Good Refugees, Bad Migrants? Intergroup Helping Orientations Towards Refugees, Migrants and Economic Migrants in Germany

The present study examined the effect of group labels on helping behavioral intentions towards displaced people in Germany. Specifically, it examined whether activating different social categories to refer to displaced people triggers different helping intentions (e.g., autonomy-oriented helping, dependency orientated helping, opposition to helping), and if these effects occur via perceived intergroup threat and warmth and competence stereotypes. Participants (N = 304) were randomly assigned to one of three conditions (refugee vs. migrant vs. economic migrant) and read fabricated case vignettes, featuring a displaced person who arrived in Germany recently. Results showed that, as predicted, the use of different group labels affected the helping orientations of host society members, as well as, the stereotypes they held. No significant label effects were found for intergroup threat. While the label refugee evoked dependency-oriented helping intentions and triggered paternalistic stereotypes, the label economic migrants increased opposition to help, decreased help affirmation and evoked envious stereotypes. Practical implications to strengthen peaceful intergroup relations between host society members and newcomers are discussed.

Nonetheless, in the field of social psychology, only few studies distinguished different subcategories of newly arrived people (Murray & Marx, 2013;Kotzur et al., 2017Kotzur et al., , 2019. The current study adds to the existing research by examining if different labels evoking either voluntary or forced migration (i.e., migrants, economic migrants, refugees) trigger different helping responses among majority members in Germany. Specifically, building on the proposal that intergroup helping can be seen as a way through which groups maintain power and status (Halabi & Nadler, 2017), we examine a) the impact of these labels on majority members' different types of helping intentions (e.g., dependency vs. autonomyoriented helping, opposition to help; Maki, Vitriol, Dwyer, Kim, & Snyder, 2017;Nadler, 2002); b) as well as, two potential underlying mechanisms of these effects, i.e., perceived intergroup threat (Stephan, Ybarra & Morrison, 2009) and warmth and competence stereotypes (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002).

Labels, Social Perception and Intergroup Relations
Labels and linguistic representations have an important function in social relations: they create and share meaning and shape intergroup dynamics. How people speak about others affects the way they interact with each other, and, vice-versa, interactions people have with each other impact the language they choose to refer to the other (Carnaghi & Bianchi, 2017).
Since the formulation of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, linguistic factors are considered of crucial importance in people's perception of the world and subsequently affect how people perceive social groups (see Sapir, 1921). Language plays a vital role in the context of social categorization, as it involves labeling groups that carry different connotations (Allport, 1954).
Classifying people into categories helps us to simplify the complex social world but also contributes to intergroup biases, leading to stereotyping and discrimination (Macrae & Bodenhausen, 2000). Evidence from social psychological research shows that prejudice and stereotypes towards a social group can change as a function of the group label (Galinsky et al., 2013;Hall, Phillips & Townsend, 2015;Rios & Ingraffia, 2016).
In the context of refugees and migrants there is a strong debate about category use and the appropriate label , as each category infers different qualities and circumstances of migration (Goodman et al., 2017). In the public discourse, refugees are depicted as representing a moral category, whose support is an ethical duty (Morris, 2012) and whose position of social worth is based on their vulnerability (Goodman et al. 2017). On the contrary, groups labelled as migrants and economic migrants are presented as immoral categories, undeserving of support (Goodman et al., 2017). In some cases a distinction is even made between "real" refugees and "bogus" refugees in the public discourse and mass media.
Research showed that the distinction between the labels "genuine" and "bogus" asylum seekers serves to delegitimize asylum-seekers in general, by casting doubt about their "real" identity and right to claim asylum (Lynn & Lea, 2003).
In the German context, different labels are used to refer to displaced people that recently arrived in the country. Based on the largest collection of German-language corpora (DeReKo, 2019) that provides information on the frequency of usage, as well as systematic joint occurrence of words, we know that the labels refugee, migrant and economic migrant 1 are used in the public discourse. Consistent with the reasoning that labels impact social perceptions and intergroup relations, recent research showed differences in how majority German participants perceived displaced people in Germany, depending on the label used to refer to them. Displaced people labelled as "economic refugees" were seen as less warm and activated more behavioral intentions of harming than displaced people labeled as "war refuges" and "refugees" (Kotzur, et al., 2017). These findings are in line with previous research showing that Germans' positive attitudes towards newcomers varied depending on the reason for seeking refuge (political persecution vs. economic hardship) (Ditlmann, Koopmans, Michalowski, Rink & Veit, 2016).
Besides impacting attitudes and behavioral intentions, labels also affect emotions felt towards displaced people. For instances, people who are labelled as voluntary migrants elicited more anger and less willingness for support, while people perceived as coming for involuntary reasons elicited more empathy and support for cultural rights and policies aimed at welcoming migrants .
Based on these findings, we propose that using different group labels to refer to displaced people will impact the type of helping that majority members are willing to provide.

