Choose Your Words Wisely

Language and Social Perception

Language is the tool we use to explain, share, and create meaning – including the content of stereotypes, prejudices, and behavioral intentions. According to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis (Sapir, 1921), language plays a crucial role in shaping people’s perception of the world, and thus has a major impact on the perception of social groups. Similarly, researchers have argued that changing public opinions about social groups have historically been reflected in changing terminologies (Stötzel & Wengeler, 1995; see also Porst & Jers, 2007). Empirical evidence for the connection between language and social perception of groups is provided by findings that stereotypes and prejudice toward the same social group can shift as a function of the label, both for the ingroup (e.g., “White” vs. “European American”; Morrison & Chung, 2011; see also Galinsky et al., 2013) and outgroup (e.g., “foreign workers” vs. “guest workers”; Schönbach, 1970; see also Hall, Phillips, & Townsend, 2015; Rios, 2013; Rios & Ingraffia, 2016).

A wide range of explanations for the emergence of differences in group evaluations as a function of labels have been suggested, such as perceived morality (Rios & Ingraffia, 2016), stigma, and power (Galinsky et al., 2013), as well as social class, and status (Hall et al., 2015). Influential theoretical frameworks of social perception that emphasize the role of perceived intentions and capacity to carry them out are the Stereotype Content Model (SCM; Fiske et al., 2002) and the Behavior of Intergroup Affect and Stereotypes (BIAS)-Map (Cuddy et al., 2007).

The SCM and BIAS-Map

According to the SCM, social groups are evaluated on two basic dimensions. The first, most fundamental stereotype content dimension, warmth, is linked to likability and trustworthiness, and concerns the evaluation to what extent a social group generally poses a threat to the goals of the ingroup (amicable vs. harmful intentions, translating in high vs. low warmth; Fiske et al., 2002). As such, warmth ratings are negatively associated with perceptions of competition and threat (Cuddy et al., 2009; Kervyn, Fiske, & Yzerbyt, 2015). The second dimension is competence. Competence is linked to efficacy and independence, and relates to the ability and capacity to act upon these intentions (capability vs. incapability translating in high vs. low competence; Cuddy et al., 2009). The combination of both dimensions is theorized to predict specific emotional and behavioral reactions toward groups (Cuddy et al., 2007). Social groups with high ratings on both warmth and competence represent ingroups and allies, triggering admiration. Admiration, a univalent upward assimilative emotion (Smith, 2000), is targeted at others with positive outcomes which do not infringe the self (Cuddy et al., 2007). Groups with low ratings on both warmth and competence are targets of contempt. Contempt is a univalent downward contrastive emotion (Smith, 2000), and is felt for groups whose negative outcomes are perceived as onset controllable (Cuddy et al., 2007). Groups with high warmth and low competence ratings are typically pitied. Pity is an ambivalent emotion, combining compassion and sadness. Pity is felt when others’ negative outcomes are perceived as uncontrollable (Cuddy et al., 2007; Weiner, 2005). Lastly, groups with low warmth and high competence ratings are envied. Envy contains respect, and is triggered when others are perceived to have an unjustified advantage and when a superior outcome is desired (Lange & Crusius, 2015). The BIAS-Map extends the SCM by including predictions regarding the primary emotions anger and fear as a function of warmth irrespective of competence ratings, as well as differential action tendencies toward outgroups depending on the attributed stereotype content dimension ratings (Cuddy et al., 2007). Whereas warmth (high vs. low) determines the valence of action tendencies (facilitation vs. harm, respectively), competence (high vs. low) determines the intensity of the behavior (passive vs. active, respectively; see Cuddy et al., 2007, p. 634 for a graphical depiction). Facilitation includes behaviors targeted at supporting the social group (actively, e.g., defending; passively, e.g., associating). Harm refers to behavior which aims at actively (e.g., insulting), or passively (e.g., hindering) weakening the group.

Converging evidence for these postulations has been provided within a number of correlational (e.g., Asbrock, 2010; Cuddy et al., 2007; Eckes, 2002; Fiske et al., 2002) and experimental studies (e.g., Caprariello, Cuddy, & Fiske, 2009). Although the relevant social groups and the specific stereotype contents vary from culture to culture, warmth and competence reliably organize the perception of social groups in over 30 countries along these dimensions (Cuddy et al., 2009; Durante et al., 2013).

The SCM, BIAS-Map, and Fled People

Asbrock (2010) and Eckes (2002) drew on the SCM to examine the perception of a wide range of social groups in Germany. Both studies reported comparatively low competence and warmth ratings for social groups that share features of fled persons, such as “foreigners” or “immigrants.” Nationwide surveys reveal that the majority of Germans feel threatened by potential consequences associated with the immigration of fled people, such as increased crime rates, competition on the housing and job markets, and the influences of Islam (Infratest, 2016). Since warmth is negatively related to perceived threat and competition (Binggeli, Krings, & Sczesny, 2014; Kervyn et al., 2015), host society members’ warmth ratings of fled groups should be rather low (Louis, Duck, Terry, Schuller, & Lalonde, 2007). As for competence, fled people should generally receive low scores as well, due to a perception of low agency and little control over numerous aspects of their lives upon their arrival.

