Rejoinder: results are still strange and explanations fall short

ABSTRACT

In this rejoinder, I argue that explanations made in Croucher (2015) [Further development of integrated threat theory and intergroup contact: A reply to Aberson (2015). Communication Monographs] for odd results are not theoretically relevant, represent highly unlikely outcomes inconsistent with the reporting in Croucher (2013) [Integrated threat theory and acceptance of immigrant assimilation: An analysis of Muslim immigration in Western Europe. Communication Monographs, 80, 46–62], and are likely not the result of a unique sample or target. First, I demonstrate that arguments regarding negative contact are not applicable to the present work as Croucher (2013) [Integrated threat theory and acceptance of immigrant assimilation: An analysis of Muslim immigration in Western Europe. Communication Monographs, 80, 46–62] measured positive contact. Next, I note that arguments regarding use of pairwise deletion are theoretically possible, but practically would represent extreme situations that suggest substantial issue with the dataset. I also note that Croucher (2013) [Integrated threat theory and acceptance of immigrant assimilation: An analysis of Muslim immigration in Western Europe. Communication Monographs, 80, 46–62] made no mention of the amount of missing data or approaches used to deal with missing values. Finally, I highlight that the use of an adult sample and Muslim targets is by no means unique within the integrated threat literature and that findings from studies using similar samples and targets remain at odds with Croucher (2013) [Integrated threat theory and acceptance of immigrant assimilation: An analysis of Muslim immigration in Western Europe. Communication Monographs, 80, 46–62].

KEYWORDS:

• Integrated threat theory
• intergroup threat theory
• intergroup contact
• Islam
• reproducibility