The criminal immigrant narrative (CIN) is the embodiment of stereotypes suggesting that foreign nationals are engaged in crime. Research has documented how this narrative has influenced discourse, policies, and enforcement, but none to date has addressed how the CIN affects the stereotyping and interactions of crime-involved individuals with those deemed “immigrants.” This study draws from in-depth, semi-structured interviews of 25 individuals actively engaged in street crime from Atlanta, Georgia, to understand their beliefs regarding immigration, stereotyping of “immigrants,” and their interactions with perceived immigrants, including targeting. Our findings suggest that interviewees’ stereotypes of immigrants and their ascribed attributes are based on perceived nationality, nativity, documentation status, work ethic, criminality, and prior interactions with foreign nationals. Participants demonstrated an understanding of immigration policies from media and political rhetoric. This understanding influenced the stereotyping of immigrants as “illegal” or “doing illegal things,” shaping participants’ views of foreign nationals as vulnerable or dangerous.
more » « less- PAR ID:
- 10427690
- Publisher / Repository:
- SAGE Publications
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Criminal Justice and Behavior
- Volume:
- 50
- Issue:
- 10
- ISSN:
- 0093-8548
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- p. 1482-1505
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
Miller, Jody. (Ed.)Until recently, national-level data on criminal victimization in the United States did not include information on immigrant or citizenship status of respondents. This data-infrastructure limitation has hindered scientific understanding of whether immigrants are more or less likely than native-born Americans to be criminally victimized and how victimization may vary among immigrants of different statuses. We address these issues in the present study by using new data from the 2017–2018 National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) to explore the association between citizenship status and victimization risk in a nationally representative sample of households and persons aged 12 years and older. The research is guided by a theoretical framing that integrates insights from studies of citizenship with the literature on immigration and crime, as well as with theories of victimization. We find that a person’s foreign-born status (but not their acquired U.S. citizenship) confers protection against victimization. We also find that the protective benefit associated with being foreign born does not extend to those with ambiguous citizenship status, who in our data exhibit attributes similar to the known characteristics of undocumented immigrants. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings and the potential ways to extend the research.more » « less
-
Scholars from across the social and media sciences have issued a clarion call to address a recent resurgence in criminalized characterizations of immigrants. Do these characterizations meaningfully impact individuals’ beliefs about immigrants and immigration? Across two online convenience samples (total N = 1,054 adult U.S. residents), we applied a novel analytic technique to test how different narratives—achievement, criminal, and struggle-oriented—impacted cognitive representations of German, Russian, Syrian, and Mexican immigrants and the concept of immigrants in general. All stories featured male targets. Achievement stories homogenized individual immigrant representations, whereas both criminal and struggle-oriented stories racialized them along a White/non-White axis: Germany clustered with Russia, and Syria clustered with Mexico. However, criminal stories were unique in making our most egalitarian participants’ representations as differentiated as our least egalitarian participants’. Narratives about individual immigrants also generalized to update representations of nationality groups. Most important, narrative-induced representations correlated with immigration-policy preferences: Achievement narratives and corresponding homogenized representations promoted preferences for less restriction, and criminal narratives promoted preferences for more.
-
The overarching goal of this research project is to provide a novel contribution to perceived bias research by testing the hypothesis that mere exposure to instances of subtle gender bias in STEM settings can have important effects on observers, depending on whether they recognize such events as gender bias or do not see it as bias. The goal of the first of five experiments was to assess how witnessing subtle gender bias events influences explicit stereotype activation among people who recognize the events as gender stereotyping as well as those who do not. We utilized video materials that were developed and tested in our previous NSF research that show a group of four engineering students, 2 women and 2 men, working together on an engineering design task. There are two versions of the video: one in which the students engaged in subtle gender bias (bias version), and one in which the students engaged in neutral interactions (control version). Over 400 participants were recruited from a large midwestern research university from computer science and engineering majors in which 30% or fewer majors are women. The survey included assessments of perceptions of gender stereotyping in the video, general stereotype endorsement and STEM stereotype endorsement, and three individual difference measures (gender-based rejection sensitivity, sexism sensitivity and negative emotionality) used as covariates in analyses. We found that participants who saw the bias video reported greater explicit stereotyping when they failed to recognize gender bias in the video. When they did recognize bias, they reported explicit stereotyping at levels similar to those in the control condition. This pattern suggests that exposure to subtle gender bias events may have activated gender stereotypes, but when participants recognized the events as gender bias, they tempered their explicit stereotyping.more » « less
-
The overarching goal of this research project is to provide a novel contribution to perceived bias research by testing the hypothesis that mere exposure to instances of subtle gender bias in STEM settings can have important effects on observers, depending on whether they recognize such events as gender bias or do not see it as bias. The goal of the first of five experiments was to assess how witnessing subtle gender bias events influences explicit stereotype activation among people who recognize the events as gender stereotyping as well as those who do not. We utilized video materials that were developed and tested in our previous NSF research that show a group of four engineering students, 2 women and 2 men, working together on an engineering design task. There are two versions of the video: one in which the students engaged in subtle gender bias (bias version), and one in which the students engaged in neutral interactions (control version). Over 400 participants were recruited from a large midwestern research university from computer science and engineering majors in which 30% or fewer majors are women. The survey included assessments of perceptions of gender stereotyping in the video, general stereotype endorsement and STEM stereotype endorsement, and three individual difference measures (gender-based rejection sensitivity, sexism sensitivity and negative emotionality) used as covariates in analyses. We found that participants who saw the bias video reported greater explicit stereotyping when they failed to recognize gender bias in the video. When they did recognize bias, they reported explicit stereotyping at levels similar to those in the control condition. This pattern suggests that exposure to subtle gender bias events may have activated gender stereotypes, but when participants recognized the events as gender bias, they tempered their explicit stereotyping.more » « less
-
Abstract Public concerns about voter fraud are widespread and are frequently cited to justify new voting restrictions and harsh punishment for violators. But to what extent do beliefs about a perpetrator’s identity shape public support for efforts to prevent and punish voter fraud? Antipathy toward racial and ethnic groups is a strong predictor of public beliefs about voter fraud. Yet, prior studies have only been able to approximate beliefs about deviant behavior, and not specifically casting an illegal ballot. Drawing from sociology and criminology, we use a “typification” strategy that more directly measures which people are perceived as typical perpetrators of casting illegal ballots. We utilize nationally representative surveys of US voters in the 2017–2020 modules of the Cooperative Election Study to apply and empirically test the typification theory. Among white respondents, we find that the typification of racially minoritized groups such as Blacks, Latinos, Arabs, and immigrants as illegal voters is widespread and is strongly associated with beliefs about voter fraud, support for restrictive election policies, and harsh punishment of illegal voting. The pictures of likely criminals that white voters carry in their heads shape their preferences for crime policies, and this extends to the domain of voter fraud.