Prediction of negative attitudes toward Australian asylum seekers: False beliefs, nationalism, and self-esteem

Abstract

Over the last few years in Australia, the issue of asylum seekers has been a significant feature of the media, and a topic that many people feel very strongly about. However, there is little empirical research regarding attitudes toward asylum seekers. The purpose of the present study was to examine such attitudes in the Perth community, and what predicts them. In Study 1, an Attitudes Toward Asylum Seekers (ATAS) scale was constructed. In Study 2, self-esteem, national identity, false beliefs, and sociodemographics were used in an attempt to predict ATAS in a random survey of the Perth metropolitan area. Results indicated a weak correlation between high self-esteem and negative attitudes, and a strong correlation between a high level of false beliefs and negative attitudes. As a result of this latter relationship, two hierarchical regression equations were constructed: one predicting negative attitudes, the other predicting false beliefs. Regarding the ATAS scale, being male, higher levels of education, right-wing political position, and high levels of national identity had significant predictive value. Regarding the false beliefs scale, higher levels of education, right-wing political position, high levels of national identity, and increased age had significant predictive value. Given the large number of participants who scored above the midpoint of the ATAS scale, coupled with the high level of false beliefs reported, we suggest that a great deal of education about asylum seekers is called for.

Over the last few years, issues surrounding asylum seekers have received a good deal of community attention. Specific issues such as mandatory detention and so-called queue jumping have stirred strong positive and negative feelings within the Australian community. The Australian government has taken a strong stance against asylum seekers, and has placed them in detention for long periods of time. Many issues involving asylum seekers have received intense media coverage (e.g., the United Nations' criticism of the Australian Government's policies). In short, West Australians have been exposed to a great deal of publicity about the asylum seeker issue. And – judging by most polls – the public appears to be suffering from compassion fatigue with respect to the situation of asylum seekers (Hage, 2003, p. 7). In other words, they agree with the Federal Government's tough stance.

Not surprisingly, given the recency of events, there is little research examining Australian people's attitudes toward asylum seekers. The research reported here examines the extent to which false beliefs, nationalism, self-esteem, and sociodemographics relate to attitudes toward asylum seekers. We hope that the findings will contribute not only to the development of theoretical knowledge in the area, but may also have practical implications. An important component of the study was the development of a quantitative scale to measure attitudes toward asylum seekers based on qualitative data collected from the Perth community. We shall discuss relevant research findings relating to the prejudice field, as well as the literature relating to false beliefs, nationalism, self-esteem, and sociodemographics.

Prejudice

As noted by a number of authors, prejudice is not a static phenomenon (e.g., Brown, 1995). Research has distinguished between two kinds of prejudice (Duckitt, 1992; Pedersen & Walker, 1997): an old-fashioned form characterised by overt hostility and rejection, and a modern form that is more subtle and covert and involves individualistic values. Brown suggests that the origins of modern prejudice are negative affect coupled with perceived violations (by minority groups) of traditional individualistic values. Most empirical work on modern prejudice has been North American (e.g., Kinder, 1986; McConahay, 1986; McConahay, Hardee, & Batts, 1981; McConahay & Hough, 1976), with some having been conducted in Europe (e.g., Akrami, Ekehammar, & Araya, 2000; Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995), and others being conducted in Australia (Augoustinos, Rapley, & Tuffin, 1999; Pedersen & Walker, 1997).

In the Perth setting, Pedersen and Walker (1997) found that although factor analysis showed that old fashioned and modern prejudice were seperable, they were moderately correlated (.55). In another Australian study, Fraser and Islam (2000) found symbolic and blatant racism to be correlated (.62), as did Pedersen, Contos, Griffiths, Bishop, and Walker (2000) (.72). But how different are they in effect? They seem to have different predictive value. For example, Pedersen and Walker (1997) and McConahay (1982) found that more variance was explained using a modern prejudice measure compared with an old-fashioned prejudice measure. Conversely, although Pettigrew and Meertens generally found similar correlates for both blatant and subtle scales, the blatant scales tended to have stronger predictability. In particular, a stronger relationship was found between blatant prejudice and the blatant outcome “racist movement approval”.

It is worth noting that the modern prejudice construct is now over 25 years old, and may no longer be modern. In fact, recent research indicates that the modern/old-fashioned distinction may not be so straightforward as originally thought. For example, Pedersen, Beven, Griffiths, and Walker (2004) developed a quantitative scale measuring attitudes toward Indigenous Australians based on qualitative data collected from the Perth community, and found that it had one meaningful factor. Although some items reflected modern and old-fashioned scales, many did not, suggesting that when people talked about prejudice, the structure of their talk did not mirror previous theoretical positions.

At the time of conducting the present study, little research examined community attitudes toward asylum seekers. However, in a review by Betts (2001), it was found that people are becoming increasingly hostile toward asylum seekers. To our knowledge, no published research exists examining what may predict negative attitudes toward asylum seekers or indeed even a scale to do so (modern, old-fashioned, or otherwise). Given that the modern prejudice construct is North American based, and involves prejudice toward ethnic minority groups in that context, it may or may not be applicable to asylum seekers in the Australian setting. Thus, we aim to construct a scale starting from the ground up (i.e., from qualitative data collected in the Western Australian context). We also aim to examine whether variables that have predicted prejudice against other cultural groups in past research also predict attitudes toward asylum seekers.

