Xenophobia

Abstract

Xenophobia is a type of prejudice: fear, distrust, or hostility directed at people construed as foreign — immigrants, refugees, and ethnic or national outgroups perceived as not belonging. Cognitive psychology's central contribution is to explain xenophobia as a response to perceived threat: integrated threat theory identifies the distinct threats (realistic, symbolic, intergroup anxiety, negative stereotypes) that drive it, the sociofunctional approach shows that different threats evoke different emotions and avoidance behaviors, and the behavioral immune system links disgust-based xenophobia to evolved disease avoidance. This article defines xenophobia, sets out its threat-based structure, traces the roles of resource competition and specific emotions, reviews the contact-based evidence on reducing it, and surveys field research from the refugee crisis. A worked example and three interactive demonstrations make the threat model, the threat–emotion mapping, and the conditions for successful contact concrete.

Keywords: xenophobia, intergroup threat, prejudice, intergroup contact, immigration attitudes

What Xenophobia Is

Xenophobia — from the Greek xenos (stranger, foreigner) and phobos (fear) — is fear, distrust, or hostility toward people perceived as foreign or as not belonging to one's own national, ethnic, or cultural group. As a form of prejudice, it shares the general structure of a group-directed attitude: a cognitive component of beliefs and stereotypes, an affective component of felt fear or antipathy, and a behavioral component of discrimination. What picks xenophobia out from prejudice in general is the dimension along which the target is excluded: not primarily race or sex, but foreignness itself — the perception that a person or group originates outside the national or cultural boundary and therefore does not belong within it. MeSH introduced the descriptor in 2015 and classifies it under Prejudice, reflecting exactly this placement.

Although xenophobia and racism frequently overlap in practice and target overlapping groups, they are analytically distinct. Racism organizes exclusion around putative racial categories; xenophobia organizes it around the native–foreign distinction, so that a xenophobic reaction can fall on immigrants who share the majority's racial category and spare foreign nationals who do not, depending entirely on who is coded as an outsider. This is why xenophobia is the prejudice most closely tied to nativism — the political preference for established inhabitants over newcomers — and why its intensity rises and falls with immigration, refugee movements, and the salience of national borders rather than tracking a fixed set of groups.

The native–foreign divide rests on a more basic cognitive operation: social categorization. Henri Tajfel's minimal-group experiments showed that sorting people into groups on an arbitrary and trivial basis, with nothing material at stake, is by itself sufficient to produce ingroup favoritism and discrimination against the outgroup (Tajfel et al., 1971). This is the baseline from which xenophobia builds: the mere act of coding someone as a foreigner draws the ingroup–outgroup line, and the specific threats a foreign group is believed to pose then determine how much hostility that line carries.

The folk understanding treats xenophobia as simple irrational hatred of the unfamiliar. This captures the fear in the word's root but mispredicts the pattern of the data, which is highly structured rather than indiscriminate. People are not equally wary of all foreigners; their hostility is calibrated to specific perceived threats — economic, cultural, physical — and tracks those perceptions closely (Stephan et al., 1999). A threat-based account, developed in the next sections, explains both the fear the folk picture notices and the selectivity it misses.

Threat at the Core: Integrated Threat Theory

The most influential cognitive account of xenophobia is Walter Stephan and colleagues' integrated threat theory, which holds that prejudice toward an outgroup is driven by the threats that group is perceived to pose (Stephan et al., 1999). The theory originally distinguished four types. Realistic threats concern tangible harms to the ingroup's welfare — jobs, wages, public resources, physical safety. Symbolic threats concern the ingroup's values, worldview, religion, and way of life — the sense that the outgroup's culture erodes the native culture. Intergroup anxiety is the discomfort people anticipate in interactions with outgroup members, the expectation of awkwardness, rejection, or being exploited. Negative stereotypes function as threats because they generate expectations of unpleasant or harmful behavior. Applied to immigrants specifically, Stephan and colleagues found that each type of threat independently predicted negative attitudes, and that the threats together explained attitudes better than any one alone.

The theory's power is that it reframes xenophobia from an attitude in search of a cause into the predictable output of threat perception. It also makes clear why xenophobia is so responsive to context: anything that raises perceived threat — an economic downturn framed around immigration, a terrorist act attributed to foreigners, political rhetoric about cultural dilution — should raise hostility, while anything that lowers perceived threat should reduce it. A later reformulation folded intergroup anxiety and stereotypes into the two core threats as subtypes, but the four-way division remains the most useful for exposition because it names the distinct levers on which interventions and demagogues alike operate.

Quantitative support is strong. Blake Riek and colleagues meta-analyzed the intergroup-threat literature and found that all the threat types correlated substantially and positively with negative outgroup attitudes, with symbolic and realistic threats showing the largest associations (Riek et al., 2006). The consistency of the relationship across many groups and settings is what makes threat the organizing construct of the field rather than one factor among many. Table 1 sets out the four threats, the dimension each targets, and whether intergroup contact reaches it.

The IntergroupThreatModel demonstration below allows the four threat levels to be set independently, showing how they combine into an overall index of hostility toward an immigrant outgroup.

Competition, Resources, and Situational Triggers

Where integrated threat theory catalogs the threats, Victoria Esses and colleagues' instrumental model of group conflict explains where realistic threat comes from: perceived competition over finite resources (Esses et al., 1998). When members of the ingroup believe they are in a zero-sum contest with immigrants over jobs, housing, or public funds — that whatever the outgroup gains the ingroup must lose — they develop negative attitudes toward immigration and support policies to restrict it. Crucially, the model turns on perceived competition, not actual economic position, which is why anti-immigrant sentiment can be intense among people whose livelihoods are not in fact affected: a salient belief in zero-sum competition is sufficient, and such beliefs can be deliberately cultivated.

Political science has refined this picture in an important way. Jens Hainmueller and Daniel Hopkins, reviewing the evidence on public attitudes toward immigration, concluded that opposition is driven far more by sociotropic concerns — beliefs about immigration's effect on the nation's economy and culture as a whole — than by egocentric concerns about one's own job or wages (Hainmueller & Hopkins, 2014). The individual-labor-market-competition hypothesis, long assumed, fits the data poorly; people oppose immigration because of what they think it does to the country, not chiefly because of what it does to them personally. This dovetails with integrated threat theory's symbolic dimension and explains why cultural framing moves attitudes so powerfully.

Attitudes are also triggered situationally. Paul Sniderman and colleagues showed experimentally that exclusionary reactions toward immigrant minorities arise from the interaction of stable predisposing factors — such as concern over national identity — with momentary situational triggers that make threat salient; a transient cue of threat could provoke hostility even among those not otherwise strongly predisposed (Sniderman et al., 2004). Xenophobia, on this account, is neither purely dispositional nor purely circumstantial but the product of a predisposition meeting a trigger — which is precisely the combination that political entrepreneurs exploit.

Distinct Threats, Distinct Emotions: Disgust and the Behavioral Immune System

Treating all threat as a single quantity, as a simple model does, misses that different threats feel different and prompt different behavior. Catherine Cottrell and Steven Neuberg's sociofunctional, threat-based approach argues that prejudices are not interchangeable: specific threats evoke specific, functionally appropriate emotions, each tied to a distinct action tendency (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005). A group seen as threatening physical safety elicits fear and a defensive impulse; a group seen as taking resources unfairly elicits anger and a tendency to confront or exclude; a group seen as a contamination risk elicits disgust and an impulse to avoid. Xenophobia is therefore not one emotion but a family of them, and which one dominates depends on which threat is salient — a distinction with direct implications for which interventions will work.

The disgust pathway has attracted particular attention through the behavioral immune system — a set of evolved psychological mechanisms that detect cues to infectious disease and trigger avoidance of their likely carriers. Because foreign groups historically could carry unfamiliar pathogens and might not observe the ingroup's disease-safe customs, the system is prone to treating the foreign as the potentially contaminating. Jason Faulkner, Mark Schaller, and colleagues found that chronic and situationally aroused worry about disease predicted more negative attitudes toward foreign (relative to familiar) immigrant groups (Faulkner et al., 2004), and Carlos Navarrete and Daniel Fessler showed that both disease vulnerability and disgust sensitivity predicted heightened ethnocentrism (Navarrete & Fessler, 2006). Schaller and Neuberg integrated this work into a broader account of how danger and disease give rise to qualitatively different prejudices (Schaller & Neuberg, 2012).

Disgust is also a route to a graver outcome. Gordon Hodson and Kimberly Costello found that people high in interpersonal disgust sensitivity held more hostile attitudes toward immigrants, and that this relationship was mediated by dehumanization — the denial of full humanness to the outgroup (Hodson & Costello, 2007). Once a foreign group is construed as less than fully human, the ordinary moral restraints on how it may be treated weaken, which is why disgust-based xenophobia is disproportionately implicated in the harshest forms of exclusion.

The ThreatEmotionMap demonstration below maps each type of perceived threat to the specific emotion and behavioral tendency the sociofunctional account predicts it will evoke.

Reducing Xenophobia: Intergroup Contact

The best-supported remedy for xenophobia is also one of the oldest ideas in the field. Gordon Allport's contact hypothesis proposed that prejudice between groups can be reduced by contact between their members, provided the contact occurs under favorable conditions: equal status within the situation, shared goals, cooperation rather than competition, and the support of institutions or authorities (Allport, 1954). The intuition is that hostility feeds on ignorance and anticipated unpleasantness, and that structured, cooperative contact replaces imagined threat with concrete, generally benign experience.

Thomas Pettigrew's intergroup contact theory developed Allport's conditions into a testable program (Pettigrew, 1998), and the decisive evidence came from Pettigrew and Linda Tropp's meta-analysis of 515 studies, which found that intergroup contact was reliably associated with lower prejudice — a mean effect that held across target groups, ages, and nations, and was stronger, though not confined to settings, where Allport's optimal conditions were met (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Two findings from this work matter especially for xenophobia. First, the effect generalizes: contact with individual outgroup members tends to improve attitudes toward the whole outgroup, not just the individuals met. Second, and most usefully, the primary route by which contact works is the reduction of intergroup anxiety — the very threat that integrated threat theory places at the heart of xenophobia. Contact reduces prejudice less by teaching new facts than by draining the apprehension out of intergroup encounters.

The ContactConditionsSimulator demonstration below toggles Allport's optimal conditions and varies the amount of contact to show their combined effect on predicted prejudice.

Measured Consequences

The threat account has been tested against real events, most searchingly during the European refugee crisis of the 2010s. Kirk Bansak, Jens Hainmueller, and Dominik Hangartner ran a conjoint experiment across fifteen European countries, presenting respondents with profiles of asylum seekers whose attributes were randomized. Europeans were more willing to admit asylum seekers who were more employable, who had more consistent and humanitarian-grounds-worthy claims, and who were Christian rather than Muslim — evidence that public attitudes blend economic, humanitarian, and symbolic-religious considerations rather than any single motive (Bansak et al., 2016). The religious penalty is a direct signature of symbolic threat.

Field evidence also shows that exposure to the crisis hardened attitudes. Dominik Hangartner and colleagues studied Greek islands differentially exposed to large numbers of arriving refugees and found that residents of the most exposed islands became more hostile toward refugees, migrants, and Muslim minorities, and more supportive of exclusionary policies, than residents of otherwise similar but less exposed islands (Hangartner et al., 2018). The result is a caution for the contact remedy: sudden, large-scale, and unstructured exposure — the opposite of Allport's controlled, cooperative, equal-status conditions — can raise rather than lower hostility, which is exactly what the conditions were meant to specify. Reviewing the crisis as a whole, Esses and colleagues documented how perceived threat, media framing, and the dehumanization of refugees shaped public responses, and identified the conditions under which attitudes and resettlement outcomes improve (Esses et al., 2017).

Worked Example: The Threat Model, and What Contact Changes

Integrated threat theory can be made quantitative with a simple linear model. Rate each of the four threats from 0 to 10 and combine them with weights that sum to 1, then scale to a 0–100 index. Using illustrative weights that give the two core threats the most say:

index = 10 × (0.30·Realistic + 0.30·Symbolic + 0.25·Anxiety + 0.15·Stereotypes)

Take an immigrant outgroup perceived as moderately-to-highly threatening: realistic threat 7, symbolic threat 8, intergroup anxiety 6, negative stereotypes 5. The weighted components are:

- Realistic: 0.30 × 7 = 2.10 - Symbolic: 0.30 × 8 = 2.40 - Intergroup anxiety: 0.25 × 6 = 1.50 - Negative stereotypes: 0.15 × 5 = 0.75

Their sum is 6.75 on the 0–10 scale, for a xenophobia index of 67.5.