Evidence from the US context shows, however, that there may be variability in terms of warmth (i.e., intentions) and competence perception (i.e., capabilities to act upon intentions) depending on which immigrant group is specified, and which label is used (Lee & Fiske, 2006). However, we know very little about what intentions and motives majority members associate with particular labels.

“Refugees” and “asylum seekers”² are both the terms predominantly used in the public discourse to refer to people who have fled from adverse living conditions (Berry, Garcia-Blanco, & Moore, 2015). The Geneva Convention defines “refugees” as individuals who have been forced to leave their home countries due to a threat of persecution based on their ethnicity, religion, nationality, or political or social affiliations. “Asylum seekers” are individuals who are additionally in the process of applying for permission to stay in a particular foreign country. Thus, our first goal is to examine to what extent nonimmigrant majority members’ perception and evaluation of fled individuals referred to with aforementioned labels match (“asylum seekers” vs. “refugees”), and whether differences in emotional and behavioral consequences emerge as a function of the group labels.

In addition to the use of aforementioned terms to refer to fled people in general, fled persons have frequently been linguistically differentiated based on their assumed migration motives. A common distinction is made between so-called “economic refugees,” supposedly fleeing due to economic hardship, and “war refugees,”³ supposedly fleeing due to (civil) war from their home countries (e.g., Bade, 2013; n-tv, 2016; Preuß, 2015; Stötzel & Wengeler, 1995; The UN Refugee Agency, 2016). Thus, our second goal is to examine differences in cognitive, emotional, and behavioral consequences for nonimmigrant majority members as a function of flight motive of the fled persons (“economic refugees” vs. “war refugees” vs. no specification, i.e., “refugees”). Considering that flight motives are in everyday language incorporated in the refugee label (“war refugees,” “economic refugees”), but not in the asylum seeker label (i.e., “war asylum seekers” and “economic asylum seekers” do not exist, for instance), we focused our investigation on the former.

Previous work suggests that whereas the label “asylum seeker” has a neutral to negative connotation, the label “refugee” is connoted positively to neutrally (Berry et al., 2015). This contention has, to our knowledge, not been tested empirically yet. These differences in connotation may emerge due to differences regarding intentions toward the ingroup (Fiske et al., 2002): Whereas the term “refugee” inherently emphasizes leaving one’s home country due to threats to one’s life in the country of origin, the term “asylum seeker” emphasizes the application for asylum. It may be speculated that the latter is more strongly associated with enhanced economic (e.g., transfer benefits) and symbolic (e.g., cultural) costs and threats (Stephan & Stephan, 2000), decreasing the perceived amicability of intentions. This, in turn, could lead to lower warmth perceptions, and associated consequences on emotions and behavioral intentions.

As for “war refugees” and “economic refugees,” echoing contemporary German policy, studies on the perception of these two subgroups indicate that attitudes toward war refugees are rather benevolent, whereas only a minority approves of economic refugees (Ditlmann, Koopmans, Michalowski, Rink, & Veit, 2016; Infratest, 2016; Verkuyten, 2004). The differing evaluations in migration motives may again be a result of perceived differences in fled peoples’ intentions and capacities (Fiske et al., 2002). Moreover, in what way “war refugees” and “economic refugees” implied intentions and capacities match with the social perception of “refugees” lacks empirical basis.

Based on these findings, we aim to carry on investigating majority members’ perceived commonalities and differences in cognitions, emotional reactions, and behavioral intentions comparing (a) asylum seekers versus refugees, and (b) war refugees versus economic refugees versus refugees without a specified flight motive.

Measures

Preliminary Analyses

Prior to our main analyses, we checked whether the random allocation to conditions had been successful. Results of a χ² test and a univariate analysis of variance suggested that gender and age were randomly distributed across conditions (ps > .10).

Motivations and Intentions of Asylum Seekers, Refugees, War Refugees, and Economic Refugees

To explore the perceived label-specific motivations and intentions, we conducted a quantitative content analysis of the open-ended answers. Only n = 2 in the war refugees condition left this item blank. We developed a coding scheme on the social groups’ motivations and intentions inductively following Mayring’s (2010) procedure, which was applied to the data by two independent coders (intercoder reliability = 95.2% correspondence). We also coded key demographic characteristics participants associated with the respective label, such as gender/familial group, education background, perceived diversity of group composition, and the country or area of origin,⁹ which may provide further hints to the perceived nature of intentions and implementation capacity. Discrepancies in codings were resolved by discussion. Unit of analysis was a text chunk of any size, representative of a single category, coded once per participant. On average, we coded M = 3.11, SD = 1.84 categories per participant in the war refugees condition (range: 0–9), M = 1.81, SD = 1.19 in the economic refugees condition (range: 0–5), M = 3.19, SD = 1.77 in the refugees condition (range: 0–8), and M = 2.39, SD = 1.61 in the asylum seekers condition (range: 0–9). A detailed description of the categories, as well as examples of units assigned to each of the categories, is provided in Table 1. To test whether the frequency, and thus the implied salience of the coding categories, differed significantly between groups (“refugees” vs. “asylum seekers,” and “refugees” vs. “war refugees,” vs. “economic refugees”), we conducted a series of χ² tests (Condition × Coding category mentioned, yes = 1, no = 0). The results are summarized in Table 2.