Group and personal evaluations

One of the most prominent theoretical positions in the social psychology of intergroup behaviour is that of Tajfel and Turner (1979) who developed social identity theory (SIT). They posit that social behaviour can be seen to be on a behavioural continuum from interpersonal behaviour (interactions between individuals completely unaffected by social categorisation) to intergroup behaviour (interactions between individuals or groups completely determined by social categorisation). Further, the more intense an intergroup conflict, the more that individuals in opposing groups will behave as a function of their group memberships. Central to SIT is the issue of positive group distinctiveness. Here, we need to feel good about our ingroup. For example, Turner, Brown, and Tajfel (1979) found that participants gave up group profit to achieve intergroup differences in money favouring their ingroup. The giving up of group profit affected participants' personal profit, because they received an equal amount of the money awarded to their ingroup. The authors hypothesised that ingroup favouritism helps to achieve positive group distinctiveness thereby enhancing self-esteem. Related to social identity theory is self-categorisation theory. Theorists such as Turner and Oakes (1989) posit that there are three broad self-categorisation levels: superordinate (e.g., a human being), intermediate (eg, an ethnic identity), or subordinate (e.g., a person in his or her own right). In certain circumstances, people may define themselves more as a group member than as an individual, or vice versa.

Social psychology has often been challenged with ignoring societal processes while concentrating on the individual (the crisis in social psychology). In other words, it is necessary to address the social context when investigating individual processes. As pointed out by Reynolds, Turner, Haslam, and Ryan (2001), relying on personality attributes to explain prejudice ignores the fact that discrimination between groups increases and decreases over time. Another problem with relying upon this individual approach to prejudice is that the same individuals often have varying prejudiced views depending on the target group. For example, Walker (1994) found that Indigenous Australians were at the bottom of the pecking order, followed by Asian Australians. In a recent study by Pedersen, Clarke, Dudgeon, and Griffiths (in press), asylum seekers were at the bottom of the pecking order, followed by Indigenous Australians, followed by Asian peoples. Clearly, there is not a prejudiced personality who is prejudiced against all others in an equal fashion.

Related to the group/personal distinction, we are interested in how nationalism and self-esteem relate to negative attitudes toward asylum seekers. These two constructs are at opposite ends of the group/personal continuum and will be discussed in turn.

Nationalism (group self-evaluation)

Social identity refers to the part of the individual's self-concept that derives from their knowledge of their membership of a social group or groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Here, comparisons are made between specific social groups that involve collective understandings (Reynolds et al., 2001). The imagery of nationalism must involve an otherness; for example, criminals, youth, or asylum seekers (Hage, 2003). In the present study we categorised national identity as a specific form of social identity. The more strongly a person identifies with a particular group, the more that group and its relations with other groups will affect that person and direct his or her beliefs and behaviours (e.g., Tajfel & Turner). Intergroup relations are of little consequence to someone who is apathetic about the groups involved.

Some empirical studies have been undertaken that examined the relationship between nationalism and prejudice. Some research finds a positive relationship between the two. In a European study, Pettigrew and Meertens (1995) examined the relationship between national pride exhibited by British, Dutch, French or German participants and blatant and subtle forms of prejudice. Results indicated that national pride significantly predicted both forms of prejudice. In another study by Mummendy, Klink, and Brown (2001), the relationship between national identification and outgroup rejection was examined. Their results supported the fundamental SIT assumption that identification with one's ingroup (nationally defined) was associated with positive ingroup evaluations; also, strongly identifying with one's ingroup was associated with negative outgroup evaluations.

In the Australian setting, prejudice against Indigenous Australians has also been associated with nationalism (Pedersen & Walker, 1997). In their study, they found that national identity of being “an Australian” related to modern prejudice against Indigenous Australians. As these authors noted, the association between strength of national identity and modern prejudice is consistent with social identity theory in that the more strongly a person identifies with a particular group, the more that group and its relations with other groups will affect that person and direct his or her beliefs and behaviours (e.g., Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Also in the Australian setting, F. L. Jones (1997) found a positive relationship between national identity and prejudice (or, more precisely, social distance) against a number of cultural groups such as Indigenous Australians, Lebanese Australians, and Vietnamese Australians.

Prejudice can also be manipulated by making certain identities salient. In a Dutch study, Verkuyten (1998) found that prejudice was predicted by level of self-categorisation: personal or national. When national identity was made salient, stereotypes about the Dutch affected prejudice scores. When personal identity was made salient, authoritarian attitudes affected prejudice scores. As they note, when a particular identity is salient, people think and behave in line with those beliefs. Similarly, Reynolds et al. (2001) found that the correlation between prejudice against Indigenous Australians and authoritarianism was statistically significant when personal identity was made salient; no such relationship was found when national identity was made salient. Thus, whether there was relationship between prejudice and authoritarianism depended upon the self-categorisation of the participant.

Billig (1995) also makes a link between negativity toward other cultural groups and nationalism. He argues that the concept of community underlies both racism and nationalism. In other words, the racist distinguishes between “our racial community” and “their racial community”. Similarly, nationalism is also a theory of community, a natural divide into specific communities: “ours” and “theirs”. Thus, there is both theoretical and empirical evidence to link prejudice against different cultural groups and nationalism.

