Psychology School of Human & Community Development Antagonism toward African immigrants in Johannesburg, South Africa: An Integrated Threat Theory (ITT) approach _________________________________________ Hawabibi Laher (0212640E) _____________________________________________________________________ A research report submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MA by coursework and Research Report in the field of Psychology in the Faculty of Humanities, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, 4 July 2008. ii Declaration I declare that this research report is my own, unaided work. It is being submitted for the degree of Masters in Psychology (Research and Coursework) at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. It has not been submitted before for any other degree or examination at this or any other university ______________________ Hawabibi Laher 04 July 2008 iii Abstract South Africa and Johannesburg are rapidly becoming global entities in the worldwide domain. The history of South Africa embodies a place of segregation and discrimination. At present, South Africa is characterised as a place of promise for the future. As a result, South Africa (specifically Johannesburg), ?has become a magnet for people from other provinces, the African continent, and indeed, the four corners of the world? (Masondo, 2004). Yet these movements are not always met with a positive response. This study sought to investigate whether the Integrated Threat Theory (ITT) of prejudice (Stephan & Stephan, 1996) explains prejudice and social distance towards African immigrants in South Africa. The theory suggests that the factors, inter-group anxiety, realistic threats, symbolic threats and negative stereotypes, affect prejudice. Nature of communication was also used as a predictor of prejudice. The sample consisted of 345 South African citizens. A questionnaire was issued to the participants in order to establish how they feel (perception) or have felt, interacting with immigrants from African countries. Various scales were used to ascertain this information. Multiple linear regression and path analyses were conducted. Findings indicated that inter-group anxiety, symbolic threats, realistic threats and stereotypes as well as the nature of communication predicted prejudice to a large extent (68% of the variance explained) and predicted social distance to a moderate extent (42% of the variance explained). iv Acknowledgements Firstly, I?d like to thank God for guiding me on the straight path and giving me the strength and perseverance to pursue my dreams. My supervisor, Gillian Finchilescu, for her mentorship as well as patience during the year. Thank you for all your effort in making this a success. Prof. Mohamed Seedat at the UNISA Institute for Social and Health Sciences, thank you for the gift of freedom, the honour of your wisdom and the beauty of your guidance. May God Bless You. Esme Jordaan at the Medical Research Council (MRC) in Cape Town, thank you for all your help with the statistical analysis. My parents, sisters, brother-in-law and beautiful niece, ALL praise is due to God for giving me such a wonderful family who have stood by me during all the years of my life. Faheema, thank you for all the motivation, and strength that you provided me with during the years. Heartfelt thanks go to the NRF (National Research Foundation) for funding the research. Without such funding, this would not have been possible. I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Thank You Sumaya for ALL your help, May the Almighty bless you with his choicest blessings. To Kate and Ntombi at the Southern African Migration Project (SAMP) in Cape Town and Johannesburg, thanks for the resources. To the participants, without you, this would have not been possible. Thank You? v Table of Contents Declaration ?????????..??????????????.................... ii Abstract ???????????????????????..??...???. iii Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................... iv List of tables: Table 1: Sample characteristics in percentages?????????............36 Table 2: Type and percentage of contact .........................................................47 Table 3: Means, standard deviations, ranges, Cronbach alpha ???.....?..48 Table 4: Correlations between threat factors ??????...?????...49 Table 5: Means for the ethnic groups on all summary indices ????........52 Table 6: Summary of multiple regression analysis on variables used as predictors..........................................................................................................54 Table 7: Summary of multiple regression analysis on variables used as predictors?????????????????????????......55 Table 8: Model for path diagram???????????????..??56 Table 9: Models for path diagram-Social Distance .........................................60 List of figures: Figure 1: The Integrated Threat Theory ITT model ?????????....24 Figure 2: Adapted Integrated Threat Theory (ITT) Model???????..30 Figure 3: Path Diagram-Prejudice ????????........??????...58 Figure 4: Path Diagram-Social Distance..........................................................62 Acknowledgements ??????????????????.............................iv vi Chapter 1: Literature Review: Introduction, scope and structure .........................1 1.1. Migration trends: The nature and demographic profile of immigrants in South Africa ????????????????????????.?.4 Chapter 2: Xenophobia- Definitions, media portrayals, employment & health?.........................................................................................................................9 2.1. African Immigrants in the Media????????????..............12 2.2. Immigrants and employment??????????????.............14 2.3. The reference of migrants as ?illegals??????????............?..15 2.4. Health Issues and African Immigrants?????????.............?.16 2.5. Possible explanations for the displacement of blame???............?...17 2.6. Contact ...??????????????????...............??...18 2.7. Prejudice?????????????????............?...???.19 2.8. Reasons for inhospitality by South Africans toward Africa......................21 Chapter 3: Integrated Threat Theory (ITT) ??????????????...24 3.1. Realistic Threats???????????....................................??27 3.2. Symbolic threats???????........................????............??27 3.3. Inter-group anxiety???????........................???............??28 3.4. Negative stereotypes????????........................?...........??...29 3.5. Model used in the current study ???????????????...29 3.6. Utility of the Integrated Threat Theory ???...................................?.30 Chapter 4: Methods????????????????????.????..34 4.1. Research Questions???????..????????...??..??34 4.1.1. Research Hypothesis ???????..??.?????.?.34 4.2. Research Design????????????????????..?..35 vii 4.3. Sample ?????????????????????????..35 4.4. Research Procedure???????.....????????.????.36 4.4.1. Pilot Study ????????????????????.36 4.4.2. This Study ????????????????????.37 4.5. Demographics???????????????.?...??????37 4.6. Measures?????????????????????????38 4.7. Instruments ...............................................................................................38 4.7.1. Nature of Communication Scale???...???????.?38 4.7.2. Social Distance Scale ??????????????..?..39 4.7.3. Prejudice Scale????????????????..??.40 4.7.4. Inter-group anxiety Scale????????????...??40 4.7.5. Symbolic/Cultural threats...........................................................41 4.7.6. Realistic threats???????........................................?..41 4.7.7. Negative Stereotypes????????????...?.??..41 4.8. Ethical Considerations ??????????????????..?42 4.9. Data Analysis ??????????????????????...43 4.9.1. Correlations between variables???????????..?43 4.9.2. Comparisons using Analysis of Variance????????..44 4.9.3. Relationships between variables using multiple regression...?44 4.9.4. Path Analysis ????????????????...?..?45 Chapter 5: Results ???????????????????????.....?46 5.1. Demographics???????????????????????46 5.2. Contact?..???...???????????????????.....46 5.3. Relationships between variables.???????????????..48 5.3.1. Hypothesis 1???????????...............................?50 viii 5.3.2. Hypothesis 2????????????...............????51 5.4. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) ........................................51 5.5. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)?????????????...??52 5.6. Multiple regression analysis to determine predictors of prejudice............53 5.6.1. Research Question 1...................................................................54 5.7. Multiple regression analysis to determine predictors of Social Distance............................................................................................................55 5.7.1. Research Question 2 ???????...??????..?.....55 5.8. Path Analysis - Prejudice ??????..??????...............??56 5.9. Path Analysis ?Social Distance ................................................................55 5.10. Conclusion????????...??????????...?...?......63 Chapter 6: Discussion ????????...???................................................64 6.1. Implications and Recommendations for Future Research.........................71 6.2. Limitations of the Study???................................................................74 6.3. Conclusion ................................................................................................75 Reference List ?????????????????????...................76-96 Appendices?..?????????????????????.................97-107 Appendix A - Participant information sheet ....................................................97 Appendix B - Participant informed consent sheet ...........................................98 Appendix C - Demographic information..........................................................99 Appendix D - Amount of contact with African immigrant ..........................100 Appendix E - Nature of communication scale ..............................................101 ix Appendix F - Bogardus?s social distance scale..............................................102 Appendix G - Prejudice scale.........................................................................103 Appendix H - Inter-group anxiety scale.........................................................104 Appendix I - Symbolic and realistic threats scale..........................................105 Appendix J - Stereotypes scale.......................................................................106 Appendix K - Ethics Clearance Certificate....................................................107 1 Chapter 1: Introduction, scope and structure The world today is characterised by an increase in migration. People are constantly moving across countries for a multitude of reasons. Migration which could be defined as the movement of persons from one country or locality to another is the effect of numerous factors or changes occurring in an individual?s home country. Conflict, poverty, violence and natural disasters could all be potential motivating factors for individuals to depart from their home country (Tilly, 1978). As a result of conflict and political strife in neighbouring countries, South Africa has become a destination and transit point for migrants from the African continent (Landau, Ramjathan-Keogh & Singh, 2005). A great deal of research on immigrants and immigration has been done in the anthropological, sociological and political science fields. The discipline of psychology has somewhat fallen behind in dealing with immigration. Psychology?s contribution in this burgeoning field could be valuable, as this could have implications for policy formation as well as promote intergroup relations and acculturation (acculturation is described as the progression towards fostering contact between two culturally different groups, thus creating a synergy and changes in both groups) (Berry, 2001; Redfield, Linton & Herskovits, 1936). Such acculturation could be beneficial for South Africa and promote prosperity between all walks of life as well as promote and foster intergroup relations. Internationally, psychological research has assisted and promoted intergroup relations and influenced policy making (Aboud & Levy, 1999; Berry & Kalin, 2000; Rystad, 2 1992). Based on such psychological research, policies were designed to promote economic development and fill the skills gap in various countries. In South Africa, these policies strive to achieve justice and protect physical security and human rights and promote regional integration and prosperity of non-nationals (Landau et al., 2005). Yet, these policies have not always been maintained in practice. As Landau et al. (2005) succinctly highlighted that despite the policy formations, hardly any South African citizens or politicians see foreigners as entitled to these rights. These rights include that of land, employment, health care and housing. As a result, immigrants are denied the opportunity for a high-quality of life. The current research wishes to understand the negative attitudes towards African immigrants on a national level with the anticipation that the information obtained will be beneficial for future researchers. With the demise of the apartheid era, the 1994 election brought a formal end to centuries of institutionalised racism in the country (Crush, 2001). The transition that has marked the change from the old South Africa to the new is ?supposedly? marked by democratic rule. South Africa, with its past political history, is now often perceived to be a place of unity and harmony and a country where a spirit of togetherness is fostered (Harris, 2002). However, South Africa to date is still one of the most racially conscious societies in the world (Crush, 2001). Violence and hatred still form part of the new South Africa. Immigrants are one of the many groups that fall prey to hatred and discrimination in South Africa. This type of discrimination emerges from South African citizens who believe that they have the birth right to all that South Africa has to offer. This is combined with a belief that people from other countries should be denied access to 3 what rightfully belongs to the citizens of the host country (McDonald, 2000; Sinclair, 1999). Yet immigration is potentially beneficial for South Africa. Skilled migrants and foreign capital filter into the country, contributing to its economic success. These skills are brought into South Africa in the form of mine workers, entrepreneurs, accountants and other professionals. In addition to skills that African immigrants may bring, the diversity that they bring may be beneficial to South Africans (Huo, Smith, Tyler & Lind, 1996). On the other hand, immigration places severe strain on the already depreciating levels of employment and housing within South Africa (Crush & McDonald, 2002; Southern African Migration Project [SAMP], 2000). As a result, such depreciation in the levels of unemployment creates competition over scarce resources. Negative beliefs such as the out-group endangering the existence of individuals, politically, economically and even the physical well being of the ingroup are common (Bizman & Yinon, 2001). Amos Masondo, Executive Mayor of Johannesburg, referred to this issue in his 2004 State of the City address when he stated that ?while migrancy contributes to the rich tapestry of the cosmopolitan city, it also places a severe strain on employment levels, housing and public services?. One of the major misperceptions and stereotypes about immigrants is that they are illiterate and contribute little or nothing to the South African economy. On the contrary, immigrants tend to be literate, with a good education and usually fluent in multiple languages (Landau et al, 2005). A study conducted by McDonald, Mashike & Golden (1999), in a sample of 501 African immigrants, challenged these widely 4 held stereotypes. Only 1% of the sample did not have formal education, 73% had at least some secondary school education and 22% had some tertiary level education. Xenophobia is a term that has been used widely to describe discrimination and hatred towards immigrants. Current research suggests that South Africans are more xenophobic and intolerant towards African immigrants than to immigrants outside the African continent (Crush, 2000; Landau et al. 2005). Such beliefs may give rise to tensions between the host nationals and the outsiders. The profile of immigrants entering the country will be outlined. This will provide a greater understanding of the type of immigrants entering South Africa. 1.1. Migration Trends: The nature and demographic profile of immigration in South Africa Migration has been on an increase in South Africa. Census data (StatsSA, 2001), indicated that there were approximately 463,003 registered non-nationals in South Africa. 320,178 were from the Southern African Development Community (SADC) (excluding SA) and 24,983 were from the rest of Africa. These two groups form the largest in terms of the types of immigrants entering SA in comparison to Europeans, which were estimated to be around 88761, Asians at 16305, North Americans at 5831, Central and South America at 4755 and Australia and New Zealand which comprise of only 2190 individuals. Keeping in mind that there may potentially be irregularities in the data, due to an inability to account for illegal immigrants or non-documented individuals, an undercount is inevitable. 5 Crush and Williams (2001) estimated that there are between 500, 000 and 850,000 legal and illegal immigrants that have not been accounted for in South Africa and this amount continues to grow due to the political unrest in countries like Zimbabwe and Kenya . This has forced immigrants to flee the country due to the deteriorating fiscal and political conditions that currently plague many countries (Hartley, 2007). Eisenberg (2007) reported that approximately 2000 Zimbabweans jump the borders into South Africa each day without being documented (cited in Hartley, 2007). According to the International Organisation for Migration, a total of 57, 600 illegal Zimbabwean immigrants have been deported back to their country, from January to September 2007 (BBC News, 3 September 2007). Studies have shown that African immigrants entering the country are generally young to middle age. The average age of an immigrant in South Africa is 31 years (Belvedere, 2003; Landau et al., 2005). In addition, Belvedere?s study (2003) revealed that nationally, 45% of immigrants were married or living with a partner. Yet Johannesburg had a higher concentration of singles who were predominantly men (Jacobsen & Landau, 2004). In addition, McDonald, Mashike and Golden (1999) noted that women were increasingly becoming an important part of migration and their experiences were significantly different from the men, primarily due to the way women were treated by their male counterparts. They, at times, were abused by policeman, or sexually harassed by South African men due to their perceived vulnerability in the country. In addition, Deaux?s (2006) study indicated that immigrant women are at the highest risk of being unemployed. 