Table 1 Description of categories and examples of category content

Category	Description of category content	Examples1
Note.1Examples are provided in German, with own English translations in brackets.
Demographic group characteristics
Gender/familial group
Children		/
Males		/
Females		/
Families		/
Educational background
Well-educated	Mostly well educated and/or qualified; schooled	“Meiner Meinung nach sind das zum Teil sehr intelligente und nette, ganz normale Leute” [In my opinion, these are partially very intelligent and kind, quite normal people]
		“Flüchtlinge, […] die gut gebildet sind” [refugees (…) who are well educated]
Uneducated	Mostly insufficient education and/or unqualified; lack of education	“Je nach Herkunft schlecht ausgebildet, billige Arbeitskräfte” [depending on the country of origin, badly educated, cheap workforce]
		“+- 25% gut ausgebildet” [+ - 25% well educated]
Group composition
Heterogeneous	Explicit mentioning of group variability and/or differences within the group; refusal to describe a social group as a whole	“Nicht an eine homogene Gruppe von Menschen! (sodass verallgemeinernde Fragen schwer zu beantworten sind)” [Not as a homogeneous group of people! (thus, generalizing questions are difficult to answer)]
		“Wenn ich an Wirtschaftsflüchtlinge denke, denke ich an die unterschiedlichsten Menschen und Bevölkerungsgruppen.” [When thinking of economic refugees, I think of different people and ethnic groups]
Subgrouping/subtyping	Explicit distinction between different kinds of refugees, such as good vs. bad, real vs. bogus, and/or economic vs. war	“Die Unterscheidung zwischen Wirtschaftsflüchtlingen und Bügerkriegsflüchtlingen” [the differentiation between economic refugees and civil war refugees]
		“Möglich ist bei der Anzahl an Flüchtlingen aber auch, dass einige darunter sind, die nicht direkt bedroht sind aber zumindest bessere Umstände erhoffen” [Given the number of refugees it is also possible that some are not directly threatened but hope for better conditions]
Country of origin	First country of origin listed
Region of origin	First region of origin listed
Intentions and Motivations
Flight intentions
War and security	Fleeing from war, terrorism, and violence; fleeing with the intention to seek security	“Menschen, die einer Kriegssituation oder kriegsähnlichen Zuständen in ihrem Heimatland entfliehen…” [people who flee from a war or war-like situation in their home country…]
		“Wenn ich an Flüchtlinge denke, denke ich an Menschen, die darauf hoffen, endlich zur Ruhe zu kommen, ihre Kinder in Frieden groß zu ziehen, (…) und sich endlich ausleben dürfen.” [When thinking of refugees, I think of people who hope for finally calming down, raising their children in peace, (…) and who are finally allowed to live out]
General hardship/better life	Fleeing hardship; fleeing with the intention to improve and/or restore humane living conditions	“Menschen die aus Notsituationen stammen und daher geflüchtet sind, sie erhoffen sich hier ein besseres Leben.” [People originating from emergency situations and thus have fled, they hope for a better life here]
		“Sie alle hoffen auf ein besseres (…) Leben, das sie hier leider nicht immer finden.” [They all hope for a better (…) life, which unfortunately they don’t always find here]
Economy	Fleeing from economic hardship, such as poverty and/or hunger; fleeing due to economic prospects; fleeing with the intention to improve employment and education	“Flüchtlinge, die aus ökonomischen Gründen nach Deutschland kommen…” [refugees coming to Germany for economic reasons…]
		“… erwarten sich in Deutschland bessere Sozialleistungen oder Job- und Bildungschancen” […expecting in Germany better social benefits or job- and educational opportunities]
Persecution	Fleeing with the intention to escape political, racial, cultural, religious, sexual, and/or other forms of persecution; fleeing from discrimination and/or corruption	“Des Weiteren gibt es natürlich auch politisch verfolgte Flüchtlinge.” [Furthermore, there are of course also politically persecuted refugees]
		“Der Begriff Flüchtling im Allgemeinen meint für mich einen Menschen, der - wie oben beschrieben - wegen (…) Verfolgung aus politischen und/oder religiösen Gründen um sein Leben oder zumindest seine Versehrtheit fürchten muss” [The term refugee in general for me refers to a person who – as described above – has to fear for his live or at least his well-being due to persecution for political and/or religions reasons]
Freeloading	Fleeing with the intention to freeload	“Schmarotzer. (…) Bekommen so viel in die Arschlöcher geschoben und wollen trotzdem mehr.” [Freeloaders (…) receive so much stuck up their asses and still want more]
