Refugees represent a population whose living conditions have a strong impact on their mental health. High rates of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), more than other mental disorders, have been found in this group, with women having the highest incidence. The objective of the present systematic review was to identify and examine studies from the last fifteen years on the relationship between the impact of traumatic experiences and PTSD psychopathology in refugee women. Twelve studies were included, from which the overall results approved this relation. In addition, six of these studies show that exposure to sexual trauma in refugee women is associated with the high odds of being at risk for PTSD. These findings suggest that gender-related traumatic experiences can explain the high rate of PTSD in refugee women and highlight the unmet need for psychosocial health care in this population.

Recent years have witnessed a rise in support for political parties with an anti-immigration sentiment and nationalistic rhetoric as their distinguishing traits. Within this context, our study, through a survey, analyses the relation of prejudice toward immigrants with ideological postulates of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance and outgroup threat. With a sample of 247 individuals (54.7% men and 45.3% women), our results reveal that positions favouring right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance and perception of realistic and symbolic threat have an influence on negative attitudes toward immigrants. At the same time, greater prejudice is found in those individuals scoring high in authoritarianism and symbolic threat. These results confirm, on one hand, the dual process motivation model of ideology and prejudice, and on the other, the bifactor structure of outgroup threat. As a conclusion, we propose that in order to foment peaceful coexistence and reduce hostility towards minority groups within today’s social context, it is important to consider the relevance of ideological postulates and outgroup threat. It is a priority to design public policies that favour the inclusion and integration of minority groups with the goal of building more sustainable societies that respect human rights.

Violence against women in heterosexual intimate relationships is a major social problem with serious physical and psychological consequences for the victims. There is a line of research that seeks to analyze how ideological variables and contextual variables influence the way in which this type of violence is perceived. This study analyzed the relationship between hostile sexism, benevolent sexism and social dominance in the acceptance of the myths about violence against women in intimate relationships. A total of 215 Spanish university students (125 women and 90 men) participated in the research. The results indicate that hostile sexism and social dominance orientation act as factors that influence the acceptance of such myths in men. Benevolent sexism did not act in this way. The data reconfirm the importance of hostile sexism and social dominance orientation in the perception of violence against women, in this case, that which is committed by their partners (or ex-partners) in the area of intimate relationships.

Refugees frequently experience traumatic situations that result in the deterioration of their psychological well-being. In addition, perceived prejudice and discrimination against them by the host society can worsen their mental health. In this research study, using a Spanish sample, prejudice towards Syrian refugees is analyzed taking into account feeling of threat (realistic or symbolic), precarious employment, and perceived outgroup morality. Using a total of 365 participants, our results reveal that individuals feel more prejudice towards refugees when the former scored higher in realistic threat and symbolic threat, were in a highly precarious situation of employment and perceived refugees as being more immoral. Furthermore, it was found that persons who scored high in realistic threat and at the same time were in a situation of precarious employment, were those who displayed greater prejudice. The results likewise pointed to individuals who scored high in symbolic threat and in outgroup morality as being those who felt greater rejection towards the refugees. Accordingly, our results confirm the importance of feeling of threat in relation to prejudice, and highlight two important moderating factors: precarious employment and perceived outgroup morality.

This study analyzes whether the degree of social identity and the degree of emotional connection influence the subjective well-being of individuals that participated in collective acts of support for health personnel fighting against the COVID-19 pandemic. Our sample was composed of 810 participants who resided in Spain (339 women and 471 men) with an average age of 34.22 (SD = 12.56). All of them frequently participated in the acts of support that took place each day of the lockdown decreed by the National Government on 14 March 2020. The results show that the greater identification with the group (the country) and the greater the emotional connection, the higher the scores obtained in subjective well-being. The results also show that emotional connection had a positive effect on emotional subjective well-being, mediated by the social identity activated in the collective act. The results are interpreted from the perspective of social identity that highlights the role played by social identity in influencing health and subjective well-being.

Background The study compares the impact of working conditions and wages as predictors of work satisfaction of Poles, working in Poland and abroad. Although the work environment plays a crucial role in determining the work sat-isfaction of migrants, most mention higher income abroad as the main...