Although anti-immigrant attitudes continue to be expressed around the world, identifying these attitudes as prejudice, truth or free speech remains contested. This contestation occurs, in part, because of the absence of consensually agreed-upon understandings of what prejudice is. In this context, the current study sought to answer the question, “what do people understand to be prejudice?” Participants read an intergroup attitude expressed by a member of their own group (an “in-group” member) or another group (an “out-group” member). This was followed by an interpretation of the attitude as either “prejudiced” or “free speech.” This interpretation was also made by in-group or an out-group member. Subsequent prejudice judgements were influenced only by the group membership of the person expressing the initial attitude: the in-group member's attitude was judged to be less prejudiced than the identical attitude expressed by an out-group member. Participants' judgements of free speech, however, were more complex: in-group attitudes were seen more as free speech than out-group attitudes, except when an in-group member interpreted those attitudes as prejudice. These data are consistent with the Social Identity Approach to intergroup relations, and have implications for the processes by which intergroup attitudes become legitimised as free speech instead of prejudice.

中文翻译：

---

什么时候群体间的态度被判断为言论自由，什么时候被判断为偏见？对移民态度的社会认同分析

尽管世界各地继续表达反移民态度，但将这些态度确定为偏见、真相或言论自由仍然存在争议。发生这种争论的部分原因是缺乏对什么是偏见达成共识的理解。在这种情况下，当前的研究试图回答这个问题，“人们理解什么是偏见？” 参与者阅读他们自己小组的成员（“小组内”成员）或另一个小组（“小组外”成员）表达的小组间态度。随后将这种态度解释为“偏见”或“言论自由”。这种解释也是由组内或组外成员做出的。随后的偏见判断仅受表达初始态度的人的群体成员的影响：群体内成员 他的态度被判断为比外部成员表达的相同态度更少偏见。然而，参与者对言论自由的判断更为复杂：群体内的态度被视为言论自由而不是群体外的态度，除非群体内成员将这些态度解释为偏见。这些数据与群体间关系的社会认同方法一致，并且对群体间态度被合法化为言论自由而不是偏见的过程产生了影响。