Against the backdrop of Europe’s migrant crisis, this study investigates attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy. Specifically, how do Europeans’ attitudes stem from: (a) the symbolic boundaries they draw regarding immigrants (i.e., their perceptions of what constitutes an immigrant); (b) their contact with racially and ethnically different others; and (c) their own experiences with discrimination? Data from the 2014-2015 European Social Survey (N = 37,623) show Europeans’ symbolic boundaries regarding immigrants varied by respondents’ sociodemographics, consumption of political news, and social trust. Most, but not all, forms of intergroup contact enhanced support for specific groups and broader immigration policy. Contrary to expectations, experience with discrimination did not shape attitudes toward specific immigrant groups. Our discussion focuses on theoretical implications, future research, and how findings can inform contemporary public discourse about the migrant crisis.
AlbaR. (2005). Bright vs. blurred boundaries: Second-generation assimilation and exclusion in France, Germany, and the United States. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28, 20-49.
2.
AlbieroP.MatricardiG. (2013). Empathy towards people of different race and ethnicity: Further empirical evidence for the Scale of Ethnocultural Empathy. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37, 648-655.
3.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
4.
AltfelixT. (2000). The “Post-Holocaust Jew” and the instrumentalization of philosemitism. Patterns of Prejudice, 34, 41-56.
5.
BailC. (2008). The configuration of symbolic boundaries against immigrants in Europe. American Sociological Review, 73, 37-59.
BarbarinoM.StürmerS. (2016). Different origins of xenophile and xenophobic orientations in human personality structure: A theoretical perspective and some preliminary findings. Journal of Social Issues, 72, 432-449.
BrownR.EllerA.LeedsS.StaceK. (2007). Intergroup contact and intergroup attitudes: A longitudinal study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 692-703.
10.
DovidioJ. H.JohnsonJ. D.GaertnerS. L.PearsonA. R.SaguyT.Ashburn-NardoL. (2010). Empathy and intergroup relations. In MikulincerM.ShaverP. (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature (pp. 393-408). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
11.
EspenshadeT.HempsteadK. (1996). Contemporary American attitudes toward U.S. immigration. International Migration Review, 30, 535-570.
FacchiniG.MaydaA. (2012). Individual attitudes towards skilled migration: An empirical analysis across countries. World Economy, 35, 183-196.
14.
FinlayK. A.StephanW. G. (2000). Improving intergroup relations: The effects of empathy on racial attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1720-1737.
15.
GuibernauM. (2010). Migration and the rise of the radical right. London, England: Policy Network.
16.
HayesB.DowdsL. (2006). Social contact, cultural marginality or economic self-interest? Attitudes towards immigrants in Northern Ireland. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 32, 455-476.
17.
HeizmannB. (2016). Symbolic boundaries, incorporation policies, and anti-immigrant attitudes: What drives exclusionary policy preferences?Ethnic and Racial Studies, 39, 1791-1811.
18.
HjermM. (2007). Do numbers really count? Group threat theory revisited. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 33, 1253-1275.
19.
HuckfeldtR.SpragueJ. (1995). Citizens, politics and social communication: Information and influence in an election campaign. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
IyengarS.JackmanS.MessingS.ValentinoN.AalbergT.DuchR.. . . KobayashiT. (2013). Do attitudes about immigration predict willingness to admit individual immigrants? A cross-national test of the person-positivity bias. Public Opinion Quarterly, 77, 641-665.
22.
KehrbergJ. (2007). Public opinion on immigration in Western Europe: Economics, tolerance, and exposure. Comparative European Politics, 5, 264-281.
23.
LamontM.FournierM. (Eds.). (1992). Cultivating differences: Symbolic boundaries and the making of inequality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
24.
LamontM.MolnarV. (2002). The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 167-195.
25.
LivingstoneS. (2003). On the challenges of cross-national comparative media research. European Journal of Communication, 18, 477-500.
McCombsM. E.ShawD. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-187.
28.
McLarenL. (2003). Anti-immigrant prejudice in Europe: Contact, threat perception, and preferences for the exclusion of migrants. Social Forces, 81, 909-936.
OkamotoD.EbertK. (2016). Group boundaries, immigrant inclusion, and the politics of immigrant–native relations. American Behavioral Scientist, 60, 224-250.
32.
PaoliniS.HarwoodJ.RubinM. (2010). Negative intergroup contact makes group memberships salient: Explaining why intergroup conflict endures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1723-1738.
33.
PehrsonS.VignolesV.BrownR. (2009). National identification and anti-immigrant prejudice: Individual and contextual effects of national definitions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72, 24-38.
34.
PettigrewT.TroppL. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751-783.
35.
PettigrewT.TroppL.WagnerU.ChristO. (2011). Recent advances in intergroup contact theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 271-280.
36.
PutnamR. D. (2007). E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century: The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30, 137-174.
SemyonovM.GlikmanA. (2009). Ethnic residential segregation, social contacts, and anti-minority attitudes in European societies. European Sociological Review, 25, 693-708.
39.
SteinR. M.PostS. S.RindenA. L. (2000). Reconciling context and contact effects on racial attitudes. Political Research Quarterly, 53, 285-303.
40.
StürmerS.BenbowA.SiemB.BarthM.BodanskyA.Lotz-SchmittK. (2013). Psychological foundations of xenophilia: The role of major personality traits in predicting favorable attitudes toward cross-cultural contact and exploration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 832-851.
VescioT.SechristG.PaolucciM. (2003). Perspective taking and prejudice reduction: The mediational role of empathy arousal and situational attributions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 455-472.
44.
VociA.HewstoneM. (2003). Intergroup contact and prejudice toward immigrants in Italy: The mediational role of anxiety and the moderational role of group salience. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6, 37-54.
45.
WardC.MasgoretA.-M. (2006). An integrative model of attitudes toward immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 671-682.
46.
Zamora-KapoorA.KovincicP.CauseