergroup Relat. 2022, 25, 315–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  34. O’Brien, T.C.; Leidner, B.; Tropp, L.R. Are they for us or against us? How intergroup metaperceptions shape foreign policy attitudes. Group Processes Intergroup Relat. 2018, 21, 941–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  35. Carlson, E.N.; Vazire, S.; Furr, R.M. Meta insight: Do people really know how others see them? J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2011, 101, 831–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  36. Frey, F.E.; Tropp, L.R. Being seen as individuals versus as group members: Extending research on meta perception to intergroup contexts. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2006, 10, 265–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  37. Borinca, I.; Tropp, L.R.; Ofosu, N. Meta humanization enhances positive reactions to prosocial cross-group interaction. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2021, 60, 1051–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  38. Bruneau, E.; Hameiri, B.; Moore-Berg, S.L.; Kteily, N. Intergroup contact reduces dehumanization and meta dehumanization: Cross-sectional, longitudinal, and quasi-experimental evidence from 16 samples in five countries. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2021, 47, 906–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  39. Kteily, N.; Hodson, G.; Bruneau, E. They see us as less than human: Metadehumanization predicts intergroup conflict via reciprocal dehumanization. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2016, 110, 343–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  40. Landry, A.P.; Schooler, J.W.; Willer, R.; Seli, P. Reducing explicit blatant dehumanization by correcting exaggerated meta perceptions. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 2023, 14, 407–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  41. Moore-Berg, S.L. The power of correcting meta perceptions for improving intergroup relationships. In Psychological Intergroup Interventions: Evidence-Based Approaches to Improve Intergroup Relations; Halperin, E., Hameiri, B., Littman, R., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2024; pp. 136–148. [Google Scholar]
  42. Matera, C.; Boin, J.; Maratia, F.; Nerini, A. We both wanted it! The impact of contact meta-perceptions on the effectiveness of an imagined contact task. Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 2024, 100, 101973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  43. Stathi, S.; Bernardo, G.; Vezzali, L.; Pendleton, S.; Tropp, L.R. Do they want contact with us? The role of intergroup contact meta-perceptions on positive contact and attitudes. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2020, 30, 461–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  44. Pavetich, M.; Stathi, S. Meta humanization reduces prejudice, even under high intergroup threat. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2021, 120, 651–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  45. Nshom, E.; Khalimzoda, I.; Sadaf, S.; Shaymardanov, M. Perceived threat or perceived benefit? Immigrants’ perception of how Finns tend to perceive them. Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 2022, 86, 46–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  46. Kunst, J.R.; Dovidio, J.F.; Bailey, A.H.; Obaidi, M. The way they look: Phenotypic prototypicality shapes the perceived intergroup aptitudes of in- and out-group members. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2022, 100, 104303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  47. Lattu, K. Connections between attitudes towards Muslims, meta prejudices and religion-related factors among Finnish Christian background youth. Religions 2022, 13, 1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  48. Moore-Berg, S.L.; Ankori-Karlinsky, L.-O.; Hameiri, B.; Bruneau, E. Exaggerated meta-perceptions predict intergroup hostility between American political partisans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 14864–14872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  49. Nshom, E. Finnish-immigrant mutual attitudes/feelings and perception of each other’s attitudes/feelings. J. Intercult. Commun. Res. 2022, 51, 528–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  50. Nshom, E. Intergroup contact, perceived attitudes, and immigrants’ attitudes towards locals: The case of immigrants living in Finland. J. Intercult. Commun. 2023, 23, 146–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  51. Putra, I.E. The role of ingroup and outgroup meta-prejudice in predicting prejudice and identity undermining. Peace Confl. J. Peace Psychol. 2014, 20, 574–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  52. Putra, I.E. Taking seriously ingroup self-evaluation, meta prejudice, and prejudice in analyzing interreligious relations. Span. J. Psychol. 2016, 19, E46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  53. Putra, I.E.; Wagner, W. Prejudice in interreligious context: The role of meta prejudiceand majority–minority status. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2017, 27, 226–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  54. Fowler, C.; Gasiorek, J. Implications of meta stereotypes for attitudes toward intergenerational contact. Group Processes Intergroup Relat. 2020, 23, 48–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  55. Lattu, K.; Innanen, T. Stereotypes and meta stereotypes among Finnish Muslim- and Christian-background youth. J. Beliefs Values 2023, 46, 201–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  56. Saroglou, V.; Yzerbyt, V.; Kaschten, C. Meta-stereotypes of groups with opposite religious views: Believers and non-believers. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2011, 21, 484–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  57. Finchilescu, G. Meta stereotypes may hinder interracial contact. S. Afr. J. Psychol. 2005, 35, 460–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  58. Finchilescu, G. Intergroup anxiety in interracial interaction: The role of prejudice and metastereotypes. J. Soc. Issues 2010, 66, 334–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  59. Shelton, J.N.; Richeson, J.A.; Salvatore, J. Expecting to be the target of prejudice: Implications for interethnic interactions. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2005, 31, 1189–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  60. Üzümçeker, E.; Akfırat, S. The norm of reciprocity in intergroup context: A normative-identity model. Integr. Psychol. Behav. Sci. 2024, 58, 338–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  61. Tajfel, H.; Turner, J.C. An integrative theory of inter-group conflict. In The Social Psychology of Inter-Group Relations; Austin, W.G., Worchel, S., Eds.; Brooks/Cole: Monterey, CA, USA, 1979; pp. 33–47. [Google Scholar]
  62. Paasi, A. Geographical perspectives on Finnish national identity. GeoJournal 1997, 43, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  63. Bontenbal, I. The good, the bad and the advantageous: Migrants’ attitudes towards other migrants. Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 2023, 94, 101802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  64. Rovamo, H.; Pettersson, K.; Sakki, I. Who’s to blame for failed integration of immigrants? Blame attributions as an affectively polarizing force in lay discussions of immigration in Finland. Political Psychol. 2024, 45, 235–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  65. Ahmed, S.; Jaidka, K.; Chen, V.H.H.; Cai, M.; Chen, A.; Emes, C.S.; Yu, V.; Chib, A. Social media and anti-immigrant prejudice: A multi-method analysis of the role of social media use, threat perceptions, and cognitive ability. Front. Psychol. 2024, 15, 1280366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  66. Florack, A.; Piontkowski, U.; Rohmann, A.; Balzer, T.; Perzig, S. Perceived intergroup threat and attitudes of host community members toward immigrant acculturation. J. Soc. Psychol. 2003, 143, 633–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  67. Yusupova, M.D.Q. Acculturation, culture shock and social distance. J. New Century Innov. 2023, 31, 58–62. [Google Scholar]
  68. Schmid, K.; Hewstone, M.; Küpper, B.; Zick, A.; Tausch, N. Reducing aggressiveintergroup action tendencies: Effects of intergroup contact via perceived intergroup threat. Aggress. Behav. 2014, 40, 250–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  69. Lefringhausen, K.; Moftizadeh, N.; Zagefka, H.; Bilgen, E.; Barn, R. Testing the theory of cultural inertia: How majority members’ perceptions of culture change relate to prejudice. Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 2022, 91, 229–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  70. Meleady, R.; Seger, C.R.; Vermue, M. Examining the role of positive and negative intergroup contact and anti-immigrant prejudice in Brexit. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2017, 56, 799–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  71. Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, 3rd ed.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  72. Méndez, E.; Gómez, Á.; Tropp, L.R. When metaperceptions are affected by intergroup processes. Int. J. Psychol. Psychol. Ther. 2007, 7, 237–250. [Google Scholar]
  73. Piontkowski, U.; Rohmann, A.; Florack, A. Concordance of Acculturation Attitudes and Perceived Threat. Group Processes Intergroup Relat. 2002, 5, 221–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  74. Rohmann, A.; Florack, A.; Piontkowski, U. The role of discordant acculturation attitudes in perceived threat: An analysis of host and immigrant attitudes in Germany. Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 2006, 30, 683–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  75. Sniderman, P.M.; Hagendoorn, L.; Prior, M. Predisposing factors and situational triggers: Exclusionary reactions to immigrant minorities. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 2004, 98, 35–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  76. Moore-Berg, S.L.; Hameiri, B. Improving intergroup relations with meta perception correction interventions. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2024, 28, 190–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  77. Somerville, W.; Kapten, S.W.; Miao, I.Y.; Dunn, J.J.; Chang, D.F. Identifying and Remediating Personal Prejudice: What Does the Evidence Say? In Prejudice, Stigma, Privilege, and Oppression; Benuto, L., Duckworth, M., Masuda, A., O’Donohue, W., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  78. Khalimzoda, I.; Sadaf, S.; van Oosten, S. Journalistic Tactic and Intercultural Deficit: Post-Publication Audience Engagement in a Finnish News Case Study. J. Intercult. Commun. 2025, 25, 131–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  79. Arendt, F. Media stereotypes, prejudice, and preference-based reinforcement: Toward the dynamic of self-reinforcing effects by integrating audience selectivity. J. Commun. 2023, 73, 463–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  80. Bobba, B.; Thijs, J.; Crocetti, E. A war on prejudice: The role of media salience in reducing ethnic prejudice. J. Adolesc. 2024, 96, 457–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Social and Economic Disparities Between Immigrants and Natives in the UK
Previous
Advocacy and Representation Claims in Social Media Campaigns
Next