Now introduce intergroup contact under Allport's conditions. The meta-analytic finding is that contact works chiefly by reducing intergroup anxiety, with a secondary effect on stereotypes, and little direct effect on beliefs about realistic or symbolic threat (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Suppose contact lowers anxiety from 6 to 2 and stereotypes from 5 to 3, leaving realistic and symbolic threat unchanged:

- Realistic: 0.30 × 7 = 2.10 (unchanged) - Symbolic: 0.30 × 8 = 2.40 (unchanged) - Intergroup anxiety: 0.25 × 2 = 0.50 - Negative stereotypes: 0.15 × 3 = 0.45

The new sum is 5.45, an index of 54.5 — a drop of 13.0 points, about 19%.

The arithmetic carries the article's main practical lesson. Contact is powerful but partial: it drains the psychological threats — the anticipated anxiety and the inaccurate stereotypes — that inflate hostility beyond what circumstances warrant, but it does not by itself resolve the tangible conflicts over resources and values that realistic and symbolic threat represent. An index that is driven mostly by symbolic threat, as this one is, cannot be brought down to zero by contact alone; reducing it further requires addressing the resource competition and value conflict directly. This is also why unstructured mass exposure can backfire: if it raises realistic and symbolic threat faster than it lowers anxiety, the index goes up, not down — the pattern Hangartner and colleagues observed (Hangartner et al., 2018).

Discussion

The cognitive psychology of xenophobia turns on a single reframing: the fear of foreigners is not an irrational constant but a calibrated response to perceived threat. Integrated threat theory supplies the inventory of threats; the instrumental model explains where realistic threat originates; the sociofunctional approach shows that each threat recruits a distinct emotion and action tendency; and the behavioral immune system grounds the disgust-and-avoidance variant in evolved disease avoidance. Together they convert xenophobia from a mood into a mechanism whose inputs can be named and, in principle, changed.

Two features of the account have outsized practical importance. The first is that perceived threat is largely sociotropic and symbolic rather than egocentric and material: people oppose immigration chiefly for what they believe it does to the nation's culture and economy, not for its measurable effect on their own circumstances (Hainmueller & Hopkins, 2014). This explains why appeals to self-interest move attitudes so weakly and why cultural and identity framing moves them so strongly — and why xenophobia is so readily mobilized by rhetoric that raises symbolic threat. The second is that the most reliable remedy, intergroup contact, works through a specific channel — the reduction of intergroup anxiety — which both explains its successes and predicts its limits (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Contact that is forced, unequal, competitive, or overwhelming does not meet Allport's conditions and can deepen the hostility it was meant to dissolve.

The account also clarifies why xenophobia is so volatile compared with prejudices tied to stable group categories. Because it is driven by perceived threat, and because threat perception is exquisitely sensitive to framing, economic conditions, and salient events, xenophobia can surge and recede far faster than the demographic facts on the ground change. That volatility is a vulnerability — it makes the prejudice easy to inflame — but also an opening, because the same sensitivity to perceived threat means that interventions which lower threat perception, correct zero-sum beliefs, and structure contact well can move attitudes that look fixed.

Current Directions

Several active lines are extending the threat account. One concerns dehumanization as an increasingly central construct. Nour Kteily and Emile Bruneau developed blatant measures of the dehumanization of immigrant and minority groups and showed that it predicts support for aggressive, exclusionary policies and produces a backlash dynamic in which dehumanized groups, aware of how they are seen, respond in ways that can entrench hostility on both sides (Kteily & Bruneau, 2017). This work connects the disgust-and-dehumanization pathway to real political consequences and to the self-reinforcing escalation that makes xenophobic conflict hard to defuse.