		“(…) Allerdings denke ich auch an konkrete Menschen meines Wohnortes, die das Sozialsystem in Deutschland ausnutzen. Der Wille Arbeiten zu gehen und sich das Geld zum Leben zu verdienen ist nicht vorhanden und dennoch geht es ihnen besser, als anderen engagierten Arbeitslosen, die tatsächlich arbeiten wollen.” [(…), however, I think of concrete people in my hometown that exploit the social system in Germany. The will to work and to earn money to make a living is not given and still they are better off than other dedicated unemployed that really want to work]
Germany	Fleeing with the intention to come to Germany as an attractive flight destination, e.g., due to its wealth, social security, and/or openness	“Dass Deutschland eine bevorzugte Wahl als sicheres Land ist, kann ich durchaus verstehen.” [I can totally understand that Germany is the preferred choice as secure country]
		“Ich denke, diese Flüchtlinge kommen nach Deutschland, weil sie sich hier (…) erwarten, die in anderen - vielleicht näher gelegenen Ländern - durch dort herrschende Instabilität nicht gegeben sind.” [I think these refugees come to Germany because here (…) they expect that in other – maybe more proximate countries – it’s not given due to the local instability]
Climate	Fleeing with the intention to escape natural hazards and climate catastrophes	“Die Gründe (sind viele, z.B. …), ökologischer Art” [The reasons (are manifold, e.g., …] of the ecologic kind]
		“Flüchtlinge lassen immer einen Grund für ihre Flucht in Form einer (…) natürlich gearteten Katastrophe vermuten.” [refugees always leave a reason for their flight in form of a naturally occurring catastrophe to be expected]
Lack of prospect	Fleeing with the motivation to overcome a lack of prospects	“Perspektivlosigkeit im Heimatland” [lack of prospects in the home country]
		“Oder sie kommen aus Afrika, haben dort auf Grund von Misswirtschaft und politischem Chaos keine Zukunft” [or they come from Africa, where due to mismanagement and political chaos they have no future]
Acculturation strategy
Willing to integrate	Assumed willingness to integrate	“Wollen sich in Deutschland integrieren und mithelfen” [want to integrate into Germany and assist]
		“Die Kinder scheinen sich schnell anzupassen und glücklich hier zu sein.” [The children seem to adapt quickly and seem to be happy here]
Unwilling to integrate	Assumed unwillingness to integrate	“Haben kein Interesse Deutsch zu lernen oder sich zu integrieren.” [Have no interest in learning German or integrating themselves]
		“Passen sich nicht an.” [Do not adapt themselves]
Capability perceptions to carry out intentions
In need of/worthy of help	In need of and/or worthy of help, protection, and/or care; group members’ inability to help themselves; natives ought to protect, help, and/or care	“(…) Und damit müssen wir ihnen helfen, dass sie wieder ein normales Leben anfangen können.” [(…) and therefore, we have to help them in order for them to start leading a normal life again]
		“Viel Not und Leid während der Flucht, dem man mit Hilfe im Ankunftsland antworten muss” [A lot of poverty and hardship during the flight, to which one has to respond with support in the receiving country]
Experience of loss	Loss of and/or leaving behind valuable things and/or persons, such as home country, life, loved ones, and/or family	“Die meisten haben meiner Meinung nach einen schweren Weg hinter sich und mussten viel aufgeben oder haben viel verloren.” [In my opinion, most of them have a difficult journey behind them and had to abandon a lot or lost a lot]
		“Verlust von Familie, Freunden, vertrauter Heimat.” [Loss of family, friends, and familiar home]
Experience of trauma	Traumatization due to life events	“Menschen die viel schlimmes erlebt haben und dringend psychologische Betreuung bräuchten” [people that have experienced evil and are urgently in need for psychological support]
		“Wenn ich an Flüchtlinge denke, denke ich an Menschen die sich auf der Flucht befinden und traumatische Erfahrungen machen mussten.” [When thinking of refugees, I think of people which are currently fleeing and were forced to make traumatic experiences]
Strong-mindedness	Strong character, will, and/or determination	“Diejenigen, die es bis hier her geschafft haben, sind sehr starke Menschen, anderenfalls hätten sie es nicht geschafft, den gefährlichen und beschwerlichen Weg auf sich zu nehmen und bis zur Ankunft in Deutschland oder in einem anderen Land durchzuhalten.” [Those that have made it until here are very strong people, otherwise they would not have made the dangerous and exhausting way and would not have hold out until their arrival in Germany or another country]
		“Ich denke an Angst, Verzweiflung, Hilflosigkeit und gleichzeitig auch an Stärke, Durchhaltevermögen, Kraft, dem Leidensdruck standhalten und Mut zur Veränderung haben” [I think of anxiety, despair, helplessness and at the same time of strength, endurance, power to withstand the psychological strain and to have courage for change]

Table 1 Description of categories and examples of category content

View as image HTML

Table 2 Absolute counts and percentages of demographic group characteristics, intentions and motivations, and capability to carry out intentions for asylum seekers, refugees, war refugees, and economic refugees

Category	Refugees1 (n = 115)	Asylum seekers (n = 98)	χ2 (1, n = 213)	War refugees (n = 95)	Economic refugees (n = 79)	Refugees1 (n = 115)	χ2 (2, n = 298)
Notes.1The data on refugees were submitted to two seperate analyses (asylum seekers vs. refugees; war refugees vs. economic refugees vs. refugees). Thus, the refugees column is reproduced twice in the present table. 2Only the first-mentioned countries/areas were included. 3Although the comparison of frequencies produced a significant χ2 statistic on the .05-level, the contingency table indicated no significant differences between cells. This may be due to a high share (more than 20%) of cells with lower frequencies than 5. Thus, these results should be interpreted cautiously. In all these cases, we contained the null-hypothesis of no significant association between cells. 4Experience of trauma and loss was subsumed under the broader category of capability to carry out intentions, since they were interpreted as capability-reducing factors. All values are percentages out of the total n in the respective condition, with absolute n in parentheses. Interrater reliability = 95.2% correspondence. Different subscripts indicate statistically significant differences (p < .05) between cells.
Demographic group characteristics
Gender/familiar group
Children	10 (8.7%)	4 (4.1%)	1.83	12a (12.6%)	1b (1.3%)	10ab (8.7%)	7.75*
Males	4 (3.5%)	6 (6.1%)	0.83	11 (11.6%)	3 (3.8%)	4 (3.5%)	6.95*2
Females	2 (1.7%)	2 (2.0%)	0.03	8a (8.4%)	0b	2ab (1.7%)	10.85*
Families	2 (1.7%)	2 (2.0%)	0.03	7 (7.4%)	2 (2.5%)	2 (1.7%)	4.99
Educational background
Well-educated	0	3 (3.1%)	3.57	1ab (1.1%)	4b (5.1%)	0a	7.44*
Uneducated	0	2 (2.0%)	2.37	0	0	0	/
Group composition
Subgrouping/subtyping	15 (13.0%)	14 (14.3%)	0.07	8 (8.4%)	9 (11.4%)	15 (13.0%)	1.14
Heterogeneous	8 (7.0%)	8 (8.2%)	0.11	4 (4.2%)	3 (3.8%)	8 (7.0%)	1.23
Country of origin2
Afghanistan	2 (1.7%)	1 (1.0%)	0.20	2 (2.1%)	0	2 (2.1%)	1.58
Albania	0	0	/	0	2 (2.5%)	0	5.35
Bulgaria	0	0	/	0	1 (1.3%)	0	2.67
Eritrea	3 (2.6%)	0	2.59	1 (1.1%)	0	3 (2.6%)	2.45
Greece	0	0	/	0	1 (1.3%)	0	2.67
Iraq	0	0	/	1 (1.1%)	0	0	2.05
Kosovo	0	0	/	0	3 (3.8%)	0	8.06*3
Pakistan	1 (0.9%)	0	0.86	1 (1.1%)	0	1 (0.9%)	0.78
Poland	0	0	/	0	1 (1.3%)	0	2.67
Spain	0	0	/	0	1 (1.3%)	0	2.67
Sudan	1 (0.9%)	0	0.86	0	0	1 (0.9%)	1.52
Syria	45a (39.1%)	19b (19.4%)	9.81*	34a (35.8%)	0b	45a (39.1%)	41.19*
Area of origin4
Africa	3 (2.6%)	4 (4.1%)	0.36	1 (1.1%)	5 (6.3%)	3 (2.6%)	4.14
Arabia	1 (0.9%)	2 (2.0%)	0.52	0	0	1 (0.9%)	1.52
Asia	1 (0.9%)	1 (1.0%)	0.01	0	1 (81.3%)	1 (0.9%)	1.09
Balkans	1 (0.9%)	1 (1.0%)	0.01	0a	5b (6.3%)	1ab (0.9%)	9.87*
Middle East	0	1 (1.0%)	1.18	1 (1.1%)	1 (1.3%)	0	1.36
Southern/Eastern Europe	0	0	/	0a	7b (8.9%)	0a	19.07*
Intentions and motivations
Flight intentions
War and security	80 (69.6%)	48 (49.0%)	9.35*	49a (51.6%)	2b (2.5%)	80c (69.6%)	87.14*
General hardship/better life	41 (35.7%)	25 (25.5%)	2.55	32 (33.7%)	31 (39.2%)	41 (35.7%)	0.59
Economy	36 (31.3%)	24 (24.5%)	1.21	14a (14.7%)	39b (49.4%)	36c (31.3%)	24.29*
Persecution	34a (29.6%)	14b (14.3%)	7.08*	14a (14.7%)	2b (2.5%)	34c (29.6%)	24.57*
Lack of prospect	14 (12.2%)	8 (8.2%)	0.92	13 (13.7%)	13 (16.5%)	14 (12.2%)	0.72
Freeloading	2a (1.7%)	8b (8.2%)	4.88*	3 (3.2%)	7 (8.9%)	2 (1.7%)	6.32*2
Germany	8 (7.0%)	7 (7.1%)	<0.01	11 (11.6%)	7 (8.9%)	8 (7.0%)	1.36
Climate	5 (4.3%)	1 (1.0%)	2.14	2 (2.1%)	1 (1.3%)	5 (4.3%)	1.88
Acculturation intentions
Willing to integrate	6 (5.2%)	4 (4.0%)	0.15	2 (2.1%)	1 (1.3%)	6 (5.2%)	2.90
Unwilling to integrate	5 (4.3%)	2 (2.0%)	0.89	1 (1.1%)	4 (5.1%)	5 (4.3%)	2.53
Capability perceptions to carry out intentions
In need of/worthy of help and cooperation	23 (20.0%)	11 (11.2%)	3.04	29a (30.5%)	6b (7.6%)	23ab (20.0%)	14.14*
Experience of loss3	20 (17.4%)	28 (28.6%)	3.79	27a (28.4%)	5b (6.3%)	20ab (17.4%)	14.31*
Experience of trauma3	4 (3.5%)	5 (5.1%)	0.35	11a (11.6%)	0b	4ab (3.5%)	12.89*
Strong-mindedness	4 (3.5%)	4 (4.1%)	0.53	8 (8.4%)	1 (1.3%)	4 (3.5%)	5.60

Table 2 Absolute counts and percentages of demographic group characteristics, intentions and motivations, and capability to carry out intentions for asylum seekers, refugees, war refugees, and economic refugees

