🔍 What Was Tested:

This study refines the idea of cultural threat by treating it explicitly as a zero-sum problem and by specifying concrete cultural rights that Muslims might receive. The goal is to resolve theoretical ambiguity and measurement problems in prior work on why people oppose immigrants.

🧪 How the Study Worked:

Two online experiments were conducted in Germany. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of two scenarios: Muslim cultural rights either replace majority rights (zero-sum) or Muslim rights co-exist with majority rights (non-zero-sum). The design isolates the effect of perceived competition over cultural practices.

📌 Key Findings:

• Willingness to accommodate Muslim religious and cultural rights depends strongly on whether the situation is framed as zero-sum or non-zero-sum.
• Respondents with an inclusionary mindset:
• Are protective of their own cultural practices, yet
• Do not treat all increases in Muslim rights as inherently threatening; their responses change notably when rights are framed as zero-sum versus non-zero-sum.
• Respondents with an exclusionary mindset:
• Show weaker sensitivity to variations in the zero-sum framing, and
• React more negatively to demands for change made by Muslims than to similar demands made by non-Muslims.

💡 Why It Matters:

This approach tightens the conceptualization and measurement of cultural threat by (1) specifying concrete cultural rights and (2) experimentally manipulating whether those rights are perceived as replacing majority rights or coexisting with them. Findings show that individual predispositions—an inclusionary versus exclusionary mindset—shape how zero-sum frames influence tolerance for Muslim cultural and religious claims. This has implications for interpreting public opinion on immigration and for designing interventions to reduce cultural opposition.