A second line is sharpening the measurement of threat itself. Helen Landmann, Robert Gaschler, and Anette Rohmann distinguished several specific threats that refugees are perceived to pose and mapped each to distinct emotional responses and attitudes, finding that different threats drive different facets of opposition — a direct empirical elaboration of the sociofunctional claim that threat and emotion are matched (Landmann et al., 2019). Meta-analytic consolidation has kept pace: Misha Cowling, Joel Anderson, and Rhiannon Ferguson synthesized the prejudice-relevant correlates of attitudes toward refugees, quantifying how threat perception, intergroup contact, ideology, and empathy relate to refugee attitudes across the literature (Cowling et al., 2019).

A third effort is synthesis. Esses's review of prejudice and discrimination toward immigrants draws the strands together — threat, competition, dehumanization, and the conditions for improvement — into an integrated account of why immigrants are targeted and what reduces it, and identifies where the evidence remains thin, particularly on interventions that work at scale and over time (Esses, 2021). The through-line of all three directions is a move from cataloging threats to modeling their specific emotional and behavioral consequences, and from documenting xenophobia to engineering its reduction.

Common Misconceptions

Xenophobia is just irrational hatred of anything unfamiliar.

It is highly structured, not indiscriminate. Hostility tracks specific perceived threats — economic, cultural, and physical — so people are wary of foreign groups in proportion to the threat those groups are believed to pose, not uniformly (Stephan et al., 1999; Riek et al., 2006).

Xenophobia and racism are the same thing.

They overlap but differ in the dimension of exclusion. Racism organizes exclusion around putative racial categories; xenophobia organizes it around the native–foreign distinction, so it can target immigrants who share the majority's race and spare foreigners who do not. Prejudice toward immigrants is a distinct research literature precisely because it tracks immigrant status and national borders rather than a fixed set of racial groups (Esses, 2021).

Opposition to immigration is mainly about protecting one's own job and wages.

The evidence points the other way. Attitudes are driven far more by sociotropic concerns — beliefs about immigration's effect on the nation's economy and culture — than by personal economic self-interest, which is why the individual-labor-market-competition hypothesis fits the data poorly (Hainmueller & Hopkins, 2014).

Simply bringing groups together will always reduce xenophobia.

Only contact under favorable conditions reliably does. Allport specified equal status, common goals, cooperation, and institutional support; contact that is forced, unequal, competitive, or overwhelming can increase hostility, as sudden mass exposure during the refugee crisis did (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006; Hangartner et al., 2018).

Glossary

Behavioral immune system.

A set of evolved psychological mechanisms that detect cues to infectious disease and trigger disgust and avoidance; when foreign groups are treated as potential contamination risks, it produces disgust-based xenophobia.

Contact hypothesis.

Allport's proposal that intergroup contact reduces prejudice when it occurs under favorable conditions — equal status, common goals, cooperation, and institutional support.

Dehumanization.

The denial of full humanness to an outgroup; it mediates the link between disgust and hostility toward immigrants and predicts support for harsh, exclusionary treatment.

Egocentric threat.

Perceived threat to one's own personal circumstances, such as one's own job or wages; shown to be a weak driver of immigration attitudes relative to sociotropic threat.

Instrumental model of group conflict.

Esses and colleagues' account in which perceived zero-sum competition over resources produces negative attitudes toward immigrants and support for restricting immigration.

Integrated threat theory.

Stephan and colleagues' theory that prejudice toward an outgroup is driven by perceived threats — realistic, symbolic, intergroup anxiety, and negative stereotypes.

Intergroup anxiety.

The discomfort people anticipate or feel in interactions with outgroup members; it is a core threat in xenophobia and the main channel through which intergroup contact reduces it.

Minimal-group paradigm.

Tajfel's experimental demonstration that sorting people into arbitrary, trivial groups is by itself enough to produce ingroup favoritism and outgroup discrimination; the categorization baseline on which xenophobia builds.

Nativism.

The political preference for the interests of established inhabitants over those of immigrants and newcomers; the ideological expression most closely tied to xenophobia.

Realistic threat.

Perceived threat to the ingroup's tangible welfare — jobs, wages, resources, and physical safety; one of the two core threats in integrated threat theory.

Sociofunctional threat-based approach.