6 Apart from South Africa, the United States of America (USA) remains a country that is host to the largest number of immigrants (Yang, Power, Takaku & Posas, 2003). Ethnic conflict in countries such as the USA also abounds as immigrants are perceived to infringe on the countries values and economic prosperity and to deplete community resources. Hiebert?s (2003) study showed that 16% of Canadians have the belief that immigrants take away jobs from locals. Coenders, Lubbers and Scheeper?s (2003a) study showed that 50% of Estonians, 36% of Cypriots and 21 % of Turkish individuals are against a multicultural society that includes immigrants. In addition, 92 % of Hungarians, 6% of Britons and 44% of Danes were in favour of the repatriation of criminal migrants. Dunn?s (2003) study concluded that 45% of Australians agree that the ethnic diversity that immigrants could bring weakens the nation. Based on research done internationally, it can be seen that prejudice between immigrants is not only a phenomenon confined to South Africa, but is worldwide (Horowitz, 1988). This research report addresses the perceptions and feelings towards African immigrants in South Africa by using the Integrated Threat Theory (ITT) by Stephan and Stephan (1996). The introductory chapter was intended to provide a brief overview into the possible issues facing African immigrants (discussed in length in chapter 2) as well as the number and profile of African immigrants entering South Africa on a daily basis. Xenophobia will be elaborated upon in length in Chapter 2. Reference will be made to the approach South African journalists have used to portray African immigrants in the media and how this indirectly influences and promotes negative stereotypes about 7 African immigrants. Moreover, immigration and employment in South Africa will be elaborated upon as this is one of the many negative perceptions South Africans have about African immigrants. Many South Africans believe that African immigrants take jobs away from South Africans. Among the many other perceptions that will be discussed is that of African immigrants as a health threat to South Africa. A general belief exists that African immigrants have inadequate health care systems in their own country as well as when migrating to another country such as South Africa. Contact between African immigrants and South Africans will be discussed. Contact between individuals has been shown to reduce prejudice between citizens and immigrants in Europe (Pettigrew, 1998 & Tropp, 2003). Chapter 3 will discuss the Integrated Threat Theory (ITT) of prejudice (Stephan & Stephan, 1996). The integrated threat theory will be used as a tool toward understanding the negative attitudes towards African immigrants. Other countries in which the ITT was used to understand negative attitudes will be reviewed in an attempt to examine the utility of the ITT and the results yielded abroad. The methodology section will follow in chapter 4. This will include details of sampling techniques used in the study. Procedure of the research will be outlined. This will be elaborated upon in minute detail to allow for replication. Ethical issues will be noted. Chapter 4 will also include data analysis. Cronbach alphas and the relevant statistical procedures will be included in this section. Chapter 5 will provide a detailed analysis of the results obtained from the study. This will include results obtained from the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), correlations 8 and multiple linear regression analyses and the path analysis that were used in the study. This chapter will be followed by the discussion and conclusion chapter which will attempt to critically evaluate the research. As a result, Chapter 6 will summarise the entire paper and provide possible limitations for the study and implications and recommendations for future research. 9 Chapter 2: Xenophobia - Definitions, Media Portrayals, Employment and Health What started off as attacks against 'illegal aliens' soon became attacks against immigrants legally here with their families, and then attacks on South Africans who 'looked foreign' because they were 'too dark' to be South African. This is the evil story of the beginnings of fascism ? and ethnic cleansing which has been practiced in other parts of the world. - Statement by the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU, 2001) Xenophobia may be referred to as the ?hatred or fear of foreigners? (immigrants and refugees) by the nationals of a particular country (Crush, 2000, 2001; Khan, 2000; McDonald, Mashike & Golden, 1999; Soldatova, 2006; South African Migration Project, 1997, 1999; Warner & Finchilescu, 2003). Yet Kollapen (1999) suggests that xenophobia should be seen as a form of violence. As it is believed that xenophobia is not just a thought but also behaviour that is acted out in the form of violence. In addition, Kollapen (1999) calls for the reframing of the term xenophobia to include a physical act (violence, i.e. bodily harm and damage). Research conducted in South Africa during 1997 and 1999 by the Southern African Migration Project (SAMP), as well as surveys examining the attitudes of South Africans toward non-citizen?s paints an alarming picture (Crush, 2001). These surveys have shown that openness and tolerance is minimal towards African immigrants (Frayne & Pendleton, 1998). Surveys revealed high levels of societal intolerance and dislike towards non-citizens irrespective of whether they were legal or illegal in the country (SAMP, 1997; 1999). First-hand contact with non-citizens (i.e. African 10 immigrants) was relatively low and these attitudes were therefore often not driven by actual experience, but by stereotypes and myths (SAMP, 1997; 1999). Xenophobia in post-apartheid South Africa is a major problem (Crush, 2001; Danso & McDonald, 2000; Morris, 1998). According to a survey released in 2000 by the Southern African Migration Project, South Africa displays one of the highest levels of xenophobia in the world (Dube, 2000). Dodson (2002) also alluded to South Africa as being a country where its people are alarmingly xenophobic, which out of fear of foreigners, does not value the human rights of non-nationals. Furthermore, it was shown that Black African immigrants were increasingly the targets of such hatred (Molele, 1999; UNHCR, 2000). The SAMP (1999) reported disturbing responses in the treatment by Black South Africans, the police and government officials. Xenophobia in South Africa is not restricted to fear and dislike. Instead, it results in ?intense tension and even violence by South African?s toward African immigrants? (Tshitereke, 1999). Violence against immigrants living in South Africa is prevalent. The recent wave of xenophobic attacks pay testament to this. According to Rondganger and SAPA, violence against African immigrants spread throughout South Africa. The attacks caused a humanitarian crisis and lasted for two weeks, with at least 50 African immigrants being killed, hundreds injured and more then 15 000 displaced in the violent attacks that spiralled out of control (The Star, May 26, 2008). African immigrants were the target of severe assaults, burning, looting of shops, and being displaced from their homes. These attacks were perpetrated by South Africans who believed that African immigrants have no place in South Africa and should be sent back to their home countries. Danso and McDonald (2000) indicated that South 11 Africans believed that they are entitled by birth to opportunities in the country. In another vein the Business Day reports that a criminal element underplays attacks against immigrants, these criminals have ?taken over and manipulated the situation? (Benjamin & Chilmane, 2008, p. 4).Thus many factors contribute to the attacks against African immigrants. The May 2008 events witnessed the forced removal of African immigrants from their places of residence and economic sectors. The Citizen reported that the xenophobic attacks had been wide spread (Tshetlo, 2008). Previous xenophobic attacks in 1999, witnessed fifty foreigners being killed countrywide in suspected xenophobic attacks (Molele, 1999). Hillbrow, Johannesburg was seen as a hot spot for vigilante groups who harassed and physically attacked foreigners as well as those that ?looked like foreigners?. Two Somalian immigrants were killed in Cape Town in August 2006 (Mail & Guardian, 2006). As reported by the Star, in May (2007),shops owned by foreigners in Khutsong were looted and burned as these foreigners were perceived to have been taking jobs away from South African citizens. In November 2000, viewers witnessed the shocking event of six white policemen who had let dogs loose on three black men. These men were Mozambicans. Without substantial proof, they were dubbed ?illegal immigrants? in the press, as if this somehow mitigated the brutality of the act (Crush, 2001, p. 8). This type of media representation prompts an understanding of how immigrants have been portrayed in the media and how they are currently being represented. 12 2.1. African immigrants in the media Media may be seen as one of the most influential tools in relaying messages. The media is seen as a powerful vehicle for social development and transformation (Danso & McDonald, 2000). The print media, such as newspapers, has played an extensive role in many people?s lives. To some, this type of medium may be the only way of communication to the outside world. Migrants have featured frequently in such press releases and have generally been portrayed in a negative light (McDonald & Jacobs, 2005). As emphasised by McDonald, Mashike and Golden (1999), migrants in South Africa and African migrants in particular are the most vilified in the South African press. Negative stereotypes and myths about African immigrants are increasingly being proliferated in the media (Morris, 1998; Wasserman & Jacobs, 2003). The media?s representation of African immigrants and immigrants in general makes it far more difficult for the stigmatisation and negativity toward immigrants to disappear (Reitzes & Dolan, 1996). Consider the following that has appeared in the media over the past few years: Flow of job-seekers from neighbouring countries (Electronic Mail and Guardian, 1997); Illegal?s are helping to turn SA into a banana republic (Weekend Star, 1995 Letter: S. Modise); Xenophobia rife as Africans flood SA (Sunday Times, 1994). Xenophobic views are fuelled by such statements. Danso and McDonald (2000) show that Nigerians are often referred to as drug smugglers and Mozambicans as car thieves. They show how the media generally depicts African immigrants as criminals. The above statements and articles have appeared in popular newspapers and electronic databases and can be seen as negative 13 in content. Throughout the years, the media has failed in creating coverage that is critically balanced and adequately reflective of the issues around African immigrants. As a result, the media creates a distorted image of reality (Chavez, 2001; King & Wood, 2001). Such criminalisation and stereotyping of immigrants has led to immigrants being abused physically, mentally and emotionally by South African nationals, immigration authorities and the police. Growing evidence suggests that, far from being the perpetrators of crime, immigrants have been the victims of it (McDonald, Mashike, & Golden, 1999; Triandafyllido, 2000). International studies further document the media and its effects on social representation. The media in Greece and Spain have portrayed immigrant communities as troublemakers (Constras & Stavrou in Mouzelis, 1995). Discriminatory behaviour against immigrants were justified and members of communities and authorities acted out violently against immigrants in there country (La Palombara, 1965). During the 2008 attacks on immigrants, changes in the media representation of African immigrants were evident. Much disgust and dismay about the attacks against immigrants were reported by local newspapers. This shift raised concerns for African immigrants affected by such violence and mixed feelings as to the role of government in preventing such attacks were raised (2008, Cape Argus, 29 May). A shift in previous media representations from the past to present indicates that more empathy and sympathy is been shown toward the plight of African immigrants in South Africa. 14 2.2. Immigrants and employment One of the most common aspects increasingly being depicted in the media is that of immigrants as job stealers (Danso & McDonald, 2000). An article by Jossel (1997, The Star, 21 July) portrayed foreigners as unacceptably encroaching the informal business sector and the livelihoods of the large number of South Africa?s unemployed people. While the media has largely portrayed immigrants as ?job stealers?, surveys conducted by SAMP in 1998 over Gauteng, Western Cape and Kwa-Zulu Natal, paint a different picture. Findings indicated that migrants are not exclusively motivated to come to South Africa due to economic opportunities. Some migrants come for an increased quality of life, social gratification and even services such as education or health offered in the South Africa, which otherwise may not be available in their home country. According to the Cape Town Refugee Forum (1999), xenophobia is prevalent throughout the job market, where fear of job loss to immigrants is on the mind of South Africans, due to the fact that immigrants are willing to work for less. This creates the perception in the minds of South Africans that they are being placed at a disadvantage due to the immigrants claiming all possible jobs since they are willing to work for less. As a result of the high unemployment rate that South Africa suffers, negative attitudes are increased due to the lack of job opportunities in South Africa. The following statement made by the Minister of Home Affairs in 1994 shows a similar type of negativity and dislike towards immigrants and portrays immigrants as a burden to the country: 15 If South Africans are going to compete for scarce resources with the millions of 'aliens' that are pouring into South Africa, then we can bid goodbye to our Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) (Minister of Home Affairs; Buthelezi, 2002) These myths and stereotypic beliefs, along with numerous others, have been challenged by the SAMP (1998). Yet negativity towards African immigrants continues to exist. Derogatory terms are also used to describe African immigrants (Krochmal, 2000). One such negative term is ?amakwerekwere? (Makoni & Makoni, 2007). This term depicts the phonetic sound of foreign African languages and is used in an attempt to ridicule. The United Nations is also moving towards banning the terms ?illegal? and ?alien? as these terms are deemed inhumane and intrusive (Danso & McDonald, 2000). 2.3. The reference of migrants as ?illegal?s? Related to the criminalisation of immigrants is the use of the term ?illegals? that implies the possessive, i.e. belonging to. This term is used to refer to those individuals who have provided false information, stayed in the country after their visas have expired or those who have entered SA without official permission (Danso & McDonald, 2000). The term ?illegals? has almost always been used to refer to individuals from other African countries and very seldom to those from Western countries. Danso and McDonald (2000) have mentioned that, with the continual use of the term ?alien? to describe immigrants from other African countries, it creates yet another dimension and elaborates on the degree of ?otherness? between South African nationals and ?aliens? or ?illegal?s? from across the border. 16 2.4. Health Issues and African Immigrants According to ?Fugee? (1999), a publication by the Cape Town Refugee Forum, immigrants are accused of stealing women from husbands and boyfriends of South Africans and spreading HIV/Aids. This is just one of the many stigmatisms associated with African immigrants. In addition, migrants are perceived as being easily prone to infectious diseases (Williams, Gouws, Lurie & Crush, 2002). This is caused by their lack of adequate health services or the inability for them to find health care in the country to which they have migrated. In reality human mobility has also been demonstrated in the prevalence of spreading diseases. HIV/Aids has proven to be on the increase among migrant communities who move from other countries (Abdool Karim, Sing, Short, & Ngxongo, 1992). It was found that migrant men were more likely to have casual partners and engage in sexual activity with sex workers, many of whom are also migrants (Carael, Cleland, Deheneffe, Ferry & Ingham, 1995). Carswell, Lloyd and Howells (1989) showed that the more mobile a person is within their job, the more likely they were to behave in a risky manner (e.g. truck drivers). Studies on migrants and the health issue have largely been based on migrants and their workplaces (Crush, Jeeves, & Yubelman, 1991). Yet, perceptions towards health issues and migrants continue to exist (Williams et al., 2002). This consequently leads into a vital question: Why do African immigrants get the blame for many of the problems taking place in South Africa? This may be explained by the following. 17 2.5. Possible explanations for the displacement of blame Three possible hypotheses have been identified in an attempt to understand why South Africans displace the blame onto African immigrants as well as the reasons behind their negativity towards African immigrants. Tshitereke (1999) in his comments about xenophobia notes that people create a ?frustration-scapegoat? (1999, p. 4). By this he meant that they (South Africans) create a target to blame for the ongoing deprivation and poverty that they face. This scapegoat is created so that the individual does not have to own the blame. This type of scapegoating may also be seen as a form of denial. The isolation hypothesis (Harris, 2002; Morris, 1998) states that foreigners represent the unknown to South Africans. This was proliferated through the apartheid era where African immigrants were completely excluded from coming into the country (Morris, 1998). Yet, the new South Africa is now permitting foreigners to enter the country. Harris points out that ?this has brought South Africans into direct contact with foreigners? (Harris, 2002 p. 172). Morris thereafter hypothesised that when a group has no history of relations with strangers, people may find it hard to be welcoming. And this, in turn, is related to feelings of anxiety. Stephan & Stephan (1985; 1998) have also described these types of circumstances as contributing to inter- group anxiety. Inter-group anxiety will be discussed later in the chapters to follow. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR, 2000) claims that Black South Africans were more aggressive and xenophobic towards Black African immigrants in comparison to White South Africans. The biocultural hypothesis as postulated by Harris (2002) and Morris (1998) offers an explanation for this targeting. The biocultural hypothesis sees xenophobia as manifesting at the level of visible difference. Visible difference arouses anxiety and fear in certain individuals as it 18 represents the ?other? or ?unknown? (Frayne & Pendleton, 1998, 2003).These cultural and biological differences are easily identifiable as clothing, accent as well as skin complexion and languages is clearly distinct from South Africans and therefore make them easily identifiable. 