Experimentally measured discrimination against Muslims tracks emotional threat, not expected behavior

Evidence

Because consistent and reliable noncausal indicators are difficult to come by, we often have to infer the presence of Islamophobia from its effects. The key is to understand the quality of the indicator and the likelihood that it reveals the underlying phenomenon. Experiments can be a fruitful means for uncovering attitudes and emotions toward particular out-groups. In most experiments, participants are asked to perform a task or a series of tasks. Although subjects are often unaware that researchers are testing their perspectives on racial, ethnic, or religious difference, the results allow researchers to infer these perspectives. For example, Adida, Laitin, and Valfort (2010) developed a series of experiments to gauge non-Muslim French participants’ generosity toward French Muslim participants. They found that non-Muslim French exhibit less generosity toward Muslims under a variety of circumstances and that this outcome depends more on emotional sense of threat than on rational beliefs about expected Muslim behavior (Adida et al., 2010a, pp. 4, 20). — Erik Bleich, What Is Islamophobia and How Much Is…, 53

Categorization

• XREF: Directly speaks to the reader’s core MOC question: here is the first empirical finding where attitudes (registered experimentally) do the observable work typically attributed to belief — institutional reading of Muslims as threat rather than as individuals. Relevant to the reader’s earlier note ‘Islamophobia is not a classical set’ — graded, non-binary classification. — connects to: Measuring Islamophobia demands indicators that connect to an abstract concept — Erik Bleich, What Is Islamophobia and How Much Is…, 44; Attitudes and emotions predict discrimination better than stereotypes do. — Erik Bleich, What Is Islamophobia and How Much Is…, 32; Emotions may predict prejudiced behavior better than cognitions do — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 2030 (+2 more)
• SEED: The Adida et al. finding — anti-Muslim generosity drops driven by emotional threat rather than rational expectation of behavior — is a concrete lever for an essay on how ‘seemingly benign’ routines (like whom to help) carry the race-making load.

Related

• Attitudes and emotions predict discrimination better than stereotypes do. (similarity 0.86)
• Different intergroup threats trigger distinct emotions and behavioral responses. (similarity 0.83)
• Anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim attitudes are distinct but overlapping targets of prejudice (similarity 0.80)
• Indicators of Islamophobia vary widely in how directly they reflect underlying attitudes (similarity 0.79)
• Emotions may predict prejudiced behavior better than cognitions do (similarity 0.79)
• Realistic and symbolic threats reliably predict prejudice across studies (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Emotions may predict prejudiced behavior better than cognitions do #corroborates (0.85) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2030
• Different intergroup threats trigger distinct emotions and behavioral responses. #expands (0.80) — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup Attitudes, 66
• Realistic and symbolic threats reliably predict prejudice across studies #qualifies (0.75) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1046