Intergroup Helping
Traditionally, psychological research on helping focused on helping behavior between individuals, neglecting the important role of group membership and intergroup relations in helping (van Leeuwen & Zegefka, 2017). However, over the past years research shifted from a mere interpersonal perspective towards integrating an intergroup perspective that accounts for group membership and the social context in which helping interaction occurs (Nadler, 2012).
Nowadays, it seems consensual that it is a combination of personality and situational variables that explains helping behavior (Nadler, 2012). The Intergroup Helping as Status Relations model combines research on helping relations with findings from Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Based on the assumption that people see themselves as group members instead of individuals when group membership is salient, the IHSR model defines giving and receiving help as "a mechanism by which groups maintain, assert, or challenge existing power relations" (Halabi & Nadler, 2017, p. 205). A central assumption of the model is that intergroup relations are affected by the perceived stability and legitimacy of status relations between the groups. Depending on how the intergroup status relations are perceived, different types of help are provided and accepted.
Autonomy-oriented help refers to the provision of knowledge, skills and tools by highstatus groups, so that low-status groups can gain empowerment and independence through identifying and solving their own problems (Nadler, 2012). Dependency-oriented help does not provide any tools to solve the problem independently but rather creates dependency on the higher status group, who solves the problem directly for the low-status group. This implies that the help-recipients are viewed as less able to solve their own problems (Nadler, 2015).
If the social hierarchy is perceived as insecure and status differences are considered unstable, high-status groups will provide dependency-oriented help to secure their social position. However, when social hierarchies are seen as secure with legitimate and stable status differences, higher status groups are willing to provide more autonomy-oriented help.
If low-status groups strive for social equality and challenge status differences, and high-status groups offer dependency-oriented help, low-status group members might interpret the high-status group's provision of help as a manipulative strategy to maintain their social dominance (Halabi, Dovidio & Nadler, 2016). The provision of dependency-oriented help enhances the low-status group's dependence on the high-status group's resources and thereby perpetuates social inequality. To defend their advantaged position in insecure hierarchies, high-status groups sometimes provide dependency-oriented help, irrespective of the lack of need by the low-status group (Nadler, Harpaz-Gorodeisky, & Ben-David, 2010). This mechanism is called defensive helping (Nadler et al., 2010) and often describes helping relations between migrants and host society members. Jackson & Esses (2000) showed that when immigrants are viewed as posing an economic threat, majority members tend to provide dependency-oriented help. Building on this finding, we will explore if majority members' perceptions of intergroup threat mediate the impact of group labels on intergroup helping.
Intergroup Threat. From a social psychological perspective threat perception is a key explanatory factor for negative outgroup attitudes. Several studies indicate a strong correlation between perceived threat and outgroup attitudes and different types of intergroup threat have been identified (for a meta-analysis, see Riek, Mania & Gaertner, 2006). In this study we focused on the distinction between realistic and symbolic threat (Brambilla & Butz, 2013;Stephan, Ybarra & Morrison, 2009;Wagner, Christ & Heitmeyer, 2010). Realistic threats are conceptualized as a threat to the physical or material well-being as well as the economic and political power. Symbolic threat refers to perceived differences with regards to values, morality, attitudes and beliefs (Stephan & Renfro, 2002).
Research shows that attitudes toward immigrant groups in the United States were most negative when immigrants were portrayed as posing both symbolic and realistic threats (Stephan, Renfro, Esses, Stephan & Martin, 2005). Supportive of the idea that labels used to refer to displaced people impact perceptions of intergroup threat, research showed that American participants reported greater realistic threat and anxiety towards unauthorized (vs. authorized) migrants, but their perceptions of refugees were generally positive (Murray & Marx, 2013).
Based on research showing that immigrants are seen as a threat to the host society values and resources, we expect that the labels migrant and economic migrant will elicit greater levels of perceived threat, relative to the label refugee. Importantly, and considering that perceived realistic threat has been related to dependency-oriented helping, as a defensive helping response of majority high status groups (Jackson & Esses, 2000) we will explore if perceived threat will mediate the impact of group labels on helping intentions.
Previous research also showed that the exposure to benevolent sexism predicted men's preference for dependency-oriented help to women (Shnabel, Bar-Anan, Kende, Bareket & Lazar, 2016). That is, men who were primed with paternalistic beliefs about women (e.g., "Women should be cherished and protected by men," "Women have a way of caring that men are not capable of in the same way, " Shnabel, et al., 2016) showed higher intentions of providing dependency over autonomy oriented helping. Based on this finding, we will also explore if the different labels used to refer to displaced people impact helping intentions by activating different stereotype content of the targeted groups (i.e., warmth and competence perceptions).
Warmth and competence stereotypes. Research identified warmth and competence as the two fundamental dimensions of social perception (Abele, Cuddy, Judd & Yzerbyt, 2008;Cuddy et al., 2009;Markus & Kitayama, 1991). The Stereotype Content Model (Fiske et. al. 2002) holds that social groups are evaluated along these two dimensions and the combination of both dimensions influences people's emotions and behavioral intentions towards groups (Cuddy, Fiske & Glick, 2007). For instances, people who are perceived as high on warmth but low on competence evoke paternalistic stereotypes and feelings of pity (e.g., elderly people, traditional women), whereas those perceived as high on competence but low on warmth elicit envious stereotypes (Fiske et al., 2002).
Importantly, the activation of these two dimensions varies depending on the social categories that are used. Research from the US context showed that warmth and competence perceptions of immigrant groups vary depending on the label that is used (Lee & Fiske, 2006). The generic immigrant was perceived as incompetent and not warm. However, when specified by nationality, ethnicity and social class, immigrants received ambivalent stereotypes (high-low or low-high) regarding competence and warmth (Lee & Fiske, 2006).
In line with these findings, research shows that Turks in Germany are perceived as the typical foreigners and stereotyped as cold and incompetent, whereas Asians were evaluated as high status immigrants and assessed high on warmth and high on competence (Asbrock, 2010). More recent studies (Kotzur et al., 2019;Kotzur et al., 2017, Bansak et al., 2016Ditlmann et al., 2016) found that the flight motive constitutes an important factor influencing the social perception of displaced people. Specifically regarding stereotype content, Kotzur and colleagues (2017) showed that economic refugees were rated less warmly than war refugees or refugees, while no differences were found for the competence dimension. These different labels also impacted the emotions felt towards these groups, as well as behavioral intentions. Economic refugees elicited more anger and active harm intentions than war refugees or refugees (Kotzur et al. 2017). Recent research in Germany generally replicated these findings, showing that the label war refugee elicited the highest warmth perceptions, indicating a benevolent stereotype, whereas the label economic refugee elicited the highest competence ratings (Kotzur et al., 2019).
The current study will examine the impact of different labels (i.e., refugees, migrants and economic migrants) on warmth and competence perceptions, further exploring if these perceptions may account for the impact of group labels on different types of helping intentions. Based on previous findings (Kotzur et al., 2017;2019), we expect the label refugee to evoke more benevolent/paternalistic stereotypes (i.e., higher warmth than competence), whereas the label economic migrant should elicit the opposite pattern (higher competence than warmth).

