10 Ellie Oppenheim et al. Analysis Hypothesis i: more affiliative and less dominant interpersonal styles will be associated with more positive attitudes towards stateless people, as measured by less-restrictive social policy attitudes and lower prejudice towards stateless people. Zero order correlations indicate no significant association between affiliative interpersonal styles and either social policy attitudes towards stateless people (rs(354) = .049, p = .352) or prejudice towards stateless people (rs(354) = −.006, p = .914). Dominant interpersonal styles also showed no significant relationships to social policy attitude towards stateless people (rs(354) = .103, p = .051) or prejudice towards stateless people (rs(354) = . 087, p = .101). Hypothesis ii: more right-wing political orientation will be associated with more negative attitudes towards stateless people, as measured by restrictive social policy attitudes and greater prejudice towards stateless people. Zero order correlations indicate a moderate to strong positive correlation between right-wing political orientation and more restrictive social policy attitudes towards stateless people (rs(354) = .590, p<.001), as well as higher prejudice towards stateless people (rs(354) = .518, p<.001). In the Stateless Focal Network model, which controls for the influence of all other variables except attitude measures towards refugees and asylum seekers, the partial correlations between these variables were still significant, and right-wing political orientation remained directly associated with more restrictive social policy attitudes towards stateless people (r =.230) and prejudice (r = .054). Finally, in the Integrated Network model, which models the social policy attitudes and prejudice towards stateless people, refugees, and asylum seekers in one network together, political orientation was no longer directly associated with either social policy attitudes or prejudice towards stateless people. Instead, more right-wing political orientation was directly associated with greater perceived threat (r = .209), which then was indirectly associated with more restrictive social policy attitudes and greater prejudice towards stateless people through prejudice and social policy attitudes towards both asylum seekers and refugees. Hypothesis iii: participants who have personal migration experience and/or previous contact with stateless people, asylum seekers or refugees will show more positive attitudes towards stateless people, as measured by less restrictive social policy attitudes and lower prejudice towards stateless people. Zero order correlations showed no significant relationship between contact and social policy attitudes towards stateless people (rs(354) = −.086, p = .105). In contrast, a significant zero order correlation was found between contact and lower prejudice towards stateless people (rs(354) = −.144, p<.010). Similarly, no significant relationship was found between personal migration experience and social policy attitude towards stateless people (rs(354) = −.006, p = .230). However, a significant association was found between personal migration experience and lower prejudice towards stateless people (rs(354) = −.145, p<.010). In the Stateless Focal Network model, personal migration experience remained associated with prejudice towards stateless people (r = −.135). However, contact was no longer directly associated with prejudice and was instead associated with perceived threat (r = .077, odds ratio: 1.112), which was in turn associated with prejudice indirectly through other variables in the network. In the Integrated Network model, the association between personal migration experience and prejudice was no longer present and was instead indirectly associated through other variables in the network. Contact remained associated with perceived threat (r = .321, odds ratio: 1.417) in the Integrated Network model, which was then indirectly associated with social policy attitudes and prejudice towards stateless people. https://doi.org/10.1017/S147474642510119X Published online by Cambridge University Press