Self-esteem (or positive self-evaluation)

As noted here, Tajfel and Turner (1979) draw a distinction between the individual and the group. For the purposes of the present study, self-esteem falls closer to the “individual” end of the Tajfel and Turner (1979) continuum than the “group” end (although attitudes per se could be said to represent the individualist level of prejudice; e.g., J. J. Jones, 1997). Thus, while nationalism may signal between-group attitudes, self-esteem may signal within-group attitudes (e.g., Smith & Tyler, 1997).

Some research has been performed on the relationship between prejudice and self-esteem. However, the direction of such a relationship is not clear-cut. For example, Bagley, Verma, Mallick, and Young (1979) found that high school students with low self-esteem tended to be more prejudiced against African Americans than those with high self-esteem. It is worth noting, however, that the relationship was small. Bagley et al. argued that to devalue others enhances the self, and to focus on increasing self-esteem might indirectly reduce prejudice. However, Baumeister (1993) argued that although negative views of others may bolster one's self worth, the effects do not last. Similar results have been found when examining the relationship between negative attitudes toward women and self-esteem. For example, Valentine (1998) found that men who were low in self-esteem were more opposed to women's employment and were more in favour of traditional roles.

However, some minimal group paradigm experiments found that participants who discriminated against members of an outgroup showed higher self-esteem than those who did not (e.g., Lemyre & Smith, 1985; Oakes & Turner, 1980). Along the same lines, Utsey, McCarthy, Eubanks, and Adrian (2002) examined the relationships between racism and self-esteem with white undergraduate students in America and found that people with high self-esteem were more prejudiced. Although this relationship was statistically significant, it was very small. Conversely, other studies find no significant relationship between ingroup bias and self-concept (Pedersen with Dudgeon, 2003, with both Indigenous and non-Indigenous-Australian children).

To make muddy waters even murkier, domain-specific levels of self-esteem have been found to be relevant in some circumstances and not in others. Hunter, Platow, Bell, Kypri, and Lewis (1997) found that although intergroup bias did not affect global self-esteem, it did affect domain-specific self-esteem levels. However, Hunter (2001) examined the relationship between self-esteem and ingroup bias (Christian vs. atheist) of Christian participants in New Zealand. He found that regardless of whether their ingroup was portrayed as positive or negative, their self-esteem levels (religious, global or mathematical) remained constant.

Clearly, there are ambiguities and inconsistencies in the literature with respect to prejudice and self-esteem. While some studies find a negative relationship between prejudice and self-esteem, this is not always the case. And the question remains as to whether people hold their views in order to elevate self-esteem, or to maintain self-esteem. Regardless of the direction, it is important to note that effect sizes are small. However, based on SIT, we predict that nationalism should be more linked to negative attitudes toward asylum seekers given the group nature of nationalism.

False beliefs

Allport (1954) in his much-quoted work on prejudice described prejudice as an antipathy based on faulty and inflexible generalisations. This indicates that he saw faulty beliefs as a significant cause of prejudice. In attitude theory generally beliefs, and this includes stereotypes, play an important role in the formation and modification of attitudes (Eagly, 1992). There are many different ways of defining beliefs (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993) and, following on from that, differing opinions as to the legitimacy of the notion of false beliefs. For the purpose of this research, we define false beliefs as the acceptance of certain incorrect facts; false beliefs can serve as currency for everyday people and conversations.

Some researchers argue that truth or falsity may be hard to ascertain, and ideologies can serve to legitimise inequality regardless of their truth/falsity (Sidanius, Levin, Federico, & Pratto, 2001). Others argue that it is not useful to make distinctions between truth and falsity at all (e.g., Potter, 1996) and that, indeed, truth may be more fruitfully likened to an economic commodity: it can be “worked up, can fluctuate, and can be strengthened or weakened by various procedures of representation” (p. 5). We believe, however, that there are certain societal beliefs that are factually incorrect and which may serve to legitimise inequality. In other words, there are some beliefs that can be verified (or falsified) by making the appropriate investigations. For example, initially many Australians falsely believed that there was evidence that asylum seekers from the SIEV 4 threw their children overboard; this view was publicised and given credibility by the then Coalition Minister of Defence, Peter Reith. However, this was not the case (for a full discussion see Brennan, 2003; Mares, 2001; Marr & Wilkinson, 2003).

There is little empirical research linking prejudice with false beliefs. However, Allport's hypothesis has been supported in one study conducted by Pedersen, Griffiths, Contos, Bishop, & Walker (2000) regarding the prediction of prejudice against Indigenous Australians in a city and country location (Perth and Kalgoorlie). Here, many respondents indicated they thought one or more of three false statements were true. For example, two thirds of people were inaccurate in that they believed being Indigenous entitled people to more social security benefits. There was a significant correlation between a false beliefs scale and both modern prejudice (r = .59 in Perth; r = .60 in Kalgoorlie) and between the false beliefs scale and old-fashioned prejudice (r = .49 in Perth; r = .47 in Kalgoorlie). In a later Perth study, using a different prejudice scale, these results were replicated (Pedersen, 2004). In this latter study, a significant correlation was found between negative attitudes toward Indigenous Australians and false beliefs (r = .57). These findings have important practical implications. For example, a Victorian study by Batterham (2001) not only found a significant relationship between prejudice against Indigenous Australians and false beliefs, but also found that participants whose false beliefs were challenged scored significantly lower on modern prejudice compared with a control group.

We have noted the existence of false beliefs about Indigenous Australians. There are also false beliefs about asylum seekers (e.g., Edmund Rice Centre, 2002). We describe two such false beliefs below from their book chapter “Rebutting the myths”.

