Exploring UK Public Attitudes Towards Stateless People 5 quality-checked platform that recruits research participants in return for a fee. Participants were offered £6.94 per hour in line with Prolific’s suggested renumeration. The study excluded individuals not resident in the UK, not proficient in English, or under age eighteen. Procedures All data was collected in May 2022 across one day. Participants were recruited via Prolific. The listing on Prolific provided a link to an information sheet and consent form. Participants who provided consent were then able to access the survey via Qualtrics. All participants were given the same questionnaire in the same order. The questionnaire began with a section collecting demographic information and political orientation. Following this, participants were asked if they had personal experience of migration and whether they have previously or currently had any contact with stateless people, asylum seekers or refugees. The measures for these initial items are outlined below. Participants were then asked if they understood the term ‘stateless’. Following this, the questionnaire provided written definitions of the terms ‘asylum seeker’ and ‘refugee’, which were based on the 1951 Refugee Convention definitions (UN General Assembly, 1951). Participants were asked to watch a two-minute video (see supplementary materials) explaining statelessness. As statelessness is a less familiar concept to the public, a video was provided rather than a written definition, as it was anticipated this would help generate more comprehensive understanding. This video included a simplified version of the international legal definition of statelessness (UN General Assembly, 1954), and examples of reasons individuals might become stateless. Participants could rewatch the video as needed. All participants were required to confirm that they had read and understood the definitions of asylum seeker, refugee, and stateless person before they could move onto the next part of the questionnaire. Participants then completed the measures outlined below. Measures Demographic variables included gender, age, ethnicity, employment status, and education level. Interpersonal functioning was assessed using the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP-32) (Horowitz et al., 2000). The IIP-32 is a 32-item inventory of distressing interpersonal behaviours. Items are scored on a five-point Likert scale in response to the stem: “how much have you been distressed by this problem?”. The dimensions of dominance and affiliation are considered in this study. The range of affiliation includes friendly to hostile behaviour, while the range of dominance goes from dominating to submissive behaviour. Studies of the IIP-32 show satisfactory validity and internal reliability in both clinical and non-clinical populations (Barkham et al., 1996; McEvoy et al., 2013; Lo Coco et al., 2018), and good reliability in this sample (McDonald’s ω = 0.924). An R package was used to calculate the dominance and affiliation scores (Girard et al., 2021). Perceived threat was assessed using a single item measure adapted from Escandell and Ceobanu (2009). This single item measure read: ‘in general terms, are there too many migrants who live in our country?’. Participants selected either ‘yes, there are too many’ (scored 1) or ‘no, there are not too many’ (scored 0). Prejudice was assessed using a single item measure for stateless people, asylum seekers, and refugees separately using a measure based on Hartley and Pedersen (2015). Participants were asked ‘in general how positive or favourable do you feel about (stateless people/asylum seekers/ refugees)?’. Participants responded using a seven-point Likert scale ranging from ‘extremely unfavourable’ to ‘extremely favourable’. The question was repeated for each group. Scores were reversed to measure prejudice, rather than positivity. https://doi.org/10.1017/S147474642510119X Published online by Cambridge University Press