12 Ellie Oppenheim et al. refugees), prejudice (r = .629 for asylum seekers, r = .551 for refugees), and political orientation (r = .147 for asylum seekers, r = .222 for refugees). For refugees and stateless people, no direct association was found between prejudice and perceived threat; instead, this relationship was mediated through other variables, most notably social policy attitudes. In contrast, prejudice towards asylum seekers showed a direct association with perceived threat. Further analysis of the Integrated Network model Within the Integrated Network model, social policy attitudes towards stateless people were associated directly with prejudice towards stateless people (r = .483) and social policy attitudes towards asylum seekers (r = .367). All other variables were associated with social policy attitudes towards stateless people through these two variables. Within this model, prejudice towards stateless people was directly associated with prejudice towards asylum seekers (r = .283), prejudice towards refugees (r = .235), social policy attitudes towards asylum seekers (r = .182), and social policy attitudes towards stateless people (r = .483). All other variables were associated with prejudice towards stateless people through these variables. Discussion This study explored UK public attitudes towards stateless people, operationalised as prejudice and social policy attitudes towards this group. Variables associated with these attitudes were also explored, and attitudes towards stateless people were compared to those towards asylum seekers and refugees. This study identified that social policy attitudes towards stateless people were significantly more restrictive than those towards refugees, but significantly less restrictive than those towards asylum seekers. In contrast, no significant difference was identified between prejudice levels towards stateless people and refugees or stateless people and asylum seekers. This finding suggests that the UK public views refugees as most legitimately deserving social policy support, and asylum seekers as least legitimately deserving of policy support. Our findings suggest that social policy attitudes may be more cognitively complex than prejudice, involving additional considerations beyond basic intergroup bias, such as perceived ‘legitimacy’ of the group. Our interpretation aligns with the findings of an Australian study, where participants reported feelings of anger towards asylum seekers, and perceptions of them as ‘illegals’ and ‘queue jumpers’ (Hartley and Pedersen, 2015). This is consistent with other studies which suggest that the public are likely to express more favourable attitudes towards ‘authorised’ migrants (such as legally recognised refugees) than those viewed as ‘unauthorised’ migrants (Murray and Marx, 2013). Given our findings, it is possible that stateless people were viewed as less ‘unauthorised’ than asylum seekers, but more ‘unauthorised’ than refugees, hence the different social policy attitudes, despite similar levels of prejudice towards stateless people and both other groups. When refugee and asylum seeker attitudes were incorporated into the Integrated Network model, complex interrelationships emerged among prejudice and social policy attitudes across all three groups, and the other study variables. Notably, associations between social policy attitudes towards stateless people and other study variables were mediated through attitudes towards asylum seekers, while prejudice towards stateless people was linked to the wider network through prejudice towards asylum seekers and refugees. This pattern suggests that public attitudes towards stateless people may, in part, be formed indirectly through their perceptions of refugees and asylum seekers. One possible interpretation is that this is due to a lack of public awareness of statelessness, meaning people need to draw on their impressions of refugees and asylum seekers to form attitudes towards stateless people. Our findings underscore the interconnected nature of attitudes towards asylum seekers, refugees, and stateless people. This, combined with the similarities in prejudice levels and the https://doi.org/10.1017/S147474642510119X Published online by Cambridge University Press