Cottrell and Neuberg's account in which specific threats evoke specific emotions and matched action tendencies — fear and defense, anger and exclusion, disgust and avoidance.

Sociotropic threat.

Perceived threat to the nation or community as a whole rather than to oneself; the dominant driver of immigration attitudes, which tracks collective economic and cultural concerns.

Symbolic threat.

Perceived threat to the ingroup's values, worldview, religion, and way of life; alongside realistic threat, one of the two strongest predictors of hostility toward immigrants.

Xenophobia.

Fear, distrust, or hostility toward people perceived as foreign; a form of prejudice organized around the native–foreign distinction and classified by MeSH under Prejudice.

Zero-sum belief.

The belief that gains to an outgroup necessarily come at the ingroup's expense; a perception, not an economic fact, and the cognitive core of realistic resource threat.

Key Researchers

Gordon W. Allport

(Harvard University, 1897–1967). Author of The Nature of Prejudice (1954), which defined prejudice as hostile attitudes toward outgroups and proposed the contact hypothesis — the foundation of the modern psychology of xenophobia and its reduction. Wikipedia - Faculty page

Victoria M. Esses

(University of Western Ontario). Author of the instrumental model of group conflict and a leading empirical program on attitudes toward immigrants and refugees, the dehumanization of asylum seekers, and policy remedies. ORCID - Faculty page

Gordon Hodson

(Brock University). Researcher of intergroup disgust, dehumanization, and ideological predictors of hostility toward immigrants and other outgroups, linking the disgust pathway to its harshest behavioral consequences. ORCID - Faculty page - Google Scholar

Thomas F. Pettigrew

(University of California, Santa Cruz). Developed and, with Linda Tropp, meta-analytically validated intergroup contact theory, the most robust evidence base for reducing prejudice toward immigrants and other outgroups. Wikipedia - Google Scholar

Mark Schaller

(University of British Columbia). Originator of the behavioral immune system account, showing how evolved disease-avoidance mechanisms shape xenophobic attitudes toward unfamiliar outgroups under perceived threat of infection. Wikipedia - Faculty page - Google Scholar

Henri Tajfel

(University of Bristol, 1919–1982). Originator of social identity theory and the minimal-group paradigm, which showed that mere categorization into ingroup and outgroup suffices to produce intergroup bias — the categorization process on which the native–foreign distinction rests. Wikipedia

Frequently Asked Questions

What is xenophobia?

Xenophobia is fear, distrust, or hostility toward people perceived as foreign, including immigrants, refugees, and ethnic or national outgroups construed as not belonging. The word joins the Greek xenos (stranger) and phobos (fear). As a form of prejudice, it combines beliefs and stereotypes, felt fear or antipathy, and discriminatory behavior, all organized around the native-versus-foreign distinction.

How is xenophobia different from racism?

The two overlap and often target overlapping groups, but they are organized along different dimensions. Racism excludes on the basis of putative racial categories; xenophobia excludes on the basis of foreignness. A xenophobic reaction can therefore fall on immigrants who share the majority's racial category and spare foreign nationals who do not, and its intensity tracks immigration and national borders rather than a fixed set of groups.

What causes xenophobia?

The leading cognitive account is that it is driven by perceived threat. Integrated threat theory identifies four sources: realistic threats to jobs, resources, and safety; symbolic threats to values and culture; intergroup anxiety about interacting with outgroup members; and negative stereotypes. Each independently predicts hostility toward immigrants, and symbolic and realistic threats show the strongest associations.

Is xenophobia really about losing jobs to immigrants?

Less than people assume. The evidence shows that immigration attitudes are driven far more by sociotropic concerns, meaning beliefs about immigration's effect on the nation's economy and culture as a whole, than by personal economic self-interest. The hypothesis that opposition comes mainly from individual labor-market competition fits the data poorly.

Why does disgust matter in xenophobia?

The behavioral immune system, a set of evolved mechanisms that detect disease cues and trigger avoidance, can treat foreign groups as potential contamination risks, producing disgust-based wariness. Disgust sensitivity predicts more hostile attitudes toward immigrants, and that link is mediated by dehumanization, which is why the disgust pathway is implicated in the harshest forms of exclusion.