1.	The first false belief is that asylum seekers are queue jumpers. The truth behind the “queue jumpers” is that there are no queues for people in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan to jump because there are no Australian consulates within the surrounding nations. In fact, the two main nationalities of asylum seekers in 1998 – were Iraq and Afghanistan (Refugee Council of Australia, 2002). Additionally, many people who seek asylum do not know of the queues they are meant to join (Mares, 2002) and often do not have the time to join queues (Einfeld, 2002).
2.	A second false belief is that asylum seekers must be “cashed up” to pay people smugglers. Yet, often individuals or families fleeing persecution have a network of people who make sacrifices and sell possessions to ensure the safety of those being persecuted. As an aside, there are also false beliefs within false beliefs. One respondent in a similar research project informed us that asylum seekers become “cashed up” by robbing banks before they leave (Griffiths & Pedersen, 2003).
3.	A third false belief identified by the Refugee Council (2002) is that Australia provides asylum seekers with all sorts of government handouts. Yet asylum seekers receive little financial help until they are recognised as refugees, when they have much the same entitlements as other Australians. Furthermore, if they have only temporary protection visas, they have fewer entitlements (Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, 2002).

Given the fact that there is little empirical evidence with respect to negative attitudes toward asylum seekers, it is not surprising that none exists that examines the relation to such attitudes and false beliefs. However, given the previous literature discussed here with respect to Indigenous Australians, it is predicted that a moderate relationship should exist between false beliefs and negative attitudes toward asylum seekers.

Sociodemographic variables

Some research has found relationships between certain sociodemographic variables and prejudice. For example, lower levels of formal education, right-wing political orientation, and being male have been linked with both modern and old-fashioned prejudice (e.g., Pedersen & Walker, 1997; Pedersen, Walker, Contos & Bishop, 1997). Also, increasing age has been linked to both forms of prejudice (Pedersen et al., 1997).

Because age, political orientation, gender and level of education have been shown to be predictors of prejudice in past research, it is useful to assess their importance with the social – psychological variables described here.

Overview of the present study

To our knowledge there is no quantitative scale to measure attitudes toward asylum seekers. Nor is there any empirical evidence linking false beliefs, national identity, and self-esteem to such attitudes toward asylum seekers. Thus, our primary aim was to examine how the people of Perth, Western Australia, viewed asylum seekers and issues surrounding them by constructing a quantitative scale, and also to examine what variables predict such attitudes. We were particularly interested in whether the moderate relationship between prejudice against Indigenous Australians and false beliefs found in previous Australian studies would be found with respect to asylum seekers using a similar method of data collection.

More specifically, based on previous prejudice literature, it was hypothesised that the negative attitudes toward asylum seekers would be linked with the acceptance of false beliefs and high levels of national identity. No specific hypothesis was made regarding the role of self-esteem. However, based on SIT, we hypothesised that any effect would be smaller than that of national identity. Finally, we were interested to examine the role of sociodemographics on such negative attitudes.

Methods

Procedure: Study 1

The aim of Study 1 was to establish a general idea of what Perth people think about asylum seekers for the purpose of developing an Attitudes Toward Asylum Seekers (ATAS) scale. Using the 1996 Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) socio-economic status (SES) data for the Perth metropolitan area (ABS, 1996), four suburbs (one low, two middle, one high) were chosen as being representative of those SES suburbs, as well as their proximity to large shopping centres. Data collection occurred in May/June 2002 and involved researchers obtaining comments from people at such shopping centres on asylum seekers. In total, 100 people were interviewed. There were unambiguous negative comments (“All should be shot and sent back”) as well as unambiguous positive comments (“Let them in you big meanies”). Several other themes presented themselves. That is, false beliefs (e.g., “I don't know why they all head for Australia”), the role of government systems (e.g., “Go through the proper systems”), implications about what asylum seekers are like (e.g., “Don't know who you're letting in”) as well as what respondents saw asylum seekers' behaviour as being (“Stop being violent”). When it came to constructing the statements, the data did not prove as useful as we had hoped. The types of comments described here – although indicative of particular attitudes – were difficult to translate into survey questions.

Therefore, we perused 12 months of letters to the editor of the West Australian newspaper to enlarge on the previous pilot study. We attempted to garner both negative and positive items, as well as the statements that took into account perceived personal characteristics of asylum seekers as well as more societal/government issues. In constructing the scale, we excluded all false beliefs as set out by the Edmund Rice Centre (2002) and the Refugee Council (2002) because an aim of the present study was to measure the relationship between false beliefs and negative attitudes (to recap, there was a moderate relationship between false beliefs and prejudice in the Pedersen et al., 2000, study). Together with some comments from the original shopping centre data collection, 25 statements were deemed satisfactory and covered both positive and negative items. We then constructed a questionnaire revolving around those 25 statements, and piloted them on a convenience sample of approximately 20 people. Feedback was given regarding wording and ease of understanding. This feedback resulted in a few minor changes and some ATAS statements being removed, leaving a total of 18 items (Appendix A). Given the small number of respondents, no psychometrics were calculated.

Procedure: Study 2

Using the 1996 ABS data on SES in the Perth metropolitan area, four suburbs were randomly chosen in July 2002. One suburb was low SES, one was high SES, and two were middle SES (more Perth residents are middle SES compared with low or high). A questionnaire and accompanying letter were delivered to 500 respondents, and 3 weeks later a reminder letter was delivered. Half of the questionnaires asked for a male respondent to complete the survey if it were possible, the other half, female. A total of 157 questionnaires were returned, giving a response rate of 31% (more details on participants is given later in this paper).