View as image HTML

Comparing Stereotype Content Dimensions, Emotions, and Action Tendencies

First, we ran a series of independent t-tests to test for systematic differences between basic stereotype dimensions and resulting consequences for the asylum seekers and refugees group. Next, we ran a series of analyses of variance to test our predictions regarding systematic differences between the social perception of war and economic refugees, and to test to what degree these perceptions deviated from the social perception of refugees without specified flight motive. For all analyses, we applied the p_two-tailed ≤ .05 criterion. Dependent variables were the basic stereotype content dimension scales (warmth, competence), emotion scales (pity, admiration, envy, contempt, anxiety, anger), as well as action tendency scales (active facilitation, passive facilitation, active harm, passive harm). Whenever the assumption of homogeneity of variances was violated, we report adjusted scores.

Comparing Refugees and Asylum Seekers

Means and standard deviations submitted to the t-tests of equality of means analyses between refugees and asylum seekers are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3 Means, standard deviations, and results of t-tests for equality of means of dependent variables for refugees and asylum seekers

	Refugees (n = 115)	Asylum seekers (n = 98)	t-test statistics	Cohen’s d
Notes. All scale means range from 1 (= lowest) to 5 (= highest). 1Adjusted t-value reported due to the violation of the homogeneity of variance assumption. *p ≤ .05.
Warmth	3.60 (0.72)	3.51 (0.70)	t (211) = 0.92	.127
Competence	3.14 (0.65)	3.11 (0.70)	t (211) = 0.32	.044
Pity	4.02 (0.72)	3.79 (0.79)	t (211) = 2.17*	.304
Admiration	3.40 (0.98)	3.12 (0.93)	t (211) = 2.08*	.293
Contempt	1.21 (0.46)	1.34 (0.54)	t (192.49) = −1.961	.259
Envy	1.73 (0.87)	1.82 (0.96)	t (211) = −0.74	.098
Anxiety	1.68 (0.80)	1.89 (0.91)	t (194.97) = −1.771	.245
Anger	1.45 (0.68)	1.68 (0.94)	t (173.60) = −1.99*1	.280
Active facilitation	3.78 (0.86)	3.44 (0.89)	t (211) = 2.89*	.389
Active harm	1.15 (0.44)	1.25 (0.57)	t (211) = −1.42	.200
Passive facilitation	4.39 (0.68)	4.16 (0.76)	t (211) = 2.41*	.320
Passive harm	1.76 (0.85)	1.93 (0.89)	t (211) = −1.42	.200

Table 3 Means, standard deviations, and results of t-tests for equality of means of dependent variables for refugees and asylum seekers

View as image HTML

The means of the two stereotype content scales did not differ significantly between the two groups. As expected, refugees scored significantly higher on pity, whereas the reverse was the case for anger. Moreover, refugees scored higher on admiration than asylum seekers. Comparing both groups on the action tendency scales, refugees received, as expected, significantly higher scores on active facilitation, and unexpectedly higher levels of passive facilitation as well.

Comparing Refugees, War Refugees, and Economic Refugees

Next, we ran a series of analyses of variance (ANOVAs) to test our predictions regarding systematic differences between the perception of war and economic refugees, and to test to what degree the social perception of both war and economic refugees deviated from the social perception of refugees without a specified flight motive. Whenever the assumption of homogeneity of variances was violated, we report Welch’s adjusted F-test scores. Means and standard deviations are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4 Means, standard deviations, and results of F-tests for equality of means of the dependent variables for refugees, war refugees, and economic refugees

	Refugees (n = 115)	War refugees (n = 97)	Economic refugees (n = 79)	F-test statistics	η2
Notes. All scale means range from 1 (= lowest) to 5 (= highest). Nonsignificant differences between means are marked with the same subscripts; significant differences between means are marked with different subscripts. p ≤ .05 with Bonferroni correction. The means and standard deviations of the refugee column are the same as in Table 1. 1Welch’s F-value reported due to the violation of the homogeneity of variance assumption. *p ≤ .05.
Warmth	3.60a (0.72)	3.66a (0.67)	3.22b (0.72)	F (2, 288) = 9.84*	.068
Competence	3.14a (0.65)	3.36a (0.71)	3.12a (0.72)	F (2, 288) = 3.57*	.024
Pity	4.02a (0.72)	4.29b (0.58)	3.42c (0.89)	F (2, 173.12) = 28.57*1	.224
Admiration	3.40a (0.98)	3.59a (0.84)	2.55b (0.91)	F (2, 288) = 31.37*	.218
Contempt	1.21a (0.46)	1.10a (0.23)	1.44b (0.68)	F (2, 153.77) = 10.17*1	.078
Envy	1.73a (0.87)	1.48a (0.75)	2.06b (1.08)	F (2, 173.87) = 8.45*1	.063
Anxiety	1.68a (0.80)	1.55a (0.69)	1.67a (0.88)	F (2, 288) = 0.80	.006
Anger	1.45ab (0.68)	1.36a (0.50)	1.70b (0.99)	F (2, 166.54) = 4.11*1	.036
Active facilitation	3.78a (0.86)	3.93a (0.70)	2.88b (1.01)	F (2, 174.74) = 31.59*1	.262
Active harm	1.15a (0.44)	1.03a (0.12)	1.30b (0.53)	F (2, 137.45) = 12.46*1	.066
Passive facilitation	4.39a (0.68)	4.48a (0.48)	3.86b (0.86)	F (2, 169.05) = 16.97*1	.149
Passive harm	1.76ab (0.85)	1.62a (0.68)	1.94b (1.01)	F (2, 174.02) = 3.06*1	.022

Table 4 Means, standard deviations, and results of F-tests for equality of means of the dependent variables for refugees, war refugees, and economic refugees

View as image HTML

All analyses, except the analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the dependent variable anxiety, produced significant omnibus test results (see Table 4), which we followed up using post hoc tests with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. Economic refugees were expectedly rated significantly lower on warmth than both war refugees and refugees. A significant omnibus test notwithstanding, the post hoc test produced no significant result for competence ratings. As expected, economic refugees received significantly lower scores on the pity scale than both war refugees and refugees. Additionally, war refugees received significantly higher pity scores than refugees. Economic refugees scored significantly lower on admiration than war refugees and refugees, the difference between war refugees and refugees was however nonsignificant. A similar pattern emerged for contempt, envy, and anger. The analysis of the action tendency scales revealed that the above-mentioned patterns emerged as well for active facilitation, passive facilitation, and active harm. As for passive harm, economic refugees received significantly higher scores than war refugees.

Comparisons of Asylum Seekers with Refugees

Based on differences in salience of motivations and intentions in the qualitative part of the study (e.g., war and security, and persecution more closely associated with refugees, freeloading more closely associated with asylum seekers), we hypothesized that warmth perceptions should differ between asylum seekers and refugees. Results indicated, however, that participants held similar stereotypes toward both groups in the SCM framework. Contrary to the theoretical predictions of the BIAS-Map, emotional reactions and action tendencies did nonetheless differ significantly as a function of the labels, in a way that refugees were more positively connoted than asylum seekers. In line with our hypotheses, refugees provoked higher levels of the emotions pity, theoretically associated with higher warmth and lower competence evaluations, as well as admiration, a high warmth, and high competence emotion.

The results of the behavioral intentions were in line with the findings on affective outcomes. Participants demonstrated more active, but also unexpectedly passive supportive behavioral intentions toward refugees than toward asylum seekers. It can be speculated that the amicability of intentions and capability to harm, reflected in the warmth and competence ratings, were indeed judged as similar across groups. However, other factors may have had an impact on emotional reactions and action tendencies, such as the label-specific intentions themselves. For example, seeking security and fleeing persecution were more dominant flight intentions and motivations in the refugees condition. Freeloading, on the other hand, was more strongly associated with asylum seekers. This may have had an impact on emotional reactions and behavioral intentions, despite similarities in terms of amicability and implementation capability perceptions. An alternative explanation of the findings may be that the warmth and competence items that we have used, and that have served their purpose in multiple other studies in Germany (e.g., Asbrock, 2010; Kotzur et al., 2017; Kotzur & Wagner, 2017), were not sensitive enough to slight variations of warmth and competence perceptions. Relatedly, there is an ongoing debate as to what extent the assumption of a two-dimensional structure of basic stereotype content dimensions holds, or may be better represented by alternative structures, such as distinct sub-dimensions (Stanciu, 2015; Szymkow, Chandler, IJzerman, Parzuchowski, & Wojciszke, 2013), or additional dimensions of social perception (Koch, Imhoff, Dotsch, Unkelbach, & Alves, 2016; Leach, Ellemers, & Barreto, 2007). In light of our findings, we encourage further research to examine to what extent other factors, currently not under scrutiny in the SCM and BIAS-Map, may have an impact on the constructs at stake.

Overall, based on the evidence of the quantitative and qualitative part of the analysis, our results suggest that there is a large overlap in terms of ascribed demographic characteristics, flight intentions, and capability to carry out intentions. Although we find, in line with previous analyses, that asylum seekers seem to be connoted more negatively (Berry et al., 2015). For some, “refugees” and “asylum seekers” may be used interchangeably, illustrated by the two quotes below:

Lastly, the qualitative analysis revealed that for about one out of eight participants, it was important to explicitly distinguish between subgroups of the fled, such as between economic and war refugees, confirming the importance of investigating the social perception of both subgroups separately.

Comparisons of War Refugees, Economic Refugees, and Refugees Without Specified Flight Motive

Based on differences in the qualitative profiles between war and economic refugees, manifesting itself in perceived demographic characteristics, intentions, and capacity to implement intentions, we hypothesized that war refugees should be perceived as warmer, and less competent than economic refugees. We also hypothesized, based on the qualitative results, that the SCM and BIAS-Map profiles of refugees and war refugees would have more commonalities than the profiles of refugees and economic refugees. The results largely matched our hypotheses and were in line with previous work (e.g., Ditlmann et al., 2016; Infratest, 2016). First, we found that economic refugees received the lowest warmth ratings. The expectation that economic refugees would receive higher competence scores, however, had to be rejected. Thus, it seems, participants ascribed similar agency to war refugees, economic refugees, and refugees without specified flight motive. This may be related to the dominant focus on early-stage fled individuals, who generally have little control over numerous aspects of their lives. German policies, which disadvantage newcomers’ entrance into the labor market, may be a further contributing factor in reducing the implementation capability perceptions of the group’s dominantly perceived intentions, that is, economic improvement.

Second, our hypothesis regarding differences between war and economic refugees with respect to anxiety and anger as emotions linked to the perception of warmth could only partially be upheld: Anger, an emotion related to harmful behavioral intentions (Wagner & Christ, 2007), was indeed highest in the economic refugees condition. Anxiety levels, related to avoidance intentions (Mackie, Devos, & Smith, 2000), however, did not differ significantly across the three labels.

Third, based on our previous assumptions of differences in warmth and competence perceptions, we had expected economic refugees to be associated with higher levels of envy (high competence, low warmth emotion), lower levels of pity (low competence, high warmth emotion). Despite no significant differences in competence perceptions, these hypotheses could be confirmed. Additionally, war refugees scored significantly higher on admiration, and significantly lower on contempt compared to economic refugees. Similar reasons as discussed above could account for these findings.

We also expected that economic refugees were associated with more active harmful and more passive facilitative action tendencies than war refugees. In congruence with the findings on anger, these hypotheses could be confirmed. Contrary to our hypotheses, the same pattern emerged for passively harmful and facilitative action tendencies. Thus, overall, economic refugees were evaluated less favorably than war refugees, and elicited more harming than supportive behavioral intentions.

Examining the relations between war refugees and refugees, both SCM and BIAS-Map score profiles match (almost) perfectly. The only exception to this pattern is pity, where war refugees elicit higher scores than refugees. This is in line with the qualitative findings, which demonstrate that participants ascribed similar group characteristics, intentions and motivations, as well as capabilities to both groups.

When comparing economic refugees with refugees, economic refugees received less favorable scores than refugees on the warmth scale, all emotional scales but anxiety and anger, and all action tendency scales but passive harm. Based on the qualitative and quantitative evidence, we conclude that the labels war refugees and refugees overlap to a great extent, while economic refugees represent a label reserved for a distinct, less appreciated social subgroup.

Limitations and Future Research

Our findings are in line with those of previous studies on this topic (e.g., Ditlmann et al., 2016; Verkuyten, 2004). Nonetheless, our findings should be generalized to other contexts with caution, considering that we based our study on a convenience sample of undergraduate students of a medium-sized university in Western Germany. For example, West and East Germans associate different national groups with the term “foreigner,” which partially accounts for different levels of prejudice (Asbrock et al., 2014). Comparing Asbrock’s (2010) and Eckes’ (2002) results reveals that warmth and competence perceptions of some social groups differ between West and East Germany. Thus, a replication of our study in other contexts, such as East Germany, could consequently prove fruitful for future research.

Furthermore, we used a cross-sectional design. Thus, in contrast to longitudinal research, for instance, we cannot draw any conclusions regarding the stability of our findings across time. Moreover, contrary to our expectations, we found overall less bias against the labels than expected, reflected in relatively high warmth and competence means across all conditions. One explanation for the high means might be that all constructs were measured explicitly, leading to socially desirable answers. Future research may explore possibilities to measure these constructs with implicit methods. Additionally, we used an open-ended format to delve into the intentions and motivations, capability perceptions to implement the intentions, as well as general group characteristics associated with each label. We deemed this method the most appropriate, given the fact that this field of research is still in its infancy. While this strategy has its advantages, such as providing participants a platform to freely express their thoughts, it certainly has its disadvantages: Errors may arise both on the side of the participants (e.g., retrieval errors) and researchers (e.g., coding errors). We aimed to minimize the latter source of error, which was under our control, by employing two independent coders who largely agreed with their interpretation and resolved the remaining disagreement by discussion. Relatedly, in some instances, more than 20% of cells of the coding categories were mentioned less than five times per condition, leading to unstable results. In all of these cases, we retained the null-hypothesis that no significant difference between conditions existed. Future research may consider increasing the sample size to avoid this issue, or using our findings for a development of quantitative scales.

Additionally, some of the scale reliabilities in the quantitative part were higher in some conditions than in others. For instance, it seemed that statements like “I envy [group]” were always unacceptable whenever referring to refugees or war refugees, resulting in a lack of variance and thus low Cronbach’s alpha scores. Nonetheless, we believe that we have struck a balance between empirical and conceptual demands. Lastly, we deemed the labels submitted to analyses the most relevant in the present context. However, future research could expand the investigation to further labels. For example, when investigating the content and effects of labels, the less politically laden term “fled people” (in German: "Geflüchtete") may be of interest in future studies. Likewise, when studying stereotypes associated with flight motives, “climate refugees” (in German: "Klimaflüchtlinge") may be a term gaining importance in the years to come.

Conclusion

In light of findings that suggest far-reaching consequences for differences in connotations, we investigated cognitive, emotional, and behavioral consequences for fleeing individuals as a function of the label (“asylum seekers” vs. “refugees,” and “war refugees” vs. “economic refugees” vs. “refugees”) in the SCM and BIAS-Map framework. Furthermore, we utilized qualitative data to generate hypotheses regarding differences in evaluations on these constructs, and at the same time explored to what extent perceived intentions and motivations, capability of implementing them, as well as group characteristics overlapped or differed. Our results demonstrate that the used terminology to refer to people who flee from adverse living conditions does make a difference, and that the choice of the term should not be taken lightly. Thus, we encourage a conscious and well-informed choice of words in the present-day asylum discourse.