Our tendency to interpret facts in ways that are consistent with our prior beliefs impedes evidence-based attempts to persuade partisans to change their views on pressing societal issues such as immigration. Accordingly, most prior work finds that favorable information about the impact of immigration has little or no influence on policy preferences. Here, we propose that appealing to individuals’ moral values can bolster the persuasive power of informational interventions. Across three experiments (total N = 4,616), we find that an argument based on the value of in-group loyalty, which emphasized that immigrants are critical to America’s economic strength, combined with information about the economic impact of legal immigration, significantly increased Americans’ support for legal immigration. We also find a significant effect of the moral component of this message alone, even without factual information. These results show that moral arguments can strengthen the persuasiveness of informational appeals.
AbascalMariaHuangTiffany J.TranVan C.2021. Intervening in anti-immigrant sentiments: The causal effects of factual information on attitudes toward immigration. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science697:174–91.
2.
AdidaClaire L.LoAdelinePlatasMelina R.2018. Perspective taking can promote short-term inclusionary behavior toward Syrian refugees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences115:9521–26.
3.
BarreraOscarGurievSergeiHenryEmericZhuravskayaEkaterina. 2020. Facts, alternative facts, and fact checking in times of post-truth politics. Journal of Public Economics182:104–23.
4.
BisgaardMartin. 2015. Bias will find a way: Economic perceptions, attributions of blame, and partisan-motivated reasoning during crisis. Journal of Politics77:849–60.
5.
BlinderScott. 2015. Imagined immigration: The impact of different meanings of “immigrants” in public opinion and policy debates in Britain. Political Studies63:80–100.
6.
CitrinJackSidesJohn. 2008. Immigration and the imagined community in Europe and the United States. Political Studies56:33–56.
7.
ConnorPhillipKrogstadJens Manuel. 2018. Many worldwide oppose more migration. Pew Research Center. Available from https://tinyurl.com/mtahdu2x.
8.
DanillerAndrew. 2019. Americans’ immigration policy priorities: Divisions between – and within – the two parties. Pew Research Center. Available from https://tinyurl.com/2tsnk7fz.
9.
DruckmanJames N.McGrathMary C.2019. The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation. Nature Climate Change9:111–19.
10.
EckerUllrich K. H.LewandowskyStephanFentonOliviaMartinKelsey. 2014. Do people keep believing because they want to? Preexisting attitudes and the continued influence of misinformation. Memory & Cognition42:292–304.
11.
FacchiniGiovanniMargalitYotamNakataHiroyuki. 2016. Countering public opposition to immigration: the impact of information campaigns. Available from https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2887349.
12.
FeinbergMatthewWillerRobb. 2013. The moral roots of environmental attitudes. Psychological Science24:56–62.
13.
FeinbergMatthewWillerRobb. 2015. From gulf to bridge: when do moral arguments facilitate political influence?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin41:1665–81.
14.
FeinbergMatthewWillerRobb. 2019. Moral reframing: A technique for effective and persuasive communication across political divides. Social and Personality Psychology Compass13:e12501.
15.
FeyginaIrinaJostJohn T.GoldsmithRachel E.2010. System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of “system-sanctioned change.”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin36:326–38.
16.
GrigorieffAlexisRothChristopherUbfalDiego. 2020. Does information change attitudes toward immigrants?Demography57:1117–43.
17.
HaalandIngarRothChristopher. 2020. Labor market concerns and support for immigration. Journal of Public Economics191:104256.
18.
HainmuellerJensHopkinsDaniel J.2014. Public attitudes toward immigration. Annual Review of Political Science17:225–49.
19.
HathawayIan. 2017. Almost half of fortune 500 companies were founded by American immigrants or their children. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Available from https://tinyurl.com/efdhjvzf.
20.
HopkinsDaniel J.SidesJohnCitrinJack. 2019. The muted consequences of correct information about immigration. Journal of Politics81:315–20.
21.
HumprechtEdda. 2019. Where “fake news” flourishes: A comparison across four western democracies. Information, Communication & Society22:1973–88.
22.
JeritJenniferZhaoYangzi. 2020. Political misinformation. Annual Review of Political Science23 (1): 77–94.
23.
JonesJeffrey M.2019. New high in U.S. say immigration most important problem. Gallup. Available from https://tinyurl.com/k9hvy5m7.
24.
JørgensenFrederik JuhlOsmundsenMathias. 2020. Correcting citizens’ misperceptions about non-western immigrants: Corrective information, interpretations, and policy opinions. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 1–10.
25.
LeeperThomas J.SlothuusRune. 2014. Political parties, motivated reasoning, and public opinion formation. Political Psychology35 (S1): 129–56.
26.
MyersDowellLevyStephenPitkinJohn. 2013. The contributions of immigrants and their children to the American workforce and jobs of the future. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. Available from https://tinyurl.com/3xvb4xu2.
27.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. The integration of immigrants into American society. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
28.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The economic and fiscal consequences of immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
29.
NyhanBrendanPorterEthanReiflerJasonWoodThomas J.2020. Taking fact-checks literally but not seriously? The effects of journalistic fact-checking on factual beliefs and candidate favorability. Political Behavior42 (3): 939–60.
30.
PassellJeffrey S.CohnD’Vera. 2017. Immigration projected to drive potential U.S. labor force growth through 2035. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Available from https://tinyurl.com/nbyy3hax.
31.
Population Research Institute. 2019. Though politically divided, Americans remain patriotic. Available from https://tinyurl.com/56rnx6yf.
32.
SimonsenKristinaBonikowskiBart. 2021. Moralizing immigration: The impact of political framing on polarization in the United States and Denmark. Comparative Political Studies. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140211060284.
33.
ThorsonEmily. 2016. Belief echoes: The persistent effects of corrected misinformation. Political Communication33 (3): 460–80.
34.
VoelkelJan G.FeinbergMatthew. 2018. Morally reframed arguments can affect support for political candidates. Social Psychological and Personality Science9 (8): 917–24.
35.
VoelkelJan G.MernykJosephWillerRobb. 2021. Navigating the progressive paradox: The effects of value reframing on support for economically progressive candidates. OSF Preprints. Available from https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/kdjc5/.
36.
WolskoChristopherAriceagaHectorSeidenJesse. 2016. Red, white, and blue enough to be green: Effects of moral framing on climate change attitudes and conservation behaviors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology65:7–19.
37.
ZhirkovKirill. 2021. Who are “the immigrants”? Beliefs about immigrant populations and anti-immigration attitudes in the United States and Britain. Social Science Quarterly102 (1): 228–37.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