Measures

Scales were used to measure attitudes toward asylum seekers, national identity, and self-esteem. In each case, items were responded to on a 7-point Likert scale (1, disagree strongly to 7, agree strongly). The scale used to measure false beliefs about asylum seekers was responded to on a 3-point scale: true, don't know, false. After appropriate recoding, responses to items in each scale were averaged. High scores indicated greater negative attitudes, national identity and self-esteem, together with higher levels of false beliefs.

Attitudes toward asylum seekers

This was measured using the scale constructed in Study 1. The scale had 18 items, nine of which were positive and nine, negative. An example of an ATAS item is “Asylum seekers are manipulative in the way that they engage in self-harm protesting such as self-mutilation” and “So-called asylum seekers are people fleeing the chaos of war and the cruelties of monstrous regimes”.

We have chosen the label “asylum seeker” instead of other labels such as “refugee” or “illegal immigrant”. In the Australian context, refugees are usually accepted as such overseas through official procedures. Conversely, asylum seekers are often people making a claim for refugee status that has yet to be determined; they are often refugees but are not recognised as such at this stage (see Refugee Council of Australia, 2002, for a more detailed explanation of this difference). We also chose not to use the label “illegal immigrant”. Requesting asylum is not illegal; it is permitted by both international and Australian law (Einfeld, 2002). These issues aside, in the pilot study, we asked respondents what term they usually used. Results indicated that the largest number of respondents (31%) used “asylum seeker” (25% said illegal immigrant, 20% said boat people, and 24% said refugee).

False beliefs

Two statements taken from “Rebutting the myths” (Edmund Rice Centre, Notre Dame University, June 2002) and one statement taken from “Myths about refugees” (Refugee Council, 2002) were presented and responses were given on a 3-point scale (“true”; “don't know”; “false”). We used only three items because we intended to compare results with previous studies regarding Indigenous Australian prejudice, and wanted to make the scales as similar as possible. Statements were as follows:

1.	Most asylum seekers are queue jumpers.
2.	Asylum seekers must be “cashed up” (ie, be financially well off) to pay people smugglers.
3.	Asylum seekers get all sorts of government handouts.

National identity

This was measured by a seven-item scale taken from McGarty et al. (in press) based on Doosje, Branscombe, Spears, and Manstead (1998) by asking respondents how much they identified with being Australian. An example is “I feel strong ties with Australian people”.

Self-esteem

This was measured using the Rosenberg (1965) 10-item scale (five items were positive; five were negative). For example, “On the whole I am satisfied with myself”.

Sociodemographics

Respondents were asked to state their age in years, their education level (1, primary school only; 5, university); political orientation (1, left wing; 5, right wing), and sex (1, male; 2, female).

Results

Attitudes toward asylum seekers scale

All 18 items were factor-analysed using a principal components extraction method. The 18 statements produced three initial factors with eigenvalues > 1: the first accounting for 52% of the variance, the second for 8.8% of the variance, and the third for 6.1% of the variance. However, the scree plot clearly indicated one factor, therefore no rotation was undertaken (See Turner, 1998, for a discussion on the issues surrounding the “greater-than-1” rule). Although no method is ideal, given our clear scree plot, we argue that it is preferable to rely on this rather than the eigenvalue rule. As Turner notes, the eigenvalue rule has a number of flaws such as the arbitrary nature of 1.00 as well as sampling error.) No items produced CITC (Corrected Item-Total Correlation) under the desired .30 (in fact, all were > .50) so none was deleted from the scale. Thus, the scale may be considered to consist of one meaningful factor and is reliable (α = .94).

Scale descriptives

Table I presents descriptive statistics for each scale, setting out the scale means and standard deviations, the number of items in each scale, and what percentage of respondents scored high on each scale. Respondents were deemed to have scored high if their scores fell above the positive side of the neutral point (i.e., a scale score above the average item score of 4) on these dimensions. The table also includes the scale α coefficients, which were all satisfactory. Finally, it includes descriptives of the three false belief questions.

Table I. Descriptive characteristics of scales

Scale	Mean	SD	k	%	α
ATAS^a	4.66	1.51	18	71.4	.94
False Beliefs scale^b	2.35	.62	3	65.6	.73
National identity^a	6.54	.71	7	98.1	.85
Self-esteem^a	6.23	.73	10	98.7	.76
False beliefs
1. Queue jumpers^b	2.46	.79	–	64.3	–
2. “Cashed up”^b	2.36	.76	–	52.9	–
3. Govt handouts^b	2.24	.74	–	41.7%	–

Notes. ATAS = Attitudes Toward Asylum Seekers scale. ^a% respondents who scored above the scale midpoint; ^b% respondents with false beliefs (excluding “don't know”).

Sample description

Pertinent sociodemographic characteristics of the sample are as follows. The majority of respondents were quite well educated (66% had attended or were attending a tertiary institution). The political viewpoint of the sample was moderate (46% at centre or did not have a political preference). A large percentage of respondents were of an older age (M = 46 years), and there were marginally more female (56%) than male respondents.