2.6. Contact Decades of research has shown that contact between members of differing groups improves evaluation of the out-group under certain conditions (Allport 1954; Dovidio & Gaertner, 1998; Islam & Hewstone, 1993). Contrary to this, research indicates that if the nature of the contact is characterised by unequal status or is threatening, this may result in negative evaluations which are formed or constructed during the contact situation and thus result in generalisations being made to the entire group. This may confirm the negative stereotypes and perceptions (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1998). These negative attitudes may exacerbate prejudice and xenophobia (Stephan & Stephan, 1985). African immigrants and South Africans seem to be of unequal status (Landau, et al., 1995), due to a history that has divided the two groups. This is consistent with Dovidio and Gaertner?s (1998) idea of increased intergroup anxiety. Tropp and Pettigrew (2005) and Stephan and Stephan (2001) have done extensive research in the area of contact. Their findings indicated that negative out-group contact (e.g. disagreements, fights, conflict, etc) leads to an increase in feelings of threat (Pettigrew, 1998; Tropp, 2003). Similarly, the more that the relationship is characterised by violence and a prolonged history of inter-group conflict, the more likely people to feel threatened (Stephan et al., 2001). Status differentials are also predictors of negative and decreased contact. Dominant group members, in this case 19 South African nationals, may be concerned about African immigrants who pursue to create a better standard of living for themselves. This creates envy among the dominant group and threatens the in-groups way of life. Literature suggests (Berry, 1990a; 2001) that immigrants use adaptation strategies to acquire their place in the new community they enter into. Berry, Poortinga, Segall and Dosen (1992) discuss four adaptation strategies immigrants use to integrate into a new found place. Contact features prominently in these strategies. The integration stage occurs when immigrants believe that contact with the dominant group is necessary but at the same time, efforts are made to maintain their original culture (Van Oudehoven, Prins & Buunk, 1998). Assimilation involves newcomers who desire to have contact with members of the dominant group, and view their original culture as less important. Separation occurs when immigrants may not consider contact with the dominant group to be important, but place emphasis on the maintenance of their culture (Van Oudehoven et al., 1998). Finally, marginalisation is an adaptation strategy that does not involve having contact with the dominant group or even maintaining cultural links. These adaptation strategies include both ends of the spectrum: contact vs. no contact. At times they may create conflict within the community individuals enter into since the host nationals may feel threatened when immigrants attempt to integrate with their society. 2.7. Prejudice Social psychology has used the term prejudice for many decades to describe dispositions toward people (see Milner 1981; Simpson & Yinger, 1985). According to 20 Allport, ?Prejudice is an antipathy based upon a faulty and inflexible generalization. It may be felt or expressed. It may be directed toward a group as a whole or toward an individual because he is a member of that group? (Allport, 1958, p. 10). Ashmore (1970) provides a similar definition to that of Allport, defining prejudice as a ?negative attitude toward a socially defined group and toward any person perceived to be a member of that group (p.253). Prejudice may also be described as the prejudgement of a group unfavourably (Pettigrew, 1980). This hostility is directed not only at one person, but an entire group of people and thus may be said to be an inter- group phenomenon. The hostility may manifest in the form of verbal aggression, physical violence and intolerance. Prejudice is also seen as an attitude which consists of three related dimensions (Duckitt, 1995). Within the social psychology framework, prejudice is seen as an affective or attitudinal component inherent within inter-group dislike and negative evaluation (Allport, 1954; Gergen & Gergen, 1981; Rajecki, 1985; Rosenfield & Stephan, 1981). Jetten, Spears and Manstead (1998) have demonstrated that the degree of intergroup similarity and difference plays a distinct role in influencing prejudice. Those groups that are too similar or too different are evaluated with greater negativity than are moderately different groups. Similarly Hornsey and Hogg (2000a; 2000b) have stated that status within groups could promote increased negativity (e.g. in the case of subordinate vs. dominant groups). Corresponding to these ideas, prejudice has proven to be the most virulent towards immigrants coming from northern countries of Africa and much of the prejudice comes from Black South Africans (Weekly Mail & Guardian, 23 September 1994; The Sunday Independent, 4 May 1997 SAMP, 1999). 21 The Southern African Migration Project (1999) has documented that one in five African immigrants responded that they were treated ?badly? or ?very badly? by South Africans in general and one in three African immigrants expressed being treated ?badly? or ?very badly? by Black South Africans. This clearly shows a high level of negative treatment towards African immigrants by Black South Africans (Solomon, 2003). Allport (1954) has listed five ways in which prejudice is acted out a) physical and verbal hostility, b) avoidance, c) discrimination, d) physical attack and e) extermination. In the above, we have seen examples of violence against immigrant. In addition, we have also looked at the hostile nature of South Africans towards African immigrants. Even though Allport has formulated those five ways in which prejudice has been acted over fifty years ago, these five traits are extremely relevant to modern society. The perception that foreigners are the cause of crime has been over-shadowed by the findings by SAMP (1999) which indicated that foreigners are also victims of crime. 2.8. Reasons for inhospitality by South Africans towards African immigrants It is postulated that post-apartheid, the new government in South Africa were unprepared for the migration trends that began post 1990. Prior to the apartheid era, South Africa was not seen as a destination point, but soon became a desirable country to enter for those living in its neighbouring countries. The influx of immigrants and asylum seekers was significantly different to patterns pre-1990. This influx fuelled 22 perceptions internationally that South Africa had lost control of its borders (Crush, 2001). At this time, many South Africans had already maintained a strong anti-immigration frame of mind, which attributed severe negative connotations for individuals outside its borders. These restrictions placed a severe strain on African immigrants. South Africa?s history embodies one where it has been slow to re-examine and re- define its legislation regarding African immigrants. As a result, this infringed on the rights of migrants and has slowed down immigrant?s immersion into South Africa. Officials from the Department of Home Affairs have, in the past, misinterpreted the bill of rights. This has also created problems for African immigrants. These cases have been sent to court and judges have criticised the department on their failure to observe the rules of the law (Crush, 2001). As a result of these mis-interpretations, severe human rights infringements on African immigrants are often left unattended to in the courts. The minister of home affairs set out a new immigration bill in 1999. This system, made minor changes to the current bill but placed emphasis on South Africans who assisted migrants who were undocumented, illegal foreigners. The above mentioned points have made it difficult for African immigrants to integrate into South Africa with ease and created increased negative attitudes due to prior negative attitudes associated with the group. Even though the South African government has established corrective measures to reduce and alleviate the negative attitudes towards African immigrants, it is not always possible to reduce negative attitudes. This leads to the ITT which attempts to examine whether negative attitudes are still prevalent and the possible reasons behind why these attitudes persist. The Integrated Threat Theory (ITT) of prejudice, which is related to the perceived threat 23 as well as realistic threats and other related factors such as inter-group anxiety and negative stereotypes of the in-group, is an important theory to analyse in this field and provides an explanation for the negative attitudes toward African immigrants. 24 Chapter 3: Overview of the Integrated Threat Theory (ITT) Over the past decade, an increase in the understanding of the effect of perceived threats on inter-group prejudice has been widely studied (Esses, Haddock & Zanna, 1993; Greenberg, Simon, Pyszczynsk, Solomon & Chatel, 1992; Stephan & Stephan, 1996). The Integrated Threat Theory (ITT) by Stephan and Stephan (1996; 1999) is a tool used to predict attitudes towards outgroups. This model will be used in the current study as it provides a framework for determining the reasons behind increased anxiety and prejudice towards an outgroup. The ITT focuses on a number of variables that are thought to influence prejudice in all groups (Corenblum & Stephan, 2001). Figure 1: The Integrated Threat Theory (ITT) Model (Stephan, Ybarra & Bachman, 1999) The Integrated Threat Theory (ITT) (Figure 1) advocates that prior intergroup conflict between groups, status differences, strength of identification with the ingroup, knowledge of the outgroup and the nature of the contact between the groups, will determine whether people feeling threatened will lead to prejudicial attitudes towards Intergroup conflict Status differences Strength of identification Knowledge of the Outgroup Contact Realistic Threats Symbolic Threats Inter-group anxiety Stereotypes Prejudice Behaviour 25 the outgroup (Riek, Mania & Gaertner, 1999; Stephan, Stephan & Gudykunst, 1999). These antecedents of threat will be outlined below. Intergroup Conflict. The theories of Burton (1986) and Stephan and Stephan (1996) have outlined the role that conflict plays in eliciting feelings of prejudice. Conflict in the case of African immigrants and South Africans manifests in the form of competition over scarce resources (e.g. power, money, employment). As a result, this type of conflict creates feelings of threat within the South African mind. Values and human rights may also be a site of conflict as South Africans may believe that South Africa is losing its character and cultural heritage due to the increasing number of African immigrants that are entering the country. They may also believe that cherished South African norms and traditions are threatened by the increase of African immigrants to South Africa. Intergroup conflict may occupy a continuum from openly acknowledged increased levels of conflict to decreased levels of conflict that may not necessarily involve outward confrontation and at times may not even be recognised (Stephan et al, 1999). High conflict may result in physical/violent confrontations. Intergroup conflict may occupy a continuum from openly acknowledged increased levels of conflict to decreased levels of conflict that may not necessarily involve outward confrontation and at times may not even be recognized (Stephan et al, 1999). High conflict may result in physical/violent confrontations. Status. Perceived threats depend on the status of the two groups. High and low status groups can perceive the other group as threatening (Stephan et al, 1999). Salience of threats exists when the degree of status inequality between groups increases. When the ingroup has a very high or very low status in comparison to the outgroup, threats will be more salient (Stephan & Stephan, 1999). 26 Ingroup Identification. Identifying strongly with one?s own group can increase the salience of all four types of threat (realistic threats, symbolic threats, inter-group anxiety and negative stereotypes) (Stephan et al, 1999). People who do not identify with their own group will be less likely to experience feelings of threat. Those who strongly identify with their ingroups are more likely to be concerned with threats from the outgroups. Knowledge of the out-group. When knowledge about the out-group is minimal, this is likely to elicit feelings of threat. In South Africa, before apartheid was abolished, African immigrants were not willingly permitted to enter the country (Morris, 1998). This resulted in fear of the unknown on behalf of South Africans as they have not willingly interacted with African immigrants. Contact. The amount and type of prior contact between groups is important. More positive and greater frequency of contact increases the likelihood that the level of threat will be minimal. Similarly, the greater the frequency of negative contacts, the greater the threat (Stephan et al., 1999). As a result, if a person has had a number of instances where contact was negative in nature such as (disagreements, arguments, fights etc) the person will be more likely to feel threatened by prospects of future interactions with members of this group (Stephan et al., 1999). Stemming from these antecedents factors, Stephan & Stephan (1996, 2001) have identified four types of threats as posed by the out-group that prompt prejudicial attitudes. These include realistic threats, symbolic threats, inter-group anxiety and negative stereotypes (these four factors were analysed in the current study, including nature if communication). Outlined below is an explanation of the factors as conceptualised by Stephan and Stephan (1996) and Ybarra and Stephan (1994). 27 3.1. Realistic threats Realistic threats were initially conceptualised by Levine & Campbell (1972) and the concept(s) originate(s) from the realistic group conflict theories (Coser, 1956; Sherif, 1996). Realistic threats refer to threats associated with political power and economic welfare. Sherif (1966) also emphasised that these threats endanger the existence or physical well being of the out-group as this may manifest in the form of violence and attacks on the out-group. The centrality of realistic threats has been documented by many researchers (LeVine & Campbell, 1972; Quillian, 1995). As proposed by the realistic conflict theory, scarce resources are one of the main areas of conflict that exist between members in a society (LeVine & Campbell, 1972). The perception of competition can occur on two levels. One occurs at the individual level and the other at the group level (Mclaren, 2003). The first level may be conceptualised as a concern that the individual is likely to lose income or government resources as a result of the minority group. On the second level, empirical evidence suggests that individuals are seeking good not only for themselves but for the entire community (see Funk, 2000 for a review). 3.2. Symbolic Threats According to Stephan & Stephan (1998), symbolic threats occur when the in-group believes that their beliefs, morals and values (i.e. way of life) are under attack by the out-group. Symbolic threats are related to theories on symbolic racism, social dominance and also modern racism (Esses, et al., 1993; Kinder & Sears, 1998; McConahay, 1985, Sidanius, Devereux & Pratto, 1992). Stemming from these theories, symbolic threats are the belief that the in-group?s morals and values are 28 superior to others, ?i.e. prescriptive and proscriptive norms and values about society and how society should function? (Corenblum & Stephan, 2001 p.257). Many studies have concluded that symbolic threats lead to prejudice (Corenblum & Stephan, 2001; Essess, Haddock, & Zanna, 1993; Spencer-Rodgers & McGovern, 2002). 3.3. Inter-group anxiety Research has demonstrated the effect that inter-group anxiety plays on the interactions between people (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986; Islam & Hewstone, 1993, Laher & Finchilescu, 2005). Inter-group anxiety refers to feelings of discomfort that people may experience when engaging with members from a group other then their own (Britt, Boneicki, Vesio & Brown, 1996; Corenblum & Stephan, 2001). In addition, it may be referred to as the ?anxiety that people experience in interactions with members of another group? (Blair, Park & Bachelor, 2003 p.151-152). Stephan & Stephan (1985) believed that feeling anxious raises concerns about being negatively appraised by the out-group. These negative appraisals include disapproval, embarrassment and rejection. Islam and Hewstone (1993) along with Stephan and Stephan (1985, 1989, 1992) have documented that increases in anxiety are caused by a previous negative history. South Africa and the apartheid era are a fitting example of the anxiety that existed between the different racial/ethnic groups. Among other factors is the lack of contact with African immigrants throughout one?s life. This is due to the inter-racial issues South Africa faced in the past which prohibited the entrance of most foreigners. In addition, dissimilarities between South Africans and African immigrants may also act as an anxiety provoking experience. 29 Dissimilarities may stem from uses of language, clothing, etc. Furthermore inter- group anxiety was also seen to be related to prejudice and stereotypical beliefs (Islam & Hewstone, 1993; Stephan et al., 1997). According to Corenblum & Stephan (2001), realistic and symbolic threats and inter- group anxiety are reflective of affective, emotional reactions to out-group members. Negative stereotypes are reflective of a cognitive component of prejudicial attitudes. 3.4. Negative Stereotypes Negative stereotypes are the fourth dimension of the Integrated Threat Theory (ITT). The underlying attributes of stereotypes are the expectations or predictions of behaviour of an out-group (Hamilton, Sherman & Ruvolo, 1990). ?When the expectations are negative, unpleasant or conflict-laden, interactions are likely to be negatively anticipated? (Stephan, Ybarra, Martinez & Tur-Kaspa, 1998). Dovidio, Brigham, Johnson and Gaertner (1996) have argued that stereotypic beliefs emanate from the fact that there has been minimal intergroup and interpersonal contact between different cultural groups in the past. As a result, these stereotypes seem to persist. 3.5. Model used in the current study The current study utilised the model by Curseu, Stoop and Schalk (2007), this model has been adapted from the original model (Figure 1) by Stephan, Ybarra & Bachman (1999). 30 Figure 2: Adapted Integrated Threat Theory (ITT) Model (Curseu et al., 2007) 3.6. Utility of the ITT ? A global perspective The utility of the ITT has been proven in many studies prior to the current study, particularly in relation to prejudice toward immigrants (Bizman & Yinon, 2001; Stephan et al., 1998, 1999; Stephan & Stephan, 1996). Stephan, Ybarra and Bachman (1999) have used the ITT to predict prejudice towards immigrants from Cuba, Mexico and Asia by using a sample of students from the United States. The results of the study indicated that the four types of threats (realistic threats, symbolic threats, inter- group anxiety and negative stereotypes) accounted for substantial amounts of variance in the attitudes towards the three immigrant groups (Stephan, Ybarra & Bachman, 1999). Realistic Threats Symbolic Threats Inter-group anxiety Stereotypes Prejudice Intergroup Anxiety 31 Stephan, Ybarra, Martinez, Schwarzwald and Tur-Kaspa (1998), also employed the ITT to predict attitudes towards immigrant groups in Spain and Israel. The results of the study provided substantial support for the ITT of prejudice (Stephan & Stephan, 1996; Stephan et al., 1997; Ybarra & Stephan, 1994). Findings indicated that all four threats were significant predictors of attitudes towards one or more of the immigrant groups. In addition, the integrated threat theory was used to investigate the factors that are associated with prejudice towards immigrant workers in a sample of Dutch employees (Curseu, Stoop & Schalk, 2007). The variables in this study were also strongly inter- correlated. Stephan and Stephan (1998) employed the ITT to predict prejudicial attitudes towards several immigrant groups in Israel and Spain. The ITT?s four variables were all seen to be significantly related with prejudice to at least one of the immigrant groups. Stephan and Stephan et al. (1998) thereafter proved that each of the four variables puts forth the influence on prejudice. Similarly, the current study wishes to determine the effect of prejudice. Corenblum and Stephan (2001) utilised the ITT to determine racial prejudice. The use of the ITT in their study measured proximal and distal variables and attitudes of Whites towards members of other ethnic groups. Their findings indicated that the ITT, at a theoretical level, could also be used to understand prejudice towards minority groups as well as majority groups (Stephan & Corenblum, 2001). The ITT also proved successful in understanding and predicting attitudes of prejudice in the above study. 32 The ITT is a multidimensional approach as it combines several theoretical perspectives that are commonly used to understand threats and their role in creating prejudicial attitudes (Berrenberg, Finlay, Stephan & Stephan, 2002). Yet the ITT may be critiqued for its restriction to only using the four threats as the basis and cause of prejudice in inter-group attitudes (Stephan et al., 2002). This theory may be used to explain minority group and majority group attitudes. Stephan and his colleagues have provided empirical evidence that the four threats are predictors of attitudes toward immigrants (Stephan, et al., 1998, 1999). They have acknowledged that the ITT is not necessarily a theory that is comprehensive in every aspect of explaining prejudice. Recently, Corenblum and Stephan (2001), Stephan et al. (2002) and Stephan, Diaz- Loving and Duran (2000) suggested that ?threats mediate the impact of distal variables, including contact status differentials and perceptions of intergroup conflict on attitudes toward immigrants and other minority groups? (Ward & Masgoret, 2006 p. 672). Stephan et al. (2002) have also suggested the ITT is in no way complete and would benefit from a ? consideration of both additional antecedents and consequences of threat? (p.1252).Ward and Masogret (2006) have gone a step further by incorporating the suggestion by Stephan and Stephan (2002). They included a range of threat antecedents in the construction of a predictive model of attitudes towards immigrants. This research has proved to be an extension of the ITT and draws upon the Instrumental Model of Group Conflict (IMCG) and incorporates personal and situational factors that affect attitudes towards immigrants. From previous studies, it can be seen that the ITT is a useful tool in predicting prejudice among different groups (ethnic, racial, majority, minority groups etc). The current paper aims to examine whether realistic threats, symbolic threats, inter-group 33 anxiety and negative stereotypes as well as nature of communication predicts prejudice toward African immigrants. 34 Chapter 4: Methods 4.1. Research Questions 1. Does nature of communication, realistic threats, symbolic threats, inter-group anxiety and stereotypes predict social distance (Social distance is generally seen as another measure of prejudice) by South Africans toward African Immigrants? 2. Does nature of communication, realistic threats, symbolic threats, inter-group anxiety and stereotypes predict prejudice by South Africans toward African Immigrants? 3. Is race a factor in attitudes toward African immigrants? 4.1.1. Research Hypothesis The purpose of the study was to assess the applicability of the Curseu et al?s version Integrated Threat Theory model of prejudice to African immigrants in South Africa. The ITT was used in order to establish the attitudes toward African immigrants. The ITT proposes various relationships that explain the interplay between its constituting factors, namely realistic threats, symbolic threats, inter-group anxiety and stereotypes as proposed by Stephan and Stephan (1985; 1996; 1999). Apart from the other variables that form part of the ITT model, nature of communication was also assessed. Hypothesis 1: There is a relationship between Social Distance and Nature of communication, Prejudice, Anxiety, Symbolic threats, Realistic threats and Stereotypes Hypothesis 2: There is a relationship between Prejudice and Nature of communication, Anxiety, Symbolic threats, Realistic threats and Stereotypes 35 4.2. Research Design The study may be characterised as non-experimental as no variables were manipulated in the study and there was no control group (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991; 1996). The study occurred over a single period of time as a result it may be characterised as a cross-sectional study design. 4.3. Sample The sample consisted of individuals from different areas in Johannesburg, South Africa. The researcher was assisted by a research assistant in order to access townships and other semi-rural communities. The researchers attempted to identify areas where contact with African immigrants may be high but this was not a prerequisite to filling out the questionnaire. A form of snow ball sampling took place as participants referred the researcher and research assistant to other individuals who would have possibly been interested in completing the questionnaire. Thus, the sample may be characterised as a convenience sample as it was based on the easy access of people. Each of the four race groups answered the same questionnaire. Six participants were excluded from the study as they were non South African citizens. The study only wished to examine feelings and attitudes of South Africans in relation to their African immigrant counterparts. The total sample size was 345 and the distribution of the four race groups is presented in Table 1. The sample was characterised as being non random. The general distribution according to Census data (2001), estimates Black South Africans as the highest number in the country with 79.5%, Whites, 9.2%, Coloured, 8.9% and Indians with 2.5% of the total population. Thus the sample wished to reflect an adequate representation of each of the race groups. 36 Table 1: Sample characteristics in percentages Race Number Sample% Black 135 39.1 Coloured 68 19.7 White 72 20.9 Indian 70 20.3 Total 345 100% Participant?s ages ranged from 18 to 78 years, 51.6% (n=178) of the participants were male and 48.4% (n=167) were female. Demographic information was asked in order to determine whether the sample accurately represented the diversity of South Africa. The sample in effect was fairly represented by the South African Census data. Respondents participated voluntarily in the study. A few participants were reluctant to complete the questionnaire, this may have been out of suspicion and being afraid to reveal too much about African immigrants. Others mentioned that they had no time, yet the questionnaire would have taken between 8-10 minutes to complete. The length of the questionnaire may be seen as one of the limitations in obtaining participants. Research indicates that the longer the questionnaire the lower the response rate (Adams & Gayle, 1982). 4.4. Research Procedure 4.4.1. Pilot Study The procedure followed in this study consisted of an initial pilot administration of the questionnaire to 12 participants. This initial administration ensured that the questionnaire was accessible and comprehensible. To suit the South African context, words that initially appeared in the various scales such as Hispanics, Dutch 37 employees, were replaced with African immigrants. After having assessed the comprehensibility of the questionnaires, the actual questionnaires were administered. 4.4.2. This Study The researcher as well as the research assistant used similar methods in obtaining participants. Participation was obtained using door-to-door canvassing. In addition participants were obtained through snow-ball sampling. Participation entailed filling out a 6 page questionnaire, participants were invited by the researchers to complete the questionnaire. A brief overview explaining the study was given verbally by the researcher to potential participants. If the person agreed to participate at this stage, they were requested to read the information sheet carefully and thereafter fill out the consent form. The researcher requested the participant to detach and keep the information sheet for future reference. The informed consent form was thereafter collected separately from the questionnaire and kept in a sealed box (so that no individual responses could be identified) only the researcher and the researcher?s supervisor have access to these questionnaires (the researcher and supervisor are also unaware of individuals identities). Participants were thanked for their participation and informed that if they required further information into the study they may contact the researcher whose details were provided on the information sheet. 4.5. Demographics The demographics section sought participant?s age, gender, ethnic affiliation, home language, citizenship, level of education, and residential area. Ethnic affiliation consisted of four categories, Black, Coloured, White, and Indian (these categories 38 have been used as they are used in the national census statistics of South Africa, 2003). Level of education included Primary, Secondary, Matric, Post-School training and University/Technikon/College. These categories were formulated using the basic educational levels in South Africa also adapted from Statistics South Africa (1996). The term Matric is used predominantly in South Africa (indicates the examination that marks the end of schooling for a South African child). 4.6. Measures The questionnaire consisted of 6 pages; this was inclusive of the cover page. The questionnaire included a section measuring, nature of communication, social distance, prejudice, symbolic and realistic threats. Apart from the biographical questionnaire each of the scales were selected in an attempt to operationalise the various components of the ITT. There were pre-existing scales which were used in studies by Bogardus (1925; 1933) Stephan et al. (1999; 2000; 2002), and Spencer-Rodgers and McGovern (2001; 2002). Instructions were clearly stated on the information sheet of the questionnaire. Slight variations of the items were employed in the study (see pilot study section). The questionnaire was structured; this type of questionnaire is very useful in eliciting direct information from participants. 4.7. Instruments - Psychometrics of the scales 4.7.1. Nature of Communication Scale To evaluate the quality of the communication associated with African immigrants, the participants indicated how they felt when interacting with African immigrants; various emotions (from Stephan & Stephan, 1985) were mentioned. For example, participants were requested to indicate on a scale from 1 to 7 the quality of 39 communication when they have interacted with African immigrants. Bipolar traits were used, e.g. courteous - rude, pleasant - unpleasant etc. This scale measured the quality of contact. The eight positive emotions were, courteous, pleasant, meaningful, spontaneous, relaxed and constructive and the negative emotions were, rude, unpleasant, forced, uncomfortable and destructive. High scores indicated that NOC was more positive whereas low scores indicated that the NOC was characterised as being more negative 4.7.2. Social Distance Scale The scale selected was adapted from that of Bogardus (1925, 1933). The scale was used to evaluate to what extent South African?s would willingly allow African immigrants into their country. The scale comprised of five items. The situations in the scale increased step by step the social distance from ?close kinship by marriage? (closest form of contact) to ?citizenship in my country? (broader/global form of contact) (Curseu, et al., 2007). The scale had 5 items with response options ranging from 1 to 5. High scores indicated that there was a preference for South Africans to have immigrants close to them whereas low scores indicated that South Africans prefer greater distance. This scale has been used widely. A previous study conducted in South Africa at the University of Cape Town in 2000 reported an alpha coefficient of .87. This study used a similar version to the scale used in the current study (Finchilescu, Hunt, Mankge & Nunez, 2000, unpublished) (from Bogardus, 1923; 1933). A more recent example of this was a study completed at the University of the Witwatersrand in 2005 with an alpha coefficient of .92 (Laher & Finchilescu, 2005). Internationally, Curseu et al. (2007) used the scale in their study of prejudice toward 40 immigrant workers among Dutch employees. This study yielded an alpha coefficient of 0.84. 4.7.3. Prejudice Scale Spencer-Rodgers and McGovern?s (2002) prejudice scale was utilised. The scale requested participants to rate their feelings towards African immigrants on 6 items using a 7 point scale anchored by 1- Strongly agree, 7- Strongly disagree. Within the scale feelings can either be rated positive or negative in nature e.g. hostile or friendly. There were a total of 6 items. High scores indicated less prejudice. Low scores indicated greater prejudice. Variations of this scale have been used internationally to assess different types of groups. Internationally Spencer-Rodgers and McGovern?s (2002) study which aimed to determine prejudice among the ?culturally different? yielded a Cronbach of .90. 4.7.4. Inter-group Anxiety Scale Stephan and Stephan?s (1985, 1989) anxiety scale was used as a basis for the scale. Emotional states were asked in relation to how the participant will feel or has felt about their interactions with African immigrants. The response format was on a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 indicated Strongly agree and 7, Strongly disagree. High scores indicated that individuals felt more anxious. Low scores indicated less anxiety. The scale had 10 items. Cronbach alpha coefficients for the black sample in Stephan et al. (2002) reported alpha levels of .83 for the Black and for the White sample alpha was at .92. 41 4.7.5. Symbolic or Cultural Threats Three statements from Stephan and Stephan?s (1996a) symbolic or alternatively labelled cultural threats scale was used in the study. Statements were rated on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 indicates strongly agree and 5 strongly disagree. Low scores indicated that SA felt increasingly threatened by African immigrants. The scale had 3 items. On a similar scale, Stephan and Stephan (1996a) reported an alpha co-efficient of .86. Similarly Spencer-Rodgers and McGovern?s (2002) study yielded a Cronbach alpha of .88. High scores were indicative of feeling less threatened. 4.7.6. Realistic Threats Perceptions of realistic threats have been assessed by 4 items taken from Stephan and Stephan (1996a). The content for these items have been obtained from previous literature which has found these factors as most influential when describing South Africans perceptions of African Immigrants. These items have also been rated on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 indicates strongly agree and 5 strongly disagree. High scores were indicative of feeling less threatened. Low scores indicated that SA felt increasingly threatened by African immigrants. Stephan and Stephan (1992) reported Cronbach alpha at .86. Spencer-Rodgers and McGovern (2002) yielded alpha at .78. 4.7.7. Negative Stereotypes The stereotype valence scale was used to evaluate what respondents? beliefs about Stephan and Stephan (1993; 1996). Participants were requested to indicate the percentage of African immigrants who possess each of the 9 traits mentioned. Stereotypes were assessed using a measure developed by Stephan and Stephan (1993; 1996). Examples of the traits used in the scale were, ambitious, stick together, etc 42 (these traits have been selected from and modified from Stephan et al., 1996a). Response format was made up of a 10 point scale (from 0% to 100%) therefore making it at 10% intervals. Cronbach alpha coefficients for the Ethiopian sample in Stephan et al. (1998) was at .91. A high score indicated greater negative stereotyping. Cadinu (2002) used this scale in his experimental study of lower ranking professional groups and found an alpha coefficient of 0.86. 4.8. Ethical Considerations Ethical clearance for this study was obtained from the Ethics committee at the Faculty of Humanities, University of the Witwatersrand, prior to the commencement of the data collection (Protocol Number: MRES/2006/001). Ethics in research are most commonly defined as the expression of our values as a result, something that acts as a guide to upholding values of people, animals etc. this should be adhered to in any possible context. Dignity as well as the emotional, physical, psychological welfare of participants should stand and hold great importance. In the current research the principles of informed consent, confidentiality as well as anonymity were employed in the study. Respondents were informed that their participation in the study was completely voluntary. A brief overview explaining the study was given verbally by the researcher to potential participants. If the person agreed to participate at this stage, they were requested to read the information sheet carefully and thereafter fill out the consent form. The researcher requested the participant to detach and keep the information sheet for future reference. The informed consent form was thereafter collected separately from the questionnaire and kept in a sealed box (so that no individual responses could be identified) only the researcher and the researcher?s supervisor have access to these questionnaires (the researcher and supervisor are also 43 unaware of individuals identities). Participants were thanked for their participation and informed that if they required further information into the study they may contact the researcher whose details were provided on the information sheet. In addition to the verbal explanations by the researcher, participants were allowed to keep the information sheet so that they could refer to it in the event that they would like to obtain feedback on the study or have further questions. No identifying information was asked for; this ensured confidentiality and anonymity. Informed consent was obtained from all the respondents before filling out the questionnaire (Neuman, 2000). The consent form and the questionnaires were kept separately so that no individual responses could be identified or matched (Neuman, 2000). Only group trends were identified. The questionnaires were only made available to the researcher and the researcher?s supervisor. 4.9. Data Analysis Data analysis for the responses obtained was conducted using, correlations, analysis of variance (ANOVA), multiple regressions as well as path analyses. Descriptive statistics, Cronbach alpha coefficients were also calculated. 4.9.1. Correlations between variables In the current study correlations were used to examine the relationship of one variable to another (Howell, 1997). Strength and direction of variables were obtained by the correlations. Spearman?s correlations were used for the analysis. Pearson?s correlation coefficient was used to examine the associations between variables. Spearman?s 44 correlations were also used as a result of the moderate skewness in the distributions (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991). 4.9.2. Comparisons using analysis of variance (ANOVA) Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used in order to test for significant differences between the ethnic groups on the different scales. Before proceeding with the ANOVA a Levene?s test for homogeneity of variance was conducted, as this is one of the assumptions that had to be met in order for an ANOVA to be performed (Howell, 1997; Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991). 4.9.3. Relationships between variables using multiple regressions In the analysis of non-experimental data a multiple regression analysis is an important tool (Howell, 1997; Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991). A multiple regression is generally used to examine the relationship between more than one independent variable ? in the current study i.e., prejudice and social distance are the dependent variables (nature of communication, threats, inter-group anxiety and stereotypes are the independent/explanatory variables). As a result a multiple regression analysis was used. Tests for normality- to test whether the above scales were normally distributed, histograms, measures of central tendency and Kolmogorov-smirnoff tests for normality were conducted (Howell, 1997). Only on specific tests and where needed, an equality of variance check was performed. Parametric techniques can only be used, once 5 assumptions are met, these include, random, independent sampling, additive 45 means, and at least an interval scale for measurements on dependent variables (Howell, 1997). 4.9.4. Path Analysis Path analyses were conducted to test the model. In effect a path analysis is an extension of a regression analyses as it is used to test the fit of the correlation matrix. The path analysis allows for disaggregation of direct from indirect effects. Results for the above analyses are described in the chapter to follow. 46 Chapter 5: Results 5.1. Demographics Of the sample (n=345), 60.3% were English speaking, 17.7% spoke Afrikaans and 9.3% spoke Zulu, the outstanding 12.7% spoke one of the remaining official languages of South Africa. Educational levels ranged from individuals who had no form of education to individuals with university degrees. Approximately 2.2% of the sample did not indicate their education level. Participants rated their highest education level as: Primary School (2.8%), Secondary (10.3%), Matric (22.3%), post school (5.7%) and University (56.7%). All the participants were South African citizens. In terms of the socio-economic status the sample was extremely broad, individuals ranged from being highly skilled, to housewives and unemployed. Although a third of the sample was made up of students, the remainder of the sample consisted of a broad array of individuals from different levels in terms of socio economic status and educational background. 5.2. Contact All participants acknowledged that they had contact of some form with African immigrants. This contact took place in different places such as on the streets, at leisure activities, religious gatherings etc. Over 60% of Black and Coloured participants stated that they had friends who were African immigrants. Forty percent (40%) White and 34% Indian participants stated they had African immigrants as friends. 47 Table 2: Type and percentage of contact Type of contact Percentage of contact South Africans that knew African immigrants personally 86.4% South Africans that had African immigrants as friends 63.7% South Africans that had African immigrants as neighbours or in their neighbourhood 76.8% Contact that took place: On the streets 51.6% At Religious activities 20.6% At leisure activities 15.9% At work as customers 20.6% At work as employers 4.6% At work as employees 7.0% At work as co-workers 13.3% By marriage 0.9% *Individuals who did not have any form of contact with African immigrants were excluded from the sample (N=6) +above table indicates percentage of contact for all four races # Participants gave more then one response to the items above A large percentage of the sample (51.6%) stated that they had come into contact with African immigrants on the streets. Yet 86.4% stated they knew African immigrants personally and 63.7% had African immigrants as friends. Due to such a large number of responses in the category of on the streets, it could possibly be that individuals misunderstood, what on the streets meant. In the study, on the streets was meant in a casual manner and this was not meant to be in a personal or friendship capacity. It could be stated that individuals, who answered the questionnaire thought that on the streets meant a personal/friendship capacity. 48 Table 3: Means, standard deviations, ranges and Cronbach alphas Measure Mean SD Range Cronbach Alpha Coefficient N Prejudice 3.71 1.52 1-7 .90 344 Anxiety 4.01 1.23 1-7 .86 333 NOC 4.24 1.55 1-7 .87 336 Realistic threats 3.07 0.95 1-5 .75 343 Symbolic threats 3.27 0.96 1-5 .65 345 Negative stereotypes 56.97 0.88 1-10 .81 340 Social Distance 2.33 16.88 1-5 .89 345 *significant at the 5% level +responses for some of the items in the scale were missing All data was normally distributed (Howell, 1997). Histograms, measures of centrality and Kolmogorov-Smirnoff tests were conducted. 5.3. Relationships between variables Correlations were computed to check the strength and direction of the linear relationship between two variables. The table described the relationships between the variables. The statistical tests used in the analyses assume a multivariate normal distribution. Outliers were removed from the data. 49 Table 4: Correlations between all the variables Nature of Communication Social Distance Prejudice Anxiety Symbolic Threats Realistic Threats Stereotypes Nature of Communication 1.00 0.470 0.743 0.672 0.407 0.494 -0.572 Social Distance 0.470 1.00 0.593 -0.533 0.548 0.564 -0.492 Prejudice 0.743 0.593 1.00 -0.745 0.505 0.574 -0.567 Anxiety -0.672 -0.533 -0.745 1.00 -0.543 -0.531 0.601 Symbolic Threats 0.407 0.548 0.505 -0.543 1.00 0.673 -0.579 Realistic Threats 0.494 0.564 0.574 -0.531 0.673 1.00 -0.622 Stereotypes -0.572 -0.492 -0.567 0.601 -0.579 -0.622 1.00 50 5.3.1. Hypothesis 1: There is a relationship between Social Distance and Nature of communication, Prejudice, Anxiety, Symbolic threats, Realistic threats and Stereotypes There is a significant positive relationship between social distance and NOC (r=.47, p<.05), this signifies that individuals who scored high on the social distance variable also scored high on nature of communication i.e. individuals who would allow African immigrants as their neighbours or citizens in their country have more positive communication with immigrants. In addition there is also a positive relationship between social distance and prejudice (r= .59, p<.05). This indicated that individuals who are comfortable with African immigrants around them will be less prejudiced. A significant relationship also existed between social distance and symbolic threats can also be seen in table (r=.54, p<.05). In addition a significant relationship exists between social distance and realistic threats (r=.56, p<.05). This signifies that the South Africans who are comfortable with African immigrants around them are less likely to feel symbolically or realistically threatened by them. A significant negative relationship exists between social distance and anxiety (r= -.53, p<.05). This indicates that individuals who feel more anxious when interacting with African immigrants wish to have more distance from African immigrants. A significant negative relationships also exist between social distance and stereotypes (r= -.49, p<.05). This indicates that those who have more negative stereotypes toward African immigrants wish to have more distance between them. 51 5.3.2. Hypothesis 2: There is a relationship between Prejudice and Nature of communication, Anxiety, Symbolic threats, Realistic threats and Stereotypes The correlation coefficient measures the degree to which two variables correlate oppositely (negative correlation) or together (positive correlation). There is a significant positive relationship between prejudice and NOC (r=.74, p<.05), this indicates that individuals who score high on prejudice score also high on NOC. Prejudice and symbolic threats and realistic threats share a similar pattern to Social distance (r=.50, p<.05); (r=.57, p<.05) respectively. There is a strong positive relationship between prejudice and threats, indicating that the lower the prejudice the individual reports the less likely s/he would feel symbolically or realistically threatened by African immigrants. There is a significant negative relationship between prejudice and anxiety (r= -.74, p<.05). This demonstrates that the greater the prejudice, the higher the levels of anxiety about interacting with African immigrants. Prejudice and stereotypes also display a similar pattern (r= -.56, p<.05), the higher the levels of prejudice the more likely the person is to stereotype African immigrants negatively. 5.4. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) Multivariate analysis was computed. The Box M test for homogeneity of the covariance matrix indicated that this assumption was violated (x2 (84) =185.89; p<.000). Following this individual Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) tests were conducted on the variables. 52 These 1-way ANOVA were conducted to determine whether the four race groups differed on the variables. 5.5. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Table 5: Means for the ethnic groups on all the summary indices Scale Black African Coloured White Indian Anova Result NOC M= 26.91 SD=9.18 N=135 M=23.89 SD=10.38 N=68 M=25.18 SD=8.67 N=72 M=23.71 SD=8.98 N=70 F(3,341)=2.55 P=.058 Prejudice M=23.50 SD=10.13 N=135 M=21.69 SD=9.53 N=68 M=22.65 SD=8.05 N=72 M=21.92 SD=7.80 N=70 F(3,341)=.783 P=.474 Anxiety M=39.40 SD=11.59 N=135 M=41.49 SD=14.14 N=68 M=40.38 SD=12.28 N=72 M=39.95 SD=11.83 N=70 F(3,341)=.371 P=.784 Symbolic Threats M=23.34 SD=6.92 N=135 M=23.31 SD=6.99 N=68 M=23.55 SD=6.69 N=72 M=23.27 SD=6.09 N=70 F(3,341)=2.16 P=.327 Realistic Threats M=21.56 SD=6.26 N=135 M=21.05 SD=6.47 N=68 M=22.47 SD=6.02 N=72 M=20.55 SD=5.66 N=70 F(3,341)=1.10 P=.096 Stereotypes M=511.68 SD=145.69 N=135 M=531.48 SD=179.66 N=68 M=473.97 SD=200.79 N=72 M=468.75 SD=159.87 N=70 F(3,341)=2.39 P=.086 For all the scales mentioned above, it was tested that there was homogeneity of variance. An alpha level of .05 was used for all statistical tests. A one-way analysis of 53 variance (ANOVA) was calculated for race across each of the scales. No significant difference existed for the scales, i.e. prejudice F(3,341)=.783, p > .05; anxiety F(3,341)=.371, p > .05; symbolic threats F(3,341)=2.16 , p > .05; realistic threats F(3,341)=1.10, p > .05 and stereotypes F(3,341)=2.39, p > .05, i.e. race groups did not differ in their scores on the respective scales. Thus the ITT model was carried out on the entire sample. 5.6. Multiple linear regression analysis to determine predictors of Prejudice Multiple Linear Regression analyses were conducted to determine the predictive utility for each of the different scales (i.e. analyses on the nature of communication, realistic threats, symbolic threats, inter-group anxiety and stereotypes scales were computed in order to examine whether these scales predicted prejudice by South Africans toward African Immigrants). 54 5.6.1. Does nature of communication, realistic threats, symbolic threats, inter-group anxiety and stereotypes predict affective prejudicial attitudes by South Africans toward African Immigrants? Table 6: Summary of multiple regression analysis with prejudice as a criterion variable Standardised Variable Beta ? t P N=345 Intercept 18.31 Nature of communication 0.400 0.394 9.240 0.000 Intergroup Anxiety -0.381 -0.280 -8.160 0.000 Symbolic threats 0.037 0.338 0.809 0.419 Realistic threats 0.156 1.490 3.420 0.001 Neg. Stereotypes 0.015 0.000 0.164 0.870 R2 = .68, F(5,339)= 145.94 p<.0000 The multiple regression analyses reveal partial coefficients for symbolic threats and negative stereotypes that are not significant, whereas they were strong and clearly significant in the 0 order correlation matrix. This strongly suggests multi-colinearity. From the regression table it can be seen that 68% of the variance of prejudice was explained by the constructs in the equation. The significance of the t statistics associated with the ? indicated that these variables (i.e. nature of communication, inter-group anxiety and realistic threats) explained prejudice. Symbolic threats and stereotypes were not significant. 55 5.7. Multiple regression analysis to determine predictors of Social distance Multiple Linear Regression analyses were conducted to determine the predictive utility for each of the different scales (i.e. analyses on the nature of communication, realistic threats, symbolic threats, inter-group anxiety and stereotypes scales were computed in order to examine whether these scales predicted social distance by South Africans toward African Immigrants). 5.7.1. Does nature of communication, realistic threats, symbolic threats, inter-group anxiety and stereotypes predict social distance by South Africans toward African Immigrants? Table 7: Summary of multiple regression analysis with Social Distance as the criterion variable Standardised Variable Beta ? t p N=345 Intercept 6.06 Nature of communication .097 0.066 1.961 0.051 Intergroup Anxiety -.169 -0.83 -3.051 0.002 Symbolic threats .188 1.204 3.625 0.000 Realistic threats .229 1.329 3.832 0.000 Neg. Stereotypes -.080 -0.001 -0.692 0.489 R2 = .42, F(5,339)=50.348 p<.0000 56 Symbolic threats, realistic threats and anxiety were significant and predicted 42% of the variance of social distance. The significance of the t statistics associated with the ? indicated that these variables (i.e. inter-group anxiety, symbolic threats and realistic threats) explained Social Distance. Nature of communication and stereotypes were not significant. 5.8. Path Analysis - Prejudice Path analysis was performed to test the theoretical model. The adapted model by Curseu et al. (2007) was utilised (see figure 2). All analyses used the maximum likelihood method of parameter estimation, and all analyses were performed on the variance-covariance matrix. The descriptive statistics and correlations were computed prior to the path analysis. Table 8: Models for path diagram Model Chi-square Df p NFI NNFI CFI Null model 1233.6 15 <0.0001 Initial model 1.257 2 0.533 0.999 1.005 1.000 Revised model 1.257 3 0.739 0.999 1.007 1.000 Goodness of fit indices for the various models are presented in Table 8. The chi- square statistic included in the table provided a test of the null hypothesis that the reproduced covariance matrix has the specified model structure, i.e. that the model ?fits the data.? Table 8 also provides three additional goodness of fit indices: the normed fit index, or NFI (Bentler & Bonett, 1980), the non-normed fit index, or NNFI (Bentler & Bonett, 57 1980), and the comparative fit index, or CFI (Bentler, 1989). The NFI ranges in value from 0 to 1, where 0 represents the goodness of fit associated with a ?null? model (one specifying that all variables are uncorrelated), and 1 represents the goodness of fit associated with a ?saturated? model (a model with 0 degrees of freedom that perfectly reproduces the original covariance matrix). The NNFI and CFI are variations on the NFI that have been shown to be less biased in small samples (Bentler, 1989). Values on the NFI, NNFI and CFI over 0.9 indicate an acceptable fit between model and data. The initial model of Table 8 is this study?s theoretical model. Estimation of this model revealed a non-significant model chi-square value, x2 (df=2,n=345) =1.257, p=0.533. Values on all the fit indices showed a good fit, exceeding 0.9. Investigating the path coefficients showed that the coefficient from negative stereotypes to prejudice is relatively small in size (0.0002) and has a non- significant t value (0.005). The Wald test estimates that the model chi-square would change by 0 if the path was deleted, so that it may be safely removed from the model without hurting the model?s overall fit. The resulting model, called the ?revised? model, was then re-estimated. The goodness-of-fit indices for the revised model are also presented in Table 8. These fit indices did not change considerably, indicating that the more parsimonious model is as good a fit as the more complex model. Path coefficients for the revised model are presented in Figure 3. All path coefficients were significant at p 0.05 or lower. The analyses revealed R2 values of 0.68 for prejudice and 0.56 for inter-group anxiety. This model is accepted as the final model. 58 Figure 3: Path diagram- Prejudice Nature of communication Realistic Threats Symbolic Threats Negative Stereotypes Intergroup Anxiety Prejudice 0.173 -0.385 -0.460 0.399 -0.240 0.664 0.200 0.494 0.673 -.579 -.622 -.572 0.407 -.492 59 In Figure 3 inter-group anxiety is the mediator variable and 66% of its variance is explained by negative stereotypes, symbolic threats, realistic threats and nature of communication. Nature of communication has a direct link to prejudice. The direct link from nature of communication to prejudice is stronger then the mediated link with intergroup anxiety. Nature of communication impacts directly on prejudice such that the higher the nature of communication score, the more likely there is to be a high score on prejudice. This indicates that if the nature of communication is negative, prejudice is likely to result. This route is stronger then through which it impacts on anxiety which is associated with prejudice. Realistic threats have a direct positive effect on prejudice, however this is not mediated by anxiety. This indicated that the greater the feelings of being realistically threatened, the greater the prejudice. Symbolic threats and negative stereotypes only affect prejudice through the mediation of inter-group anxiety. Realistic and symbolic threats were greater when the nature of communication was perceived to be negative. Such findings concur with previous studies based on the ITT by Stephan and Stephan (1984, 1989b). This implies that Stephan and Stephan (1984, 1989b) found these exact patterns of direct and indirect links. 5.9. Path Analysis ? Social Distance Path analysis was performed to test the theorectial model presented in Figure 4. The analysis used the maximum likelihood method of parameter esimation. All the analyses were performed on the variance-covariance matrix. Descriptive statistics and correlations were computed prior to the path analysis. 60 Table 9: Models for path diagram-Social Distance Model Chi-square Df p NFI NNFI CFI Null Model 1321.2 13 <0.000 Initial Model 1.398 2 0.579 0.999 1.007 1.000 Revised Model 1.398 3 0.791 0.999 1.009 1.000 Goodness of fit indices are presented above (Table 9). Chi-squared statistics, provided a test for the null hypothesis. The reproduced covariance matrix had the specified model structure , i.e. the model ?fits the data?. Three additional goodness of fit indices are provided in table 9, these include: the Normed Fit Index (NFI) (Bentler & Bonett, 1980), Non-Normed fit index (NNFI) and the Comparitive Fit Index (CFI) (Bentler, 1989). The NFI ranges in value from 0 to 1, where 0 represents the goodness of fit associated with a ?null? model (one specifying that all variables are uncorrelated), and 1 represents the goodness of fit associated with a ?saturated? model (a model with 0 degrees of freedom that adequately reproduces the original covariance matrix). The NNFI and CFI are variations on the NFI that have been shown to be less biased in small samples (Bentler, 1989). Values on the NFI, NNFI and CFI over 0.9 indicate an acceptable fit between model and data. Estimation of this model revealed a non-significant model chi-square value, x2 (df=2,n=345) =1.398, p=0.579. Values on all the fit indices showed a good fit, exceeding 0.9. Investigating the path coefficients showed that the coefficient from realistic threats to inter-group anxiety is relatively small in size (0.0001) and has a non-significant t value (0.005). The Wald test estimates that the model chi-square would change by 0 if the path was deleted, so that it may be safely removed from the 61 model without hurting the model?s overall fit. The resulting model, called the?revised? model, was then re-estimated. The goodness-of-fit indices for the revised model are also presented in Table 9. These fit indices did not change considerably, indicating that the more parsimonious model is as good a fit as the more complex model. Path coefficients for the revised model are presented in Figure 4. All path coefficients were significant at p 0.05 or lower. The analyses revealed R2 values of 0.42 for Social Distance and 0.56 for inter-group anxiety. This model is accepted as the final model. In Figure 4 intergroup anxiety is the mediator variable and 42% of the variance was explained by negative stereotypes, symbolic threats, realistic threats and nature of communication. The effect of negative stereotypes on social distance is mediated by intergroup anxiety. Negative stereotypes have a direct positive effect on social distance. The direct link from negative stereotypes is stronger then the mediated link by inter-group anxiety. The variables in the ITT model are strongly inter-correlated. The strongest association in the model is between nature of communication and intergroup anxiety. The standardised path coefficient is around 0.67. 62 Figure 4: Path Diagram-Social Distance Nature of communication Realistic Threats Symbolic Threats Negative Stereotypes Intergroup Anxiety Social Distance .672 -0.385 -0.543 0.646 0.601 0.494 0.673 -.622 0.456 -0.531 -.492 -0.572 0.407 -.579 63 The analysis showed that negatively stereotyping plays a significant role in attitudes between South Africans and African immigrants. This indicated that the greater the negative stereotyping, the greater the intergroup anxiety toward African immigrants. Findings indicate that the direct link between negative stereotypes and social distance is stronger than the link mediated by anxiety. Symbolic threats, realistic threats and nature of communication are mediated by anxiety. These findings concur with previous studies based on the ITT by Stephan and Stephan (1984, 1989b). The data reported here are correlational. As the data reported here is based on correlations, it must be understood that no conclusion can be made with regard to causality. The results presented here provide plausibility of a set of causal variables, and provides an indication of whether the assumptions are null. Unquestionably the results presented in the path analysis are reciprocal. For example we argue that stereotypes, predict prejudice (As does, Devine, 1989). In other studies, the opposite is argued (Boniecki & Brown, 1998). They argue that prejudice resulted in stereotypes. 5.10. Conclusion The chapter has provided the relevant statistical results that were undertaken in the study, including the description of the sample and the instruments used as well as there reliability coefficients. A report on the analysis was made to establish what factors had influence over others. The path analysis showed substantial results in terms of the variance it had in terms of explaining the data. Chapter 6 will provide a comprehensive discussion to the findings in Chapter 5. 64 Chapter 6: Discussion The chapter addresses the substantial results regarding the statistics. The chapter will then proceed to discuss and elaborate upon the results in Chapter 5. As in previous studies (Spencer-Rodgers & McGovern 2001, 2002; Stephan, et al., 1999, 1998), the current study sought to investigate whether these variables (namely nature of communication, realistic threats, symbolic threats, inter-group anxiety and negative stereotypes) predicted prejudice and social distance toward African immigrants. Scholarly articles, media information and research on immigration in South Africa have pointed to the negative responses toward African immigrants living in the country. From the perceived decrease of employment as a result of immigrants entering South Africa, to the health and HIV/Aids epidemic, to negative media representations of African immigrants. It can be seen that overwhelmingly African immigrants have been undermined and negatively appraised in South African society. Apart from the negative appraisals, African immigrants have been subject to violence. This violence has resulted in the death of many immigrants to date. This study attempted to employ the Integrated Threat Theory to understand the antagonism toward African immigrants. The ITT is a well documented and utilised theory that has been used to explain prejudice in the international scene (Corenblum & Stephan, 2001; Stephan et al., 1999; 2001). The current study wished to amplify on this type of understanding. The recent xenophobic attacks have further prompted the need for an understanding into the negative responses toward African Immigrants. 65 Findings indicated that, the effect of nature of communication is directly linked to prejudice. This direct link is stronger then the mediated link with inter-group anxiety. If the nature of communication was perceived to be negative then prejudice would be greater. For example in the case of South Africa, host nationals in recent times (May, 2008, The Star) have indicated that African immigrants were unpleasant and destructive in their dealings or communication with South Africans. As a consequence, this type on negative communication prompted feelings of prejudice. As a result, findings suggest that if nature of communication is unfavourable, this denotes an increase in prejudice. Realistic threats has a direct positive effect on prejudice, this indicted that if an individual felt realistically threatened by an out-group, s/he would feel greater prejudice toward this out-group. Much of the 2008 xenophobic attacks in South Africa point to a similar understanding. As the fear that African immigrants may take away, employment, homes, and other resources led South Africans to believe that African immigrants are a threat and as a result, such threat has lead to prejudice and violence. This result is consistent with other theories that argue that threats cause prejudice (Stephan, 2005). These theories include, symbolic racism (Sears, 1988), anxiety/uncertainty management theory (Gudykunst, 1995), and modern racism (McConahay, 1986). In addition, this result concurs with that of Maio, Esses and Bell (1994) and Esses et al. (1998; 2001) that postulate that economic threats, value differences and negative traits cause prejudice. These results concur with other studies that contend that realistic threats are related to prejudice (LeVine & Campbell, 1972). 66 Negative stereotypes have a direct positive effect on intergroup anxiety. Thus, if an individual holds negative stereotypes toward African immigrants, s/he is likely to feel increasingly anxious when coming into contact with African immigrants. Negative stereotypes and prejudice had an influence on feelings of anxiety on the part of South Africans toward African immigrants. For example, Williams, Gouws, Lurie and Crush (2002), have indicated that South Africans, lack trust in African immigrants as it is believed that they (African immigrants) pose a health threat to South Africa and thus stereotype or label African immigrants as being ?untrustworthy?. Studies of Stephan et al. (1998) have attested to this, as intergroup anxiety and negative stereotypes have generally been seen as predictors of prejudice more then variables such as realistic and symbolic threats. Symbolic threats are mediated through anxiety and lead to prejudice. Previous studies such as Esses et al. (1993) supported results that indicate that symbolic threats are an important aspect in the explanation of negative attitudes toward immigrants. In the current context, South Africans who feel that their values and heritage is being taken over by African immigrants there is likelihood that they would have feelings of anxiety toward African immigrants. As a result such anxiety may lead to prejudice and violence. As predicted by the model, the study found that feelings of threat play a significant role in attitudes of South Africans toward African immigrants. The results of the best fitting model, indicated that all the variables on the path model (for prejudice), predicted prejudice toward African immigrants, namely realistic threats, nature of communication and negative stereotypes, except that symbolic threats and stereotypes were mediated by anxiety. 67 The multiple linear regression results indicated that nature of communication, inter- group anxiety, symbolic threats, realistic threats and stereotypes predicted prejudice. This result was postulated in previous studies by Spencer-Rodgers & McGovern (2002). A significant positive relationship between prejudice and nature of communication existed; this indicated that if an interaction is characterized as being negative, prejudice would increase. Increased prejudice, results in increased rejection of African immigrants. Individuals who did not feel threatened by African immigrants were less prejudicial. It was demonstrated that the greater the anxiety, the higher the levels of prejudice toward African immigrants. The greater the tendency to stereotype negatively, the greater the propensity to be prejudicial. In recent days South Africa has witnessed the effect that negative stereotypes has on the perceptions South Africans have toward African immigrants. Media reports stated that South Africans have attacked African immigrants under the stereotypic belief that they have taken jobs away from South Africans as well as housing. Such prejudicial attitudes as a result have led to serious violent attacks against African immigrants. These results also speak to the findings in the path analysis as described above. The variables in the ITT model for social distance are strongly inter-correlated. The strongest association in the model was between nature of communication and prejudice. This indicated that if nature of communication is characterised as unfavourable the greater the feelings of social distance. In South Africa, due to the negative interactions that South Africans have claimed to have with African immigrants, this had resulted in a need for greater social distance from African immigrants. The May 2008 events witnessed the forced removal of African 68 immigrants from their places of residence and economic sectors, this could be indicative of the need for South Africans to have greater physical distance away from immigrants. The analysis indicated that negatively stereotyping African immigrants plays a significant role in attitudes between South Africans and African immigrants. In the South African context, African immigrants were perceived to be ?greedy? and stealing the jobs of South Africans (Danso & McDonald, 2000). These stereotypes manifest negatively and resulted in South Africans, needing greater distance from African immigrants. Findings indicate that the direct link between negative stereotypes and social distance is stronger than the link mediated by anxiety. While symbolic threats, realistic threats and nature of communication are mediated by anxiety. Such findings concur with previous studies based on the ITT by Stephan and Stephan (1984, 1989b). Multiple linear regression results indicated that, symbolic threats, realistic threats, nature of communication and negative stereotypes are mediated by anxiety. The effect of negative stereotypes on social distance was mediated by intergroup anxiety. Negative stereotypes had a direct positive effect on social distance. These negative stereotypes may be related to the cognitive appraisals that lead to feelings of threat (Stephan et al., 1999). As indicated in the current research, South Africans expect or perceive their outcomes to be negative during their social interactions with African immigrants. For example, if South Africans expect immigrants to be aggressive, arrogant or insincere, they will anticipate interactions to be negative and unpleasant. 69 Previous studies have examined the relationship that race has on inter-group relations (Stephan et al., 2005). These studies have shown that Black South Africans in particular, treated African immigrants with greater antagonism in comparison to the other race groups (SAMP, 1999). Yet in the current study, there was no significant difference between race for any of the scales - nature of communication, social distance, anxiety, symbolic threats, realistic threats and negative stereotypes. This finding may be in contradiction with other research as the sample may not have been as characteristic of the South African population. The 2008 xenophobic attacks have in contrary to the findings of the current study been perpetrated by Black South Africans. An important aspect to note is that, results obtained are correlational. The predictors, namely nature of communication, realistic threats, symbolic threats, inter-group anxiety and stereotypes are not necessarily more important in causing prejudice, instead the opposite may be true. Causality may run in both directions (Stephan et al., 1999). To establish uni-causality, longitudinal data on intergroup relations or laboratory studies could be undertaken. Maio et al. (1994), manipulated the relevance of the values on stereotypes with a fictitious immigrant group. This affected the participants? and their attitudes toward the fictitious immigrant group. As a result, the study showed uni-causality (i.e. negative stereotypes caused prejudice). Essess, Jackson and Nolan, (1996), proved a non-causal link in their study. Esses et al. (1996) manipulated threat by presenting individuals with newspaper editorials that differed in its degree to which immigrants were perceived to pose economic threats. It was found that such perceived threats led to greater negative attitudes toward immigrants. The current study did not ascertain uni-causality, instead the results are correlational. 70 Furthermore, the predictor variables in the study were not initially conceptualised as threats, yet it appears as though all of the variables may be thought of as threats, as this assists in the understanding of the data obtained in this study. On a macro-level the ITT has been successful in predicting attitudes toward many different groups of people, including the elderly, cancer patients, the poor and minority groups (Stephan et al, 1998, 2000; Stephan, Stephan & Gudykunst, 1999; Berrenberg et al, 2002). Attitudes toward immigrants has also been understood in studies worldwide (Bizman & Yinon, 2001; Stephan et al., 1999b) The findings in the current research provide considerable support for the ITT of prejudice in that it indicated that the four variables, namely realistic threats, symbolic threats, inter-group anxiety and negative stereotypes accounted for considerable support for the ITT in explaining negative attitudes toward African immigrants. Nature of communication also predicted prejudice toward African immigrants. Even though the ITT has been critiqued for it?s over reliance on using the four variables as its basis for understanding prejudice. Much empirical evidence suggests that the theory is adequate (Stephan, et al., 1998; 1999). Although the ITT provides a viable framework for understanding these relationships, a more fully integrated model could address additional measures and provide a greater understanding of the issues. In conclusion, negative attitudes toward immigrants is a pertinent issue to understand, yet these variables; nature of communication, realistic threats, symbolic threats, inter- group anxiety and stereotypes are not necessarily the only variables that predict prejudice toward all groups. The degree to which these variables can explain prejudice, is dependent on the population as well as possible factors that may pre- dispose them to have feelings of prejudice. 71 6.1. Implications and Recommendations for future research The study attempted to be of practical value. Apart from its contribution to theory, it seeks to assist in the understanding of the antagonism toward African immigrants. Findings of the study may be used by government, psychologists, social workers, and other stakeholders who take an interest in decreasing prejudice toward African immigrants and immigrants in general. These findings may be used to address the particular threats that groups are perceived to pose as well as foster positive inter- group relations (Stephan et al. 1998). From the empirical data reported here, the role that negative stereotypes and symbolic threats play, has indicated that such factors influence the prejudice toward African immigrants. In order to reduce such prejudice a focus could be on inter-group relationships training that specifically focuses on the reduction of symbolic threats. Diversity training (Rossett & Bickman, 1994; Robertson, Kulik & Pepper, 2001) has been implemented in this regard. Diversity training aims to reduce information processing biases that are associated with stereotypes (e.g. over generalisation), this method then focuses on using decatergorisation and recatergorisation (this helps individuals recognise the similarities they have with out-groups), this as a result improves inter-group relationships. Prejudice may be reduced with the help of national policies based on increasing inter- group contact, as this will be important for the future of the country. Governments may implement campaigns that demonstrate the similarities that African immigrants have with South Africans. A portrayal and understanding of such information to the South African public may decrease the levels of fear, threats, anxiety and may also witness an increase of positive contact between the two groups. In their study, Roccas 72 and Schwartz (1993) have shown that if an in-group believes that similarities exist with an out-group this may improve the contact with the group. Additional measures to reduce hostility and increase tolerance at an inter-group level have been documented (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher & Wetherell, 1987). One of the ways as suggested by Cushner & Landis (1996) was to educate the host nation on the culture and lifestyle of immigrants. This type of increased awareness about the so- called ?other? may reduce inter-group anxiety (Randolph, Landis & Tzeng, 1997; Stephan & Stephan, 1984; 1985). Immigrants in turn may also play a part in educating the people they interact with (Gudykunst, 1988; Holt, 1995). This may be done in the form of conversing about reasons for migrating to South Africa as well as making the other aware that they are not here to threaten the resources that South Africa has to offer. The ITT of prejudice could as a consequence be noted as an adequate theory in explaining and predicting prejudice toward African immigrants in the current context. Yet caution must be held, the theory is not conclusive, additional theories may be used to enhance the predictability of the outcomes. A larger sample representativeness would have significantly increased the generalisibility of the study. To increase the response rates, a shorter questionnaire could be issued. If the study is to obtain a greater diversity of people in South Africa, it is suggested that questionnaires be translated into at least 3 of the 4 most widely spoken languages in South Africa. Some of the scales used in the study such as the prejudice or nature of communication scale may also be seen to be culturally biased, as certain individuals may be introverted and this may be mis-interpreted as being, unfriendly, cold etc. As a result culture could be an influential factor which is not warranted for in the scales. Despite 73 high reliability obtained on the scales in this study. It is suggested that a complete study on the reliability and validity of each of the scales can be a recommendation for future research endeavours. Qualitative studies may also add great value to the field, as most studies thus far have leaned toward quantitative measures. Qualitative methods will provide a deeper understanding of the internal emotions that individuals hold. As a result this could create a deeper understanding of the material. 74 6.2. Limitations of the study Among the limitations for the study, was the type of sample and its associated characteristics. The sample was in no way fully representative of the South African population. To provide increased validity of the ITT, a larger sample is necessary. Due to the culture laden and increased diversity that South Africa offers, this study may also be conducted in areas with poor service delivery or high unemployment rates. For future researchers, additional indirect or implication measures of scales should be used. This will create nuance in understanding issues relating to prejudice. Methodological limitations also abound in the current research. It should be noted that the study relied on self-report measures, which may be self-presentational and reactive (Tausch et al., 2007). This could possibly lead individuals to answer the questionnaire with an aim to preserve their positive self-image. Thus the truth may not emerge, if the individual believes that the questionnaire is threatening to ones self. 75 6.3. Conclusion The study built on and contributed to work into inter-group relations, in specific relations towards African immigrants. Studies in this area have been largely focused in the international scene. This study attempted to understand this relationship (between South Africans and African Immigrants). As such the study provided an understanding of the antagonism South Africans have toward African immigrants as well as reasons behind hostility and negative attitudes toward African immigrants. Furthermore, it provided an understanding based on the Integrated Threat Theory. ?The rest is silence? -William Shakespeare (1564-1616) in Collins, 1970 Although we may investigate and examine the perceptions thoughts and feelings of one group toward another. We will never truly ascertain the underpinnings in thought that promote negative attitudes and feelings. After having immersed oneself into such research, in an attempt to understand such feelings and attitudes, one still needs to acknowledge that much is unknown. For now, ?the rest is silence?. 76 REFERENCE LIST Abdool Karim, Q., Abdool Karim, S., Singh, B., Short, R. & Ngxongo, S. (1992). Seroprevalence of HIV infection in Rural South Africa, AIDS 6, 12, p. 535- 539. Aboud, F. E. & Levy, S. R. (1999). Reducing racial prejudice, discrimination, and stereotyping: Translating research into programs. Journal of Social Issues, 5, 621-803. Adams, L.L.M., & Gale, D. (1982). Solving the Quandary Between Questionnaire Length and Response Rate in Educational Research. Research in Higher Education, 17, 237-240. Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley. Allport, G. W. (1958). The nature of prejudice. New York: Doubleday. American Psychological Association (2001). Publication Manual. 5th Edition. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Ashmore, R. D. (1970). Prejudice: Causes & Cures. Social Psychology: Social Influence, Attitude Change, Group Processes and Prejudice. Addison-Wesley. British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). Zimbabwean Immigrants. Retrieved Septenber, 28, 2007, Anews.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6975882.stm Belvedere, F. (2003). National Refugee Baseline Survey: Final Report. Johannesburg: Community Agency for Social Enquiry (CASE), Japan International Cooperation, and United Nations High Commissioner of Refugees. 77 Benjamin, C. & Chilwane, L. (2008). Fear of foreigners not ?the cause of violence?. Business Day, May 16. Bentler, P. M. (1989). EQS: Structural equation program manual. Los Angeles: BMDP Statistical Software Bentler, P. M. & Bonett, Douglas G. (1980) Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606. Berry, J. W. (1990a). The role of psychology in ethnic studies. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 22, 8-21. Berry, J. W. (2001). A psychology of immigration. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 615- 631. Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H. & Dasen, P. R. (1992). Cross cultural psychology: Research and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Berry, J. W. & Kalin, R. (2000). Multicultural policy and social psychology: The Canadian experience. In S. Renshon & J. Duckitt (Eds.). Political psychology in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 263-284). New York: Macmillan. Berrenberg, J. L., Finlay, K. A., Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. (2002). Prejudice Toward People with Cancer or Aids: Applying the Integrated Threat Model. Journal of Applied Biobehavioural Research, 7, 75-86. 78 Bizman, A., & Yinon, Y. (2001). Inter-group and interpersonal threats as determinants of prejudice: The moderating role of in-group identification. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 23, 191-196. Blair, I. V., Park, B., & Bachelor, J. (2003). Understanding Intergroup Anxiety: Are some people more anxious than other?. Group processes and inter-group relations, 6, 151-169. Bogardus, E. S. (1925). Measuring Social Distance. Journal of Applied Sociology, 9, 299-308. Bogardus, E. S. (1933). A Social Distance Scale. Sociology and Social Research, 3, 265-271. British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) (n.d.) Zimbabwean Immigrants. Retrieved September, 28, 2007, from http://Anews.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia- pacific/6975882.stm Britt, T.W., Boniecki, K.A., Vescio, T. K., Biernat, M. R., & Brown, L. M. (1996). Intergroup anxiety: A person X situation approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1177-1188. Burton, J. W. (1986). The procedures of conflict resolution. In E. E. Azar & R. W. Burton (Eds.), International conflict resolution: Theory and Practice (pp. 92- 116). Boulder, CO: Lynne Reiner Publishers. Buthelezi, M. (1994). Speech by Minister of Home Affairs, Dr. Mangosuthu Buthelezi on the Second Reading of the Immigration Bill, National Assembly, May 17. 79 Cadinu, M. & Reggiori, C. (2002). Discrimination of a low-status out-group: The role of in-group threat, European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 501-515. Carael, M., Cleland, J., Deheneffe, B., Ferry, B., & Ingham, R. (1995). Sexual Behaviour in Developing Countries: Implications for HIV Control. AIDS 9, 1171-1175. Carswell, J., Lloyd, G., & Howells, J. (1989). Prevalence of HIV-1 in East African Lorry Drivers. AIDS 3, 759-761. Chavez, L. (2001). Covering Immigration: Popular Images and the Politics of the Nation. Berkeley: University of California Press. Coenders, M., Lubbers, M., & Scheepers, P. (2003a). Majorities? attitudes towards minorities in (former) candidate countries of the European Social Survey 2002-2003. Report for the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. Collins, B. E. (1970). Social Psychology. Social influence, attitude change, group processes, and prejudice. Canada: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Corenblum, B., & Stephan, W. G. (2001), White Fears and Native Apprehensions: An Integrated Threat Theory Approach to Inter-group Attitudes. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 33, 251-268. Coser, L. (1956). The functions of social conflict. New York: Free Press. 80 Crush, J. (1997). Covert operations: Clandestine migration temporary work and immigration policy in South Africa, SAMP, Migration Policy Series, No 1. Cape Town: SAMP. Crush, J. (1998). Beyond Control: Immigration and Human Rights in a Democratic South Africa. Cape Town: Idasa and Queen's University, Canada. Crush, J. (2001). South Africa dogged by racism and xenophobia. Southern African Migration Project, July. Retrieved July, 15, 2007 from http://www.queen su.ca/samp/migrationresources/xenophobia/articles/dogged.htm Crush, J. (Ed.). (2001). Immigration, Xenophobia and Human Rights in South Africa. Migration Policy Series, No. 22. Cape Town: Idasa and Queen's University, Canada. Crush, J. & Williams, V. (2003). Criminal tendencies: Immigrants and illegality in South Africa. Migration Policy Brief No. 10. Cape Town: SAMP. Crush, J. & Pendleton, W. (2004). Regionalizing Xenophobia? Citizen Attitudes to Immigration and Refugee Policy in Southern Africa. Migration Policy Series, No. 30. Cape Town: Idasa and Queen's University, Canada. Crush, J., Jeeves, A., & Yudelman, D. (1991). South Africa?s Labour Empire: A History of Black Migrancy to the Gold Mines. Cape Town: St Martin?s Press. Curseu, P. L., Stoop, R. & Schalk, R. (2006). Prejudice toward immigrant workers among Dutch employees: Integrated Threat Theory Revisited. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 125-140. 81 Cushner, K. & Landis, D (1996). The intercultural sensitizer. In: D. Landis and R.S. Bhagat, Editors, Handbook of Intercultural Training (2nd ed.), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Danso, R., & McDonald, D.A. (2000). Writing Xenophobia: Immigration and the Press in Post-Apartheid South Africa. Migration Policy Series, No. 17. Cape Town: Idasa and Queen's University, Canada. Deaux, K. A nation of immigrants: Living our legacy. Journal of Social issues, 62, 633-651. Dijker, A. J. M. (1987). Emotional reactions to ethnic minorities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 305-325. Dodson, L. (2002). Xenophibia and South Africa. Retrieved July, 15, 2007, http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/DODSON/2002-02 Dovidio, J.F., Brigham, J. C., Johnson, B.T., & Gaertner, S.L. (1996). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination: Another look. In C.N. Macrae, C. Stangor, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Stereotypes and Stereotyping. New York: Guilford. Dovidio, J. F. & Gaertner, S.L. (1998). On the nature of contemporary prejudice: The causes consequences, and challenges of aversive racism. In J. Eberhardt & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Racism: the problem and the response (pp.3-32). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Dube, P. (2000, February 28). Media berated for stocking Xenophobia, Sunday Times. Duckitt, J. (1995). The Social Psychology of Prejudice. London: Praeger Publishers. 82 Dunn, K. (2003). Attitudes toward immigrants and immigration: An Australian perspective. Paper presented at New directions, new settlers, new challenges: Building and enhancing communities symposium, 19-21 April 2004 Wellington, New Zealand. Essess, V.M., Haddock, G., & Zanna, M.P. (1993). Values, stereotypes, and emotions as determinants of inter-group attitudes. In D. M. Mackie & D.L. Hamilton (Eds.) Affect, cognition and stereotyping, (pp. 137-142). San Diego: Academic Press. Esses, V. M., Jackson, L. M., & Nolan, J. M. (1996, August). Stereotype construal and intergroup behaviour. In J. F. Dovidio (Chair), Stereotypes and stereotyping. Symposium conducted at the International Congress of Psychology, Montreal, Canada. Finchilescu, G., Hunt, K., Mankge, K., & Nunez, D. T. (2002, June). Meta- stereotypes, attitudes and anxiety in a situation of inter-racial interaction. Paper presented at the 13th Meeting of the European Association of Experimental Social Psychology, San Sebastian, Spain. Frayne, B., & Pendleton, W. (1998). Namibian?s on South Africa: Attitudes Towards Cross-Borders Migration and Immigration Policy. Migration Policy Series, No. 10. Cape Town: Idasa and Queen's University, Canada. Frayne, B., & Pendleton, W. (2003). Mobile Namibia: Migration Trends and Attitudes. Migration Policy Series, No. 27. Cape Town: Idasa and Queen's University, Canada. 83 Fugee (1999). Publication of Cape Town Refugee Forum. Retrieved August, 2007 www.queensu.ca/samp/sampresources/migrationdocuments/documents/2000/3 .htm - 20k - Fugee (2000). Publication of Cape Town Refugee Forum. Retrieved August, 2007 www.queensu.ca/samp/sampresources/migrationdocuments/documents/2000/3 .htm - 20k - Fugee (2001). Publication of Cape Town Refugee Forum. Retrieved August, 2007 www.queensu.ca/samp/sampresources/migrationdocuments/documents/2000/3 .htm - 20k - Funk, C. (2000). The dual influence of self-interest and Social Interest in Public Opinion, Political Research Quarterly, 53, 37-62. Gaertner, S.L., & Dovido, J.F. (1986). The aversive form of racism. In J. F. Dovido & S.L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination and racism. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press. Gergen, K.J. & Gergan, M.M. (1981). Social Psychology. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich New York. Greenberg, J., Simon, L., Pyszczynsk, T., Solomon, S. & Chatel, D. (1992). How does co-operation reduce intergroup bias? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 212-220. Gudykunst, W.B. (1988). Uncertainty and anxiety. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.) Theories in intercultural communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. 84 Hamilton, D.L., Sherman, S.J., & Ruvolo, C.M. (1990). Stereotype based expectancies: Effects on information processing and social behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 35-60. Harris, B. (2002). Xenophobia: A new pathology for a new South Africa? In D. Hook & G. Eagle (Eds.), Psychopathology and Social Prejudice.(pp. 169-184). Cape Town: UCT Press. Hartley, I. W. (2007). Immigration. Retrieved November , 2007, www.capelawsoc. law.za/Files%20for%20New%20Website/Library%20Circulars/26.doc Hiebert, D. (2003) Attitudes toward immigrants and immigration: A Canadian perspective. Paper presented at New directions, new settlers, new challenges: Building and enhancing communities symposium, 19-21 April 2004 Wellington, New Zealand. Holt, D. (1995). The culture cluster: A comparative perspective on Ethiopian Jewish problems in Israel. Israel Social Science Research, 10, 97-116. Hornsey, M. J. & Hogg, M. A. (2000a). Subgroup relations: A comparison of mutual intergroup differentiation and common in-group identity models of prejudice reduction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 242-256. Hornsey, M. J. & Hogg, M. A. (2000b). Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 143-156. Howell, D. C. (1997). Statistical Methods for Psychology (4th edition). Belmont: Duxbury Press. 85 Human Rights Commission (1999). Report on the arrest and detention of persons in terms of the aliens control act. Johannesburg: South African Human Rights Commission. Human Rights Watch (1998). ?Prohibited Persons?: Abuse of Undocumented Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees in South Africa. New York: Human Rights Watch. Huo, Y. J., Smith, H. J., Tyler, T. R. & Lind, A. (1996). Superordinated identification subgroup identification and justice concerns: Is separatism the problem; is assimilation the answer. Psychological Science, 7, 40-45. Islam, R., & Hewstone, M. (1993). Dimensions of contact as predictors of inter-group anxiety, perceived out-group variability, and out-group attitude: An integrative model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 700-710. Jacobson, K. & Landau, L. (2004). Forced Migration Review. Retrieved August, 2007 from http://www.reliefweb.int/library/RSC_Oxford/data/FMR%5CEnglish %5CFMR19%5Cfmr1920.pdf Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Manstead, S. R. (1998). Defining dimensions of distinctiveness: Group variability makes a difference to differentiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1481-1492. Jossel, L. (1997, July 21). Should our immigrants be welcomed as assets, or kicked out as liabilities? The Star. Khan, F. (2000, March 9). New report finds media guilty of xenophobia. WOZA. 86 Kinder, D.R. & Sears, D. O. (1981). Prejudice and politics: Symbolic racism versus racial threats to the good life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 414-431. King, R., & Wood, N. (Eds.). (2001). Media and Migration: Constructions of Mobility and Difference. London: Routledge. Krochmal. R. (2000). The Current Refugee Situation in South Africa: Cause for Concern. Retrieved May, 2007, from http://www.academy.umd. edu/education/SouthAfrica/SA2001/article_krochmal.htm La Palombara, J. (1965). Italy: alienation, fragmentation, isolation. In, L. Pye & S. Verba (Eds.). Political Culture and Political Development, Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ. Laher, H., & Finchilescu, G. (2005, September). Meta-stereotypes: Intergroup anxiety in interracial contact. Presented at the 12th annual PsySSA Congress, Emperors Palace. Johannesburg: South Africa. Landau, L. B., Ramjathan-Keogh, K., & Singh, G. (2005). Xenophobia in South Africa and problems related to it. Forced Migration Working Series, Number 13. Forced Migration Studies Programme, University of the Witwatersrand. LeVine, R.A., & Campbell, D.T. (1972). Ethnocentrism. New York: John Wiley. 87 Maio, G. R., Esses, V. M., & Bell, D. W. (1994).The formation of attitudes toward new immigrant groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 24, 1762-1776. Makoni, S. & Makoni, B. (2007). ?I Am Starving With No Hope To Survive?: Southern African Perspectives on Pedagogies of Globalization. International Multilingual Research Journal, 1, 105 ? 118. Masondo, A. (2004, January 29). State of the city address 2004, Johannesburg. Retrieved May, 2006, from http://www.joburg.org.za/2004/jan/jan 29_state.stm McChonahay, J. B. (1985). Self-Interest versus Racial Attitudes as Correlates of Anti-Busing Attitudes in Louisville: Is it The Buses or the Blacks? The Journal of Politics, 44, 692-720. McDonald, D. A. (Eds.). (2000). On Borders. Perspectives on International Migration in Southern Africa. Cape Town: Mega Pre-Press. McDonald, D. A., Mashike, L., & Golden, C. (1999). The Lives and Times of African Migrants and Immigrants in Post-Apartheid South Africa. Migration Policy Series, No. 13. Cape Town: Idasa and Queen's University, Canada. McLaren, L. M. (2003). Anti-Immigrant Prejudice in Europe: Contact, Threat Perception, and Preferences for the Exclusion of Migrants, Social Forces, 81, 909-936. 88 Milner, D. (1981). Racial Prejudice. In J. Turner & H. Giles (Eds.), Inter-group behaviour (pp. 102-143). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Molele, C. (1999). Local Filmmaker attacked for looking like a foreigner. Sunday World. Morris, A. (1998). ?Our fellow Africans make our lives hell?: The lives of Congolese and Nigerians living in Johannesburg. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 21, 1116- 1136. Mouzelis, N. (1995). Greece in the twenty-first century: institutions and political culture. In Greece Prepares for the Twenty-first Century, D. Constas & T. Stavrou. The Woodrow Wilson Centre Press: Washington, DC, pp. 17-34. Neuman, W.L (2000). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative approaches (4th edition). London: Allyn & Bacon. Oppenheim, A. N. (1966). Questionnaire Design and Measurement. London: Heinemann. Pettigrew, T. (1980). The sociology of race relations. New York: Free Press. Pettigrew, T. (1998). Intergroup Contact Theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65-58. 89 Quillian, L. (1995). Prejudice as a response to perceived group threat: Population composition and anti-immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe. American Sociological Review, 60, 586-611. Rajecki, D. W. (1985). Topical Articles. Retrieved May, 2006. http://www.informa world.com/smpp/content~content=a785857822~db=all Randolph, G., Landis, D., & Tzeng, O. C. S. (1977). The effects of time and practice upon culture assimilator training. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 1, 105-119. Redfield, R., Linton, R. & Herskovits (1936). Memorandum on the study of acculturation. American Anthropologist, 38, 149-152. Riek, B.M., Mania, E. W. & Gaertner, S. L. (1999). The Relationship Between Intergroup Threat and Outgroup Attitudes: A meta-analytic Review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 336-353. Reitzes, M., & Dolan, C. (1996). ?The Insider Story?: Press Coverage of Illegal Immigrants and Refugees, April 1994-September 1995?. Social Policy Series, No. 48. Johannesburg: Centre for Policy Studies. 90 Roberson, L., Kulik, C. T., & Pepper, M. B. (2001). Designing effective diversity training: Influence of group composition and trainee experience. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 871-885. Roccas, S., & Schwartz, S. (1993). Effects of intergroup similarity on intergroup relations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 581-595. Rondganger, L. & SAPA (2008, May) Crackdown on the agitators. The Star. Rosenfield, D., & Stephen W.G. (1981). Intergroup Relations Among Children. In S. Brehm, S.M. Kassin, and F.X. Gibbons (Editors): Developmental Social Psychology Theoryand Research. New York: Oxford Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Essentials of Behavioural Research: Methods and Data Analysis (2nd edition). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1996). Beginning Behavioural Research: A Conceptual Primer (2nd edition). London: Prentice Hall. Rossett, A., & Bickman, T. (1994). Diversity training: Hope, faith and cynicism. Training, 31, 40?46. Rystad, G. (1992). Immigration history and the future of international migration. International Migration Review, 26, 1168-1199. 91 Sherif, M. (1966). Group conflict and cooperation, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Sidanius, J., Devereux, E., & Pratto, F. (1992). A comparison of symbolic racism theory and social dominance theory as explanations for racial policy attitudes. Journal of Social Psychology, 132, 377-395. Simpson, G.E. & Yinger, J.M. (1985). Racial and cultural minorities: An analyses of prejudice and discrimination. Springer. Sinclair, M. (1999). I Know a Place that is Softer than This, emerging Migrant Communities in South Africa. International Migration, 37, 469-470. Solomon, H. (2003). Of Myths and Migration. Illegal immigration into South Africa. Pretoria: Unisa Press. Southern African Migration Project (1998). Challenging Xenophobia: Myths & realities about cross-border migration in Southern Africa. Migration Policy Series No. 7. Cape Town: Idasa. Spencer-Rodgers, J. (2001) Consensual and individual stereotypic beliefs about international students among American host nationals. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25, 639-657. 92 Spencer-Rodgers, J. & McGovern, T. (2002). Attitudes toward the culturally different: the role of intercultural communication barriers, affective responses, consensual stereotypes, and perceived threat. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26, 609-631. Stangor, C., Sullivan, L. A., & Ford, T. E. (1991). Affective and cognitive determinants of prejudice. Social Cognition, 9, pp. 359-391. Statistics South Africa (2001). South Africa in translation. Selected findings from the October household survey of 1999 and changes between 1995 and 1999. Pretoria: Statistics South Africa. Statistics South Africa (1996). Census 1996 in Brief. Pretoria: Author. Stephan, W.G. & Stephan, C.W. (1985). Inter-group anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 157-176. Stephan, W.G. & Stephan, C. (1984). The role of ignorance in intergroup relations. In M. Miller & M. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation, pp.229-257. New York: Academic Press. Stephan, W.G. & Stephan, C.W. (1989a). Emotional Reactions to interracial achievement outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 608-621. 93 Stephan, W.G. & Stephan, C.W. (1989b). Antecedents to inter-group anxiety in Asian-Americans and Hispanic-Americans. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13, 203-219. Stephan, W.G. & Stephan, C.W. (1992). Reducing intercultural anxiety through intercultural contact. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16, 89- 106. Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C.W. (1996a). Predicting Prejudice. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 409-426. Stephan, W.G., Stephan, C.W., & Gudykunst, W.B. (1999). Anxiety in inter-group relations: A comparison of anxiety/uncertainty management theory and integrated threat theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23, 613-628. Stephan, W.G., Ybarra, O., & Bachman, G. (1999). Prejudice Toward Immigrants. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2221-2237. Stephan, W. G., Diaz-Loving, R., & Duran, A. (2000) Integrated threat theory and intercultural attitudes, Mexico and the United States. Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology, 31, 240-249. 94 Stephan, W.G., Ybarra, O., Martinez, C. M. Schwarzwald, J., & Tur-Kaspa, M. (1998). Prejudice toward immigrants to Spain and Israel. An integrated threat theory analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 559-576. Stephan, W.G., Boniecki, K.A., Ybarra, O., Bettencourt, A., Ervin, K.S., Jackson, L.A., McNatt, P.C., & Renfro, C.L. (2002). The role of threats in racial attitudes of Blacks and Whites. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1242-1254. Tausch, N., Tam, T., Hewstone, M., Kenworthy, J. B., & Cairns, E. (2007). Individual-level and group-level mediators of contact effects in Northern Ireland: The moderating role of social identification. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 541-556. Tilly, C. (1978). Migration in modern European history. In W.H. McNeill & R.S. Adams (Eds.), Human migration: Patterns and policies. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Triandafyllido, A. (2000). The Political Discourse on Immigration in Southern Europe: A critical Analysis. Journal of Community and Applied Psychology, 10, 373-389. Tropp, L. R. (2003). The psychological impact of prejudice: Implications fro intergroup contact. Group Processes and Intergroup relations, 6, 131-149. 95 Tropp, L. R. & Pettigrew, T. F. (2005). Relationships between intergroup contact and prejudice among minority and majority status groups. Psychological Science, 16, 951-957. Tshetlo, T. (2008). Xenophobia epidemic spreads. The Citizen. May 19, p. 4. Tshitereke, C. (1999). Xenophobia and relative deprivation, Crossings, 3 (2), pp. 4-5. Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A. Oakes, P.J. & Reicher, M.S. (Eds.) (1987). Rediscovering the social group . Oxford, England: Blackwell. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (2000). Working to Protect Refugees in Southern Africa. A UNHCR Publication. Van Oudehoven, J.P., Prins, K.S. & Buunk, B.P. (1998). Attitudes of minority and majority members toward adaptation of immigrants. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 995-1013. Ward, C. & Masgoret, A.M. (2006). An integrative model of attitudes toward immigrants. International Journal of intercultural relations, 30, 671-682. Warner, C. & Finchilescu, G. (2003). Living with prejudice ? xenophobia and race. Briefing, Agenda 55. 96 Wasserman, H. & Jacobs, S. (2003) (Eds.). Shifting Selves. Post-Apartheid Essays on Media, Culture and Identity. Cape Town: Kwela Books and SA History Online. Williams, B., Gouws, E., Lurie, M. & Crush, J. (2002). Spaces of Vulnerability: Migration and HIV/Aids in South Africa. Migration Policy Series, No. 24. Cape Town: Idasa and Queen's University, Canada. Yang, P. Q., Power, S. S., Takaku, S. & Posas, L. (2003). Immigrant and ethnic conflict in comparative perspective. Psychology of Ethnic and Cultural Conflict, pp.89-111. Ybarra, O.J., & Stephan, W.G. (1994). Perceived threat as predictor of stereotypes and prejudice: American?s reactions to Mexican immigrants. Boelet?n de Psicolog?a, 42, 39-54. 97 APPENDIX A: Participant Information Sheet (Questionnaire Based Research) Psychology School of Human & Community Development University of the Witwatersrand Private Bag 3, WITS, 2050 Tel: (011) 717 4500 Fax: (011) 717 4559 Hello My name is Hawabibi Laher and I am conducting research for the purpose of obtaining my Masters degree in Psychology at the University of the Witwatersrand. My research focus is on attitudes and feelings towards African immigrants living in South Africa. I would like to invite you to participate in this study. Participation in this study will involve the completion of a questionnaire requesting demographic information as well as the completion of various attitudes and feelings that you may have toward African immigrants. We require your phone number on the consent form so that we can do sporadic checks to ask a few participants how they felt about answering the questionnaire. The consent form will be kept separate from the questionnaire thus ensuring anonymity. Should you require feedback you may contact me (My details appear below). You may choose not to participate and this will not be held against you in any way. If the project is published, your response will be combined with hundreds of others so that no individual responses can be identified. Therefore your confidentiality will be guaranteed. Should you choose to participate, you are requested to detach and keep this sheet. You are also requested to read and sign the informed consent form on the next page. The informed consent form will be collected separately from the questionnaires and stored in a sealed envelope with my supervisor. Should you have questions, please feel free to contact me. Thank you very much for taking the time to read this letter. Yours Sincerely ___________________ _________________________ Hawabibi Laher (Ms.) Professor Gillian Finchilescu Researcher Supervisor hawabibi2002@yahoo.com gillian.finchilescu@wits.ac.za 98 APPENDIX B: Participants Informed Consent Sheet University of the Witwatersrand Private Bag 3, WITS, 2050 Tel: (011) 717 4500 Fax: (011) 717 4559 School of Human & Community Development Psychology INFORMED CONSENT SHEET I, ________________________________ hereby agree to participate in Ms. Laher?s research. I have read and understood what participation entails. _____________________ ___________________ Signature Date _______________________ Tel/ Cell Number 99 APPENDIX C: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 1. Age: __________ 2. Gender: Male box2 Female box2 3. Ethnic Group: Black box2 Coloured box2 White box2 Indian box2 Other: (please specify) ___________________ 4. Language: Please tick in the box below: Afrikaansbox2 Englishbox2 isiNdebele box2 isiXhosa box2 isiZulubox2 Sepedi box2 Sesotho box2 Setswana box2 siSwati box2 Tshivenda box2 Xitsonga box2 Other: Please Specify ______________ 5. Citizenship: South African box2 Other box2 6. Education: Primary box2 Secondary box2 Matric box2 Post-school trainingbox2 University/Technikon/Collegebox2 7. Occupation: __________________________________________________________ 8. Residential Area: ______________________________________________________ 100 APPENDIX D: AMOUNT OF CONTACT AND IN WHAT CAPACITY 9. Do you know any African immigrants personally? Nonebox2 Fewbox2 Manybox2 10. Do you have friends who are immigrants from Africa? Nonebox2 Fewbox2 Manybox2 11. Are there African immigrants living in your neighbourhood? Nonebox2 Fewbox2 Manybox2 Do not knowbox2 12. Do you come into contact with African Immigrants? (R) Yesbox2 Nobox2 Do not knowbox2 If your answer to the previous question was yes, in what capacity? Please choose one of the following: On the streets box2 At Religious activitiesbox2 At leisure activitiesbox2 At work as customersbox2 At work as employersbox2 At work as employeesbox2 At work as co-workersbox2 By marriagebox2 101 APPENDIX E: NATURE OF COMMUNICATION 13. How would you describe the nature of your communication and interaction with African immigrants? Please indicate your choice by selecting a block closer to the right or left hand side you feel accurately describes your experience 13a. Courteous Rude (R) 13b. Pleasant Unpleasant (R) 13c. Meaningless Meaningful 13d. Spontaneous Forced (R) 13e. Uncomfortable Relaxed 13f. Destructive Constructive 102 APPENDIX F: BOGARDUS SOCIAL DISTANCE SCALE In the following section please indicate to what extent you would feel comfortable interacting with African immigrants. Remember to give your first feeling or reactions in every case. Give your reactions to African Immigrants as a group. Put indicate your answer in the box of your choice How would you feel about having members of the following groups? According to my first feeling or reaction, No/ None A Few Some Most Any 14a. I would be happy to have ______ African immigrants as close kin by marriage 14b I would be happy to have ______ African immigrants on my street as neighbours 14c I would be happy to have ______ African immigrants working alongside me in my job/workplace 14d I would be happy to have ______ African immigrants as citizens in my country 14e I would exclude _____ African immigrants from my country 103 APPENDIX G: Prejudice Scale (Spencer-Rodgers & McGovern, 2002) Please describe how you feel about African Immigrants in general. Please select a block closest to the side that best represents your feeling. I feel the following way towards African Immigrants in general: 15a. Warm 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Cold (R) 15b. Negative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Positive 15c. Friendly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Hostile (R) 15d. Suspicious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Trusting 15e. Respect 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disrespect(R) 15f. Admiration 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disgust (R) 104 APPENDIX H: INTER-GROUP ANXIETY SCALE (Stephan & Stephan, 1985, 1989). Please rate how you would feel when interacting with African immigrants or how you have felt when you have had contact with African immigrants. 16a. Not at all anxious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely anxious 16b. Not at all confident 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely confident(R) 16c. Not at all irritated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely irritated 16d. Not at all comfortable1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely comfortable(R) 16e. Not at all impatient 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely impatient 16f. Not at all frustrated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely frustrated 16g. Not at all stressed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely stressed 16h. Not at all happy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely happy(R) 16i. Not at all self-conscious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely self-conscious 16j. Not at all defensive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely defensive 105 APPENDIX I: SYMBOLIC AND REALISTIC THREATS (Stephan & Stephan, 1996a) Please indicate whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statements: 1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Neutral 4 Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree 17a South Africa is losing its South African character because of increasing amount of African immigrants that are entering the country 17b African immigrants contribute positively to the ethnic mix in South Africa (R) 17c Cherished South African norms and traditions are threatened by the increase of African immigrants to South Africa 17d African immigrants take jobs away from South Africans 17e African immigrants pay their fair share for the education and housing that they receive in South Africa (R) 17f African immigrants are increasing the amount of crime in South Africa 17g African immigrants pose a health threat to South Africans 106 APPENDIX J: STEREOTYPES 18. Please rate from 0 to 100%. What percentage (%) of African immigrants do you think are: 18a. Hardworking ______% (R) 18b. Arrogant ______% 18c. Aggressive ______% 18d. Ambitious ______% (R) 18e. Untrustworthy ______% 18f. Insincere ______% 18g. Materialistic ______% 18h. Stick together ______% 18i. Greedy ______% All questions marked with an (R) indicate reverse scored items 107 APPENDIX K: Ethics Clearance Certificate 108 Our intimate relationship with the rest of our Continent is illustrated by the significant numbers of fellow Africans who have sought to settle in South Africa since 1994. Undoubtedly, this trend will continue, adding a new richness to our own society. Many of these new immigrants bring with them important skills that our country needs. Many of them are also people who are creative, full of initiative and driven by an enterprising spirit. The more they impart these characteristics to us as well, the better we will be as a people and a society. Necessarily, we must continue to be vigilant against any evidence of xenophobia against the African immigrants. It is fundamentally wrong and unacceptable that we should treat people who come to us as friends as though they are our enemies. We should also never forget that the same peoples welcomed us to their own countries when many of our citizens had to go into exile as a result of the brutality of the apartheid system. To express the critical importance of Africa to ourselves, both black and white, we should say that we are either African or we are nothing. President Thabo Mbeki in ANC Today, May 2001 109 In memory of those that have lost their lives as a result of xenophobic violence