Present Research
The present study examines whether different group labels (refugee vs. migrant vs. economic migrant) impact the type of help (autonomy-oriented help vs. dependency-oriented help vs. opposition to help) host society members are willing to provide. Furthermore, it explores whether the effect of different group labels on help provision is mediated by perceived intergroup threat and stereotype content.
Based on previous research showing that the labels war refugee and refugees elicited more benevolent stereotypes (e.g., Kotzur et al., 2017), and benevolent stereotypes have been related to dependency oriented helping towards women (Shnabel et al., 2016), we expect that the label refugee will elicit higher support for dependency-oriented helping relative to the labels economic migrant and migrant (H1a). However, based on previous findings showing that economic refugees evoked higher active harm (e.g., opposing, putting obstacles, Kotzur et al., 2017) than war refugees and refugees (Kotzur et al., 2017), we expect that the label economic migrant will elicit higher opposition to helping (H1b), relative to the labels refugee and migrant. Considering previous research showing that the labels refugees and war refugees elicit higher warmth than economic refugees (Kotzur et al., 2017;Kotzur et al., 2019), and that economic refugees are perceived as more competent than the other two, we will explore if the label refugee triggers paternalistic stereotypes (higher warmth than competence) and less intergroup threat (H2a), while the labels economic migrant and migrant trigger lower warmth than competence and higher perceived threat (H2b).
Finally, we will explore if the impact of the different labels (refugee/ migrant/ economic migrant) on helping orientations and opposition to help will be mediated by intergroup threat (H3a) and by stereotype content (H3b). Previous research has linked perceived intergroup threat and stereotype content, showing that perceived threat is associated with lower warmth and higher competence (Kervyn et al., 2015). Given the exploratory nature of the current study, we chose to explore perceived threat and stereotype content as two parallel social psychological processes that may account for the impact of group labels on helping intentions, and not a serial, more complex mediation model, as suggested by Kervyn and colleagues (2015).

Participants and Procedure
Participants were recruited via e-mail and social media platforms, using convenience sampling. Given the goal of the study, having German nationality was defined as an inclusion criterion. A link to an online survey on the Qualtrics platform was sent to individuals as well as to different social organizations, football clubs and orchestras in an effort to diversify the sample. An informed consent stating that the study was voluntary, anonymous and confidential was displayed to all participants on the first screen of the survey. In the end of the questionnaire, participants could opt for taking part in a lottery to win a short-trip stay to Lisbon and/ or receiving the results of the study. One hundred and three participants were excluded: 18 participants did not have German citizenship and 85 participants answered to less than 71% of the survey (that is, did not fill in any dependent variable measure) and were considered dropouts. The final sample comprised 304 German citizens who were randomly assigned to one of the three conditions (108 in the refugee condition, 106 in the migrant condition, 90 in the economic migrant condition).
The mean age of the participants was 36.34 (SD = 13.54, range: 18-80) and 176 participants (57.9%) were female. Regarding the educational level of the sample, 46.4% had a higher university degree (a master's degree or equivalent). Most of the participants were employees (46.7%), followed by students (29.6%) and self-employed (11.5%). The majority of participants indicated that they live comfortably on their income (47.7%) and rated their own social status as high (57.2%). 179 participants (59.5%) helped refugees and migrants in the past. Most common were material donations (36.2%), followed by providing German lessons and money donations (both 20.1%). 87.5% of the participants identified as German and only 3% as German and belonging to an ethnic minority 2 . In terms of political views, the sample was rather left-winged (M = 2.85, SD = 1.04, range: 1-6) and participants indicated low levels of religiousness (M = 2.86, SD = 1.93, range: 1-7).
After consenting to participate, participants were randomly assigned to one of the conditions, received the manipulation vignette, and answered to the questionnaire with our measures of interest. Mediators (i.e., warmth, competence, realistic and symbolic threat) were assessed first, followed by helping orientations, and sociodemographics. Participants were asked whether they had helped refugees and migrants in the past and whether they had a specific group of people in mind while answering the questions (e.g., origin, gender and age group of the person described in the case vignette). Finally, participants were thanked and debriefed.

Materials
All items of all scales were presented in a randomized order and the response scale was 1-7 unless it was stated otherwise. Higher scores mean higher endorsement, unless stated otherwise.

Experimental Manipulation. The manipulation consisted of a case vignette.
Depending on the condition, the person presented in the text was labelled refugee, migrant or economic migrant. The label for the newly arrived person was the only change made-the rest of the text was identical in all three conditions. The text was developed by the research team and reads as follows: A refugee/ migrant/ economic migrant arrived to Germany five months ago to start a new life. The legal procedures are still ongoing and this refugee/migrant/economic migrant has an undefined legal status at the moment. This is a common situation that affects refugees/migrants/ economic migrant in Germany and there are several organizations and individuals that provide support to refugees/migrants/economic migrants in similar situations.
However, it is still unclear for these organizations what kind of help exactly they should be providing, and which actions are most effective to help refugees/migrants/ economic migrants during this waiting period.
Helping behavior intentions were evaluated with a scale provided by Maki and colleagues (2017). The original scale consists of three subscales (autonomy orientation, dependency orientation, opposition to help), with each comprising eight items. The items were adapted to the respective condition of the participant. For example, the item "Teaching people to take care of themselves is good for society because it makes them independent" (autonomy-oriented helping; Maki et al., 2017, p. 50) was changed accordingly to "Teaching refugees/migrants/economic migrants to take care of themselves is good for society because it makes them independent". Because the scale is relatively recent, it has not undergone a formal validation and it was translated to German by the author of the current study, we opted for conducting an exploratory factor analysis to check if the translated scale showed the same factor structure. We conducted an EFA with Principal Axis Factoring with oblimin rotation and Kaiser normalization on the items. Scree plot analysis determined the number of retained factors, and pattern matrices were examined for factor loadings (see Costello & Osborne, 2005).
Initially, a five-factor solution explaining 57.2% of variance was revealed, but its proprieties were not satisfactory. In total five items were removed (one because of zero-order loading, two because of cross-loadings, two because of low communalities and saturation).
After removing these items, the EFA resulted in a clearer four-factor solution that roughly reproduced the theoretical dimensions of helping orientations and explained 57.3% of total variance. In addition to the three factors that are part of the original scale (autonomy-oriented helping, dependency-oriented helping and opposition to helping), a fourth factor, which was named "affirmation to help" was identified (see Table 1).
Opposition to helping was assessed with seven items (e.g., Helping refugees/ migrants/economic migrants only makes them more needy in the future", α = .86).
Autonomy-oriented helping intentions were also assessed with 7 items (e.g., "The goal of helping should be to make sure refugees/migrants/ economic migrants can eventually take care of their own needs", α = 85). Dependency-oriented helping was evaluated with three items (e.g. Helping is all about fixing refugees'/ migrants' /economic migrants' problems for them", α = .64). The extra factor that was identified in the context of the EFA, affirmation to help, was measured with 2 items (e.g. "I like to try to help refugees/migrants/ economic migrants even if the issue might come up again", Gutman's split-half coeff. = .60). 3

Symbolic and realistic threat were measured using Stephan and colleagues'
intergroup threat scale (Stephan, Ybarra & Bachman, 1999). Realistic threat was assessed with seven items (e.g. "Refugees/ migrants/ economic migrants have increased the tax burden on Germans", α = .80). Symbolic threat was evaluated with eight items (e.g. "Refugee/ migrant/ economic migrant intake is undermining German culture", α = .81). Positive items were reversed, so that higher values indicated greater perceived threat. Sociodemographics. Gender, age, education, job situation, satisfaction with income situation as well as self-perceived social status were assessed. Moreover, using the political self-placement scale (Jost, 2006) participants indicated their political orientation (ranging from 1 = far-left to 7 = far-right) and their religiousness (1 = not at all religious to 7 = very religious).

Helping Orientations
We conducted a 3 experimental condition (economic migrant vs refugee vs migrant) MANOVA to examine the effects of our manipulation on different forms of helping (autonomy-oriented helping, dependency-oriented helping, opposition to helping and affirmation to helping). Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 2.

Symbolic and Realistic Threat
We conducted a between-subject ANOVA to explore differences in threat perceptions between the experimental conditions (economic migrant vs. refugee vs. migrant). Results revealed no significant main effects of the experimental condition on both realistic, F(F(2, 300) = 0.273, p = .761, and symbolic threats, F(2, 300) = 0.269, p = .764, thus not supporting our hypotheses that higher intergroup threat would be elicited by the label economic migrant (H2b) (see Table 3).

Competence and Warmth
We conducted a 3 treatment condition (economic migrant vs. refugee vs. migrant) X 2 stereotype content (warmth vs competence) mixed model ANOVA, where the condition was a between-subjects factor and competence vs. warmth was a within-subject factor, to test differences in warmth vs. competence perceptions depending on the experimental condition.
Results revealed a significant interaction between treatment condition and stereotype content, F(2, 300) = 6.55, p = .002, ηp 2 = .042. Pairwise comparisons showed that participants in the refugee condition revealed significantly higher warmth than competence, p = .006, whereas participants in the economic migrant condition revealed significantly higher competence than warmth, p = .018 (see Table 4). In the migrant condition, the differences regarding competence and warmth perceptions were not significant. These results partially support our hypotheses that the label refugee triggers more paternalistic stereotypes (higher warmth than competence (H2a), whereas the label economic migrant elicited more envious stereotypes (lower warmth than competence) (H2b).

Indirect Effects of the Different Labels
We ran four parallel mediation models with 5000 bootstrap samples 95% percentile bootstrap confidence intervals using the SPSS PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2018) to test the indirect effects of our experimental condition on autonomy-oriented helping, dependencyoriented helping, opposition to helping and affirmation to helping (H4). In each model the experimental manipulation served as predictor (dummy-coding: X1 migrant = 0 vs. refugee = 1 vs. economic migrant = 0; X2 migrant= 0 vs. refugee = 0 vs. economic migrant = 1).
Realistic threat, symbolic threat, and a difference score for competence and warmth (i.e., higher values mean more competence than warmth) were the mediators in the model and political orientation was used as covariate 4 . opposition to helping. That is, higher levels of intergroup threat were associated with increased opposition to helping. The total effect of the treatment condition on opposition to helping was not significant when comparing refugees with migrants and economic migrants (total effect X1: B = -.013, p = .920). However, the total effect of the treatment condition on opposition to helping was significant when comparing economic migrants with refugees and migrants (total effect X2: B = .271, p = .044) (see Table 5, Figure 1).

Dependency
Autonomy-oriented helping. The indirect effect of the group label on autonomyoriented helping through the difference score for competence/ warmth was also not significant Nonetheless, the label economic migrant triggered significantly more competence than warmth (B = .232, p = .035), and realistic threat was negatively related to autonomy-oriented helping (B = -.330, p = .000), that is higher levels of perceived realistic threat were associated with less autonomy-oriented helping. The analysis also revealed that the total effect of the treatment condition on autonomy-oriented helping was not significant (total effect X1: B = .018, p = .894 and total effect X2: B = -.215, p = .127) (see Table 5, Figure 1). .000), as well as symbolic threat (B = -.407, p = .000) were negatively related to affirmation of help. That is, higher levels of intergroup threat were related to decreased affirmation of help. The analysis also revealed that the total effect of the treatment condition on affirmation of helping was not significant for the refugee label (total effect X1: B = -.039, p = .835).

Affirmation
However, results showed a significant negative total effect of the label economic migrant on affirmation of helping (total effect X2: B = -.550, p = .005) (see Table 5, Figure 1).

Discussion
This study investigated whether the labels used to describe newly arrived people in Germany impact intergroup helping intentions, and if these effects are driven by perceived threat and social perceptions of warmth and competence. Overall, our findings showed that the terms used to describe displaced people matter as they impact social perceptions of groups and the overall willingness to provide help.
As expected (H1a), the label refugee elicited higher support for dependency-oriented help relative to the label economic migrant. Yet, results did not reveal a significant difference regarding dependency-oriented help between refugees and migrants. Further supportive of our hypotheses (H1b), results showed that the label economic migrant increased the host majority members' opposition to provide help. This finding is in line with previous research in Germany showing that economic refugees are evaluated less positively than war refugees, eliciting more harmful action tendencies than supportive behavioral intentions (Kotzur et al., 2017). Overall, our findings did not illustrate any differences of group labels on autonomyoriented helping intentions. Nonetheless, while the total effect of the condition on autonomyoriented help was not significant, realistic threat was negatively related to autonomy-oriented helping. That is, higher levels of perceived realistic threat were related to decreased intentions to provide autonomy-oriented help. This finding is consistent with the basic assumption of the IHSR model (Nadler, 2002) that members of the higher status group show less willingness to provide autonomy-oriented help to the lower status group if they perceive the established social hierarchy as threatened by the newcomers.
Similarly, in line with several studies showing that threat decreases pro-social behavior (Halabi, Dovidio & Nadler, 2008), results showed that higher levels of intergroup threat were related to increased opposition to help. Contrary to the expected (H3a), the effect of the group label on helping intentions was not mediated by intergroup threat perceptions.
Indeed, contrary to the expected, threat perceptions were not affected by the different labels.
There is an ongoing debate regarding the bi-dimensional conceptualization of intergroup threat, as symbolic and realistic threat dimensions are empirically highly correlated (r = .65 in our study). New approaches in social psychology also argue for an extension of the twocomponent model by adding another form of threat that goes beyond scarce resources and threatened national culture and identity. Verkuyten and Martinovic (2017) propose a third dimension of perceived threat, collective psychological ownership threat, which describes a perceived gatekeeper right to decide whether someone is permitted access or not, for example to a country that is perceived as one's own country. As collective psychological ownership threat may impact the social perception of newcomers, future research in the migration context could integrate this approach to examine whether there are differences in perceived ownership threat depending on the group label.
Stereotype content, however, seems to be related to peoples' willingness to provide help. The label economic migrant evoked less affirmation of help, and this effect occurred via more envious stereotypes (lower warmth than competence). In general, our results suggested that the labels describing the newcomers affect stereotype content. Supportive of our hypotheses (H2a), the label refugee evoked higher warmth than competence ratings, indicating paternalistic stereotypes towards refugees. Additionally, economic migrants evoked higher competence than warmth ratings (H2b) These finding are in line with previous research in the German context, showing that the labels war refugees and refugees elicits higher warmth, whereas the label economic refugees elicited higher competence (Kotzur, et al. 2017). However, our results did not reveal the expected difference between perceived warmth and competence in the migrant condition. This might be explained by the fact that the label migrant represents a broad category, evoking heterogeneous understandings and outcomes (Moses, 2006).

Limitations and Future Research
Overall, our findings supported the importance of group labels and suggest that refugees are perceived as the most positive and supported subgroup, while economic migrants are perceived as less warm than the two other groups. Despite the novel theoretical contribution, results should be interpreted with caution for several reasons. First, the convenience sample (N = 304) used for this study was not representative for the general native population. In particular, the current sample was more left-winged and possessed a higher educational degree than average. As it is known that political orientation strongly correlates with relevant intergroup variables (e.g., threat perception), in our analyses we controlled for political orientation. To strengthen our theoretical claims, future studies could attempt to replicate these findings with representative samples, as well as, in different national contexts.
Another limitation is related to the use of self-reported measures of helping orientations. Minding the intention-behavior gap (Sheeran & Webb, 2016), it seems important to consider the effect of labels not only on helping orientations but on actual helping behavior.
Also, the scale used to assess helping orientations did not replicate the original three-factor solution. This might be related to the fact that the Helping Orientations Inventory scale, developed by Maki and colleagues (2017), is a relatively new instrument and lacks consistent validation in different contexts and towards different target groups and future research could further test its validity in different national/cultural contexts. In order to add to this field of research, future studies could also explore alternative theoretical explanations. For instance, given their importance for migrant-host members relations, perceived voluntariness (see Verkuyten, Altabatabaei & Nooitgedagt, 2018) as well as, perceived deservingness (Ditlman, et al., 2016) could be examined as additional variables to better understand the impact of using different labels when referring to displaced people. Furthermore, it is important to note that the label effect found in this study might also be related to linguistic features. Participants in the refugee and migrant conditions were presented with a single noun (refugee or migrant), while in the economic migrant condition, the adjective "economic" could have activated the migration motive. Previous research has shown that people may form different impressions of others when nouns rather than adjectives were used to describe them (Carnaghi et al., 2008). Thus, future studies could further control for the use of nouns and adjectives in the labelling of displaced people.

Practical Implications
As illustrated by our findings, economic migrants elicited less sympathy and less willingness to provide help, while refugees were subjected to paternalistic stereotypes.
Beyond theoretical extension, these findings are also important for policymakers who need to be aware of the highly politicized context around the language and labels used to refer to displaced people. It is important to consider the political and ideological dimension of the different labels in the migrant and refugee context. Institutional labeling does not only impact identity formation, the labels may also serve to legitimize harsh policy decisions that grant (or deny) legal entitlements. These policy decisions might in turn affect public opinions about the newcomers. Indeed, a recent study by Gaucher, Friesen, Neufeld & Esses (2018) showed that system-sanctioned pro-migrant ideology of the government in power can affect public opinions of migrants. Thus, the political rhetoric around these labels may influence people's attitudes towards the different groups.
Finally, with the aim to promote harmonious intergroup relations and supporting the empowerment of the newcomers through the provision of autonomy-oriented help, recategorization and positive intergroup contact between majority members and displaced newcomers may help to reduce discrimination and prejudice. Indeed, the creation of a common ingroup identity may lead to increased provision and seeking of autonomy-oriented help (Nadler et al., 2010). Understanding this two-fold process that constitutes positive intergroup relations and developing practical approaches is crucial to achieve intergroup harmony and thereby effectively strengthen social cohesion.

Conclusion
The present research adds to the existing literature on labels, stereotype content and prosocial behavioral intentions by showing that helping orientations and social perceptions of mainstream society vary depending on the label used to describe displaced people in Germany. Our results show that refugees are subject to paternalistic stereotypes, eliciting significantly higher support for dependency-oriented help in comparison with economic migrants. On the contrary, economic migrants evoke envious stereotypes, significantly decreasing affirmation to help. Table 1 Exploratory factor analysis of the helping orientation scale (Maki et al., 2017) Factors 1 2 3 4 Helping refugees/ migrants/ economic migrants makes them less able to solve their own problems -0.769 Helping creates a weaker society because refugees/ migrants/economic migrants will come to depend on others in times of hardship -0.733 Teaching refugees/ migrants/ economic migrants to take care of themselves is bad for society because it makes them dependent -0.725 Helping refugees/ migrants/economic migrants can weaken society because it divides society into those who can help and those who need help -0.682 Helping refugees/ migrants/economic migrants only makes them more needy in the future -0.608 Helping refugees/ migrants/ economic migrants now will only make them dependent on others to solve their problems in the future -0.568 Solving refugees'/ migrants' /economic migrants' problems for them makes their situation worse in the long run -0.520 Helping refugees/ migrants/ economic migrants is all about making them better able to fix their own problems 0.806 The goal of helping should be to make sure refugees/ migrants/ economic migrants can eventually take care of their own needs 0.782 Helping refugees/ migrants/ economic migrants makes them better able to solve their own problems 0.633 When helping refugees/ migrants/ economic migrants, equipping them with knowledge and skills is the most important thing 0.582 We help refugees/ migrants/ economic migrants so that they can learn to solve their own problems 0.568 Teaching refugees/ migrants/ economic migrants to take care of themselves is good for society because it makes them independent 0.509 Helping refugees/ migrants/ economic migrants now makes them better able to solve their own problems in the future 0.479 In general, solving refugees'/ migrants'/economic migrants' problems for them is good for society because it helps meet immediate needs 0.864 Helping is all about fixing refugees'/ migrants'/economic migrants' problems for them 0.559 Note. Extraction method: Principal Axis Factoring with oblimin rotation. Loadings lower than .30 are not reported. Factor 1: Opposition, factor 2: Autonomy Orientation, factor 3: Dependency Orientation, factor 4: Affirmation of Helping.