Prediction of negative attitudes toward asylum seekers

Correlations among the predictor variables are presented in Table II. Of most importance is the positive correlation between the ATAS scale and the false belief scale (r = .78). There was also a positive correlation between the ATAS scale and self-esteem (r = .27); in other words, participants with the most negative attitudes toward asylum seekers had high self-esteem. Those who scored high on the ATAS scale also scored high on national identity, were older, and were more right-wing in their political orientation.

Table II. Correlation matrix

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. ATAS	1	.78**	.27**	.27**	.27**	−.13	−.31**	.37**
2. False beliefs		1	.14	.28**	.27**	−.12	−.26**	.28**
3. Self esteem			1	.26**	.09	.01	−.05	.18*
4. National identity				1	.12	.05	−.10	.10
5. Age					1	−.14	−.37**	.10
6. Sex						1	−.03	.03
7. Education							1	−.10
8. Political orientation								1

*p < .05; **p < .01 (all two-tailed).

Due to the high relationship between the ATAS and the false beliefs scale, we decided to use false beliefs as another outcome rather than an independent variable. Although reliability was less than the ATAS (α = .73), it was still adequate (no items produced CITC under .60). Thus, two hierarchical multiple regression equations were constructed to examine the combined and the unique influences of the predictors on the ATAS scale and the false beliefs scale. In this regard, we were interested to know whether similar psychological processes took place. In both equations, the set of sociodemographic predictors was entered on Step 1, and a set of social psychological variables on Step 2 (Table III). Constructing the equations in this way allows us to see whether the β weights obtained at the end of Step 1 are modified by the inclusion of social psychological variables.

Table III. Hierarchical regressions predicting Attitudes Toward Asylum Seekers and False Belief scales

Variables entered	r	b^a	b^b	R^2 change	Total R^2
Attitudes toward asylum seekers
Step 1
Sex	−.13	−.15*	−.16*
Education	−.31**	−.24**	−.23**
Political position	.37**	.29***	.26**
Age	.27**	.13	.10	.24***
Step 2
National Identity	.27**		.18*
Self esteem	.27**		.09	.05***	.29***
False Beliefs
Step 1
Sex	−.12	−.12	−.14
Education	−.26**	−.19*	−.18*
Political position	.28**	.21**	.20**
Age	.27**	.18*	.17*	.18***
Step 2
National Identity	.28**		.23**
Self esteem	.14		−.05	.04***	.22***

Notes. ^aβ weights for variables after first step; ^bβ weights for variables after second step. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 (all two-tailed).

More variance in the ATAS scale (29%, adjusted R² = 26%) was explained by the predictors compared with the False Beliefs scale (22%, adjusted R² = 19%). In the equation predicting ATAS, being male, higher levels of education, right-wing political position, and high levels of national identity had significant β weights after all variables were included. A slightly different pattern was found in the equation predicting false beliefs. Here, higher levels of education, right-wing political position, high levels of national identity, and increased age had significant β weights after all variables were included. Thus, although a comparison between the two equations reveals more similarities than differences in their patterns of predictability, they do not appear to be qualitatively identical constructs; sex and age had different predictive value. For the purposes of this paper, we will concentrate on negative attitudes toward asylum seekers.

Discussion

Aside from the successful construction of the ATAS scale, the results stemming from the use of this scale lead to two important conclusions. The first conclusion is that people's attitudes were related to false beliefs about asylum seekers; the relationship was stronger than previous research about Indigenous Australians. Second, in support of SIT, group-based national identity was more strongly related to negative attitudes than personal-based identity (self-esteem). These findings have important implications, and will now be discussed in depth.

ATAS scale

A major focus of this study was the construction of a quantitative scale measuring attitudes toward asylum seekers. The old-fashioned/modern distinction that has been found in previous literature regarding cultural groups such as African Americans and Indigenous Australians was not found (e.g., McConahay, 1982; Pedersen & Walker, 1997; Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995). By constructing the scale the way we did, we did not want to impose a structure on participants, but wanted to see whether the old-fashioned/modern distinction emerged from a pool of items gathered from the community. It did not. We acknowledge that people may not always spontaneously offer interviewers their most central attitudes; “open questions are not always as open as they seem” (Schuman & Presser, 1981, p. 108). However, it is interesting that people did not spontaneously make the modern and old-fashioned distinction found in other studies.

The factor structure also supports the findings of Pedersen et al. (2004), who found one meaningful factor when constructing an Attitudes Toward Indigenous Australians scale. Why is there a difference with these two Australian-constructed scales compared with scales that originated from the United States? One explanation is likely to be the theoretical background of the researchers. For example, from a top-down theoretical position, questions are asked specifically about modern and old-fashioned prejudice, and answers are often in line with this distinction. Alternatively, when information comes from a grass-roots level (i.e., bottom-up), the information is more people-focused. In other words, the questions revolve around what issues matter most to them. Additionally, with respect to the present study, the situation of asylum seekers (and, as a result, attitudes toward them) is very different to other cultural groups such as Indigenous Australians and African Americans on whom much research finding the old-fashioned/modern distinction has been based. For example, the role of individualistic values may not be so relevant in their situation.

Regarding specific attitudes, some respondents were sympathetic to the situation of asylum seekers. As one respondent put it, “Our treatment of refugees is nothing short of shameful…”. However, this was not the usual response. Many respondents (71%) scored above the midpoint on the ATAS scale. Many comments went along these lines: “I migrated here from England in 1966 and we had to go through numerous medical examinations and had to apply to come to Australia … people should not be allowed in without following the right procedures and through the right channels”. Similarly, another participant noted: “The asylum seekers need to be sent home. The navy should use the boat people as target practice”. Interestingly, a number of respondents indicated that they knew very little about the real situation; for example: “To be honest the only information that I have about asylum seekers' situation has been picked up from media representations”. Our results support those of Klocker (2004) who found a great deal of negativity toward asylum seekers in Port Augusta, South Australia.

Given that many of our respondents were highly educated, the fact that almost three quarters of respondents scored above the midpoint on the ATAS is probably an underestimate of the general community's views on asylum seekers. As noted previously, a recent Perth study found a pecking order, with asylum seekers receiving the most community hostility, followed by Indigenous Australians (Pedersen, 2004). Comparatively speaking, therefore, this indicates the severity of the problem at hand (while not underemphasising the extent of the problem of prejudice against Indigenous Australians). Asylum seekers may be seen as a clear outgroup in Australia; but our respondents may have seen Indigenous Australians as their “local coloured group”, which may explain the higher levels of hostility comparatively (see Walker, 2001, for a discussion on this paternalistic point regarding Indigenous and Chinese Australians). Regardless of why, our results indicate that Australia is not the accepting multicultural society we often pride ourselves on.

Prediction of negative attitudes toward asylum seekers

Negative attitudes toward asylum seekers were very strongly correlated with false beliefs held by this group. As noted, this relationship was stronger than the relationship between prejudice and false beliefs about Indigenous Australians discussed earlier. Why might this be the case? One likely reason is that very few people in Perth would actually know an asylum seeker. Thus, they may form their opinions more readily on false beliefs and what they heard from other sources rather than direct knowledge. This has serious implications given how negative the attitudes were. Additionally, many respondents held one or more false beliefs; this was particularly the case with the question regarding asylum seekers being queue jumpers (approximately two thirds of participants were incorrect in this regard). This false belief may evoke negative and passionate reactions to it; as pointed out by Mares (2001) this is because it offends Australians' sense of fair play. However, as discussed earlier, this simplistic argument overlooks many issues such as the lack of queues, and so forth.

The prevalence of false beliefs about asylum seekers has troubling implications in Australian society. As J. J. Jones (1997) notes, legitimising myths has practical consequences in that they create, maintain, and/or enhance social inequality. Similarly, they play a key role in either the justification or opposition of social policies (Sidanius et al., 2001). However, on a more positive note and as discussed in the introduction, Batterham (2001) found that giving accurate information about false beliefs about Indigenous Australians reduced prejudice scores. If attitudes toward asylum seekers are to be modified, it would seem imperative that relevant false beliefs be shown for what they are.

We turn now to the results of the multiple regression predicting attitudes toward asylum seekers. Here we found that being male, having higher levels of education, a right-wing political position, and high levels of national identity predicted negative attitudes toward asylum seekers. Regarding the gender effect, this supports past research finding a similar significant relationship (e.g., Pedersen & Walker, 1997). The fact that education was so strongly linked with attitudes toward asylum seekers supports the prejudice literature regarding other cultural groups as discussed in the introduction. But what of the implications of the findings of the present study? Although it could be argued that educating people to reduce prejudice levels is nothing short of propaganda for a particular viewpoint, it could also be argued that a prejudice-free society is one to be strived for. If one follows this latter train of thought (as the authors do), our results indicate that the role of education is important in this regard.

Political position was also linked to negative attitudes; people who were more right wing were also more likely to feel negatively about asylum seekers and their situation. This links with past research such as that of Fraser & Islam (2000) who found that symbolic racism was strongly linked with voting for Pauline Hanson (a far-right political figure in Australia). In fact, many respondents did view this situation from a political viewpoint. For example, “Shut the detention centres down, they are inhumane. Sack Howard and Ruddock for consistent breaches of human right conventions.” An alternative view was: “They should be returned immediately with no handouts. Australians do not want these fanatics here to ruin our way of life – government should listen to voters and take a stronger stand”. This political finding may be due to the left and right essentially reflecting the different attitudes toward equality. Traditionally, right-wing political parties focus on benefiting specific groups or classes (usually middle to upper class). Left-wing political parties aim to benefit all Australians, not just the upper classes (Heywood, 1998).

Importantly, with respect to the regression analyses, national identity significantly predicted ATAS; but self-esteem did not. This is not surprising; as noted by Hunter et al. (1997), global self-esteem measures such as the Rosenberg (1965) scale used in our study measure the self at the “wrong level of abstraction” (p. 407). Yet there was a significant bivariate correlation between self-esteem and ATAS (in other words, people with relatively high levels of self-esteem were more negative about asylum seekers). Thus, there was a relationship – albeit small – between participants' perception of self and their perception of an outgroup. Although our findings do not support some research finding a negative correlation (e.g., Bagley, 1979), it does support the findings of Utsey et al. (2002) who found a weak correlation in the same direction as the current study. As they suggested, it is pointless (and may actually have detrimental effects) to attempt to increase people's self-esteem in the hope that they will become more accepting of outgroups. Further, as Lemyre and Smith (1985, p. 668) note, intergroup discrimination may restore and maintain self-esteem rather than enhance it . Our findings suggest that given the very high numbers of people in our community who reported high self-esteem (i.e., scoring above the scale midpoint), it may be a difficult task regardless of any negative repercussions. Having said this, it needs noting that once we entered the self-esteem variable into the multiple regression equations, the self-esteem effect was lost. These findings are interesting; not only because of the positive pattern of results, but because it adds to previous research that notes only a small relationship between self-esteem and prejudice.

The finding that nationalism significantly predicted ATAS scores while self-esteem did not can be seen in terms of SIT; it may be that when one's attention is firmly on a group issue such as asylum seekers, group identity is more salient than personal identity. Also, in line with Tajfel and Turner (1979), group identity would be more salient given the intensity of intergroup conflict, people will behave as a function of their group identity rather than their personal identity. In this regard, it may be that in striving to maintain or enhance group identity (nationalism), individuals may resort to hostile attitudes in order to achieve this need. The positive relationship between the ATAS scale and nationalism supports other findings such as that of Mummendy et al. (2001), Pedersen and Walker (1997) and Verkuyten (1998). LeCouteur and Augoustinos (2001) note the problems associated with nationalism: in their study they found that nationalistic discourses regarding the superordinate identity of “Australian” served to undermine subcultural groups such as Indigenous Australians.

The power of nationalism when predicting negative attitudes toward asylum seekers is not surprising. Cullingford (2000) defines nationalism as a cultural and political phenomenon, which can also be defined in terms of a common cultural interest. He also suggests that nationalism can encourage extreme aggression in the sense that one group is an enemy. Further, in a time of crisis or during social or political change, nationalism can surface as a powerful force. As noted by Billig (1995), “there is no ‘us’ without a ‘them’” (p. 78). After September 11 an increase in patriotism was seen wherein a sense of nationalism and unity was very evident in both the United States and Australia. The importance of nationalism is encouraged by the powers that be in Australian Government. As noted by Hage (2003), Prime Minister John Howard uses the notion of a unique Australian way (or national identity) more than any politician has done in the past decade. In doing so, he positions Australian values at the cornerstone of Australia's political vision (for example, he often stresses Australia's successful political climate of tolerance, and its welcoming nature for “real” refugees).

Limitations of our study, and scope for future research

We are by no means presenting the results of our study as conclusive. There are of course limitations such as a restricted sample size, and the fact that only Perth residents were surveyed. It would be interesting to look at attitudes toward asylum seekers in different locations, and what predicted positive attitudes (e.g., was there a particular “ah-ha” experience that changed attitudes?) Given the high degree of negativity reported about asylum seekers in this paper, we may learn more from people with more positive attitudes; in other words, why are people not prejudiced?

In addition, given the prevalence of the false beliefs identified by researchers, it would be interesting to examine false beliefs as a discursive-psychological, rather than a cognitive – psychological, phenomenon (see the Potter, 1996 work on fact construction). As discussed previously, in the recent past in Australia, politicians have promoted a view as true, and often they were accepted by the general public as true before being accepted as false. In other words, political truths have become mistruths. How do people deal with the introduction of new authoritative and factual information that contradicts information previously held to be obviously true?

Regardless of the project's limitations, we believe that this piece of research is a start. It presents ideas, and then offers up the results for other researchers to challenge, build on, and develop. And given the situation of asylum seekers at present and attitudes toward them, much work is necessary.

Conclusion

There were three major findings that emanate from the present study. The first was that a large proportion of the Perth community expressed negative attitudes toward asylum seekers, which strongly relate to false beliefs. The second major finding concerned the predictors of such negative attitudes. In particular, gender, a lack of education and right-wing political views were significant predictors of negative attitudes, which supports much of the past prejudice literature. Additionally, although there was a positive relationship between self-esteem and negative attitudes, this relationship did not persist when entered into a multiple regression. In line with social identity theory, nationalism was a significant predictor of negative attitudes.

Clearly, negative attitudes involve societal issues, not simply psychological. It would appear that a lot of work in the wider society on preventing misconceptions about asylum seekers is necessary before Australia can call itself a just and accepting multicultural society.

Acknowedgements

The authors thank a number of people for their input into the paper, in particular Jaimie Beven, Ngaire Donaghue, Brian Griffiths, and Colin Leach for their very useful comments on an earlier draft (although the authors take full responsibility for the views stated herein). Additionally, we would like to thank Merrion Grey for her help in the early days of the project.

Appendix A

Attitudes towards asylum seekers scale

1.	Asylum seekers are holding Australia to ransom by resorting to violence such as rioting.
2.	If asylum seekers need refuge, they should be granted refuge
3.	Asylum seekers are being dealt with appropriately by the government
4.	Separating asylum seekers like they are alien species dehumanises us all
5.	Asylum seekers are ungrateful by protesting in the manner that they do
6.	I sympathise with the situation of asylum seekers
7.	Asylum seekers are justified in hunger striking to attract attention to their situation
8.	The government's policy on asylum seekers is justified
9.	Asylum seekers are being unfairly detained
10.	Asylum seekers are manipulative in the way that they engage in self-harm protesting such as self-mutilation
11.	Asylum seekers don't attempt to be part of Australian society
12.	Asylum seekers are innocent victims of bad government policy
13.	Asylum seekers are legitimate refugees and should be welcomed
14.	So-called asylum seekers are people fleeing the chaos of war and the cruelties of monstrous regimes
15.	Asylum seekers who mutilate themselves would not make model citizens
16.	Asylum seekers breed hatred
17.	If asylum seekers are not happy, send them home
18.	Asylum seekers would be better off in self-sufficient communities rather than in detention