Do different threats produce different reactions?

Yes. The sociofunctional approach shows that specific threats evoke specific emotions with matched action tendencies: a safety threat evokes fear and defense, a resource threat evokes anger and exclusion, and a contamination threat evokes disgust and avoidance. Xenophobia is therefore a family of emotional reactions, not a single one, and the dominant emotion depends on which threat is salient.

Can xenophobia be reduced?

The best-supported remedy is intergroup contact under favorable conditions: equal status, common goals, cooperation, and institutional support. A meta-analysis of 515 studies found contact reliably lowers prejudice, mainly by reducing intergroup anxiety. But contact that is forced, unequal, competitive, or overwhelming can backfire, which is why the favorable conditions matter.

Why does xenophobia rise and fall so quickly?

Because it is driven by perceived threat, and threat perception is highly sensitive to framing, economic conditions, and salient events, xenophobia can surge and recede far faster than the demographic facts change. That volatility makes it easy to inflame with threat-raising rhetoric, but it also means interventions that lower perceived threat and correct zero-sum beliefs can move attitudes that appear fixed.

References

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.

Bansak, K., Hainmueller, J., & Hangartner, D. (2016). How economic, humanitarian, and religious concerns shape European attitudes toward asylum seekers. Science, 354(6309), 217–222. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aag2147

Cottrell, C. A., & Neuberg, S. L. (2005). Different emotional reactions to different groups: A sociofunctional threat-based approach to "prejudice". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(5), 770–789. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.5.770

Cowling, M. M., Anderson, J. R., & Ferguson, R. (2019). Prejudice-relevant correlates of attitudes towards refugees: A meta-analysis. Journal of Refugee Studies, 32(3), 502–524. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fey062

Esses, V. M., Jackson, L. M., & Armstrong, T. L. (1998). Intergroup competition and attitudes toward immigrants and immigration: An instrumental model of group conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 54(4), 699–724. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1998.tb01244.x

Esses, V. M., Hamilton, L. K., & Gaucher, D. (2017). The global refugee crisis: Empirical evidence and policy implications for improving public attitudes and facilitating refugee resettlement. Social Issues and Policy Review, 11(1), 78–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12028

Esses, V. M. (2021). Prejudice and discrimination toward immigrants. Annual Review of Psychology, 72, 503–531. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-080520-102803

Faulkner, J., Schaller, M., Park, J. H., & Duncan, L. A. (2004). Evolved disease-avoidance mechanisms and contemporary xenophobic attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 7(4), 333–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430204046142

Hainmueller, J., & Hopkins, D. J. (2014). Public attitudes toward immigration. Annual Review of Political Science, 17, 225–249. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-102512-194818

Hangartner, D., Dinas, E., Marbach, M., Matakos, K., & Xefteris, D. (2018). Does exposure to the refugee crisis make natives more hostile? American Political Science Review, 113(2), 442–455. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000813

Hodson, G., & Costello, K. (2007). Interpersonal disgust, ideological orientations, and dehumanization as predictors of intergroup attitudes. Psychological Science, 18(8), 691–698. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01962.x

Kteily, N. S., & Bruneau, E. (2017). Backlash: The politics and real-world consequences of minority group dehumanization. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(1), 87–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216675334

Landmann, H., Gaschler, R., & Rohmann, A. (2019). What is threatening about refugees? Identifying different types of threat and their association with emotional responses and attitudes towards refugee migration. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(7), 1401–1420. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2593

Navarrete, C. D., & Fessler, D. M. T. (2006). Disease avoidance and ethnocentrism: The effects of disease vulnerability and disgust sensitivity on intergroup attitudes. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27(4), 270–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.12.001

Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–85. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751

Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 336–353. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_4

Schaller, M., & Neuberg, S. L. (2012). Danger, disease, and the nature of prejudice(s). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394281-4.00001-5

Sniderman, P. M., Hagendoorn, L., & Prior, M. (2004). Predisposing factors and situational triggers: Exclusionary reactions to immigrant minorities. American Political Science Review, 98(1), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1017/s000305540400098x

Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Bachman, G. (1999). Prejudice toward immigrants. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(11), 2221–2237. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00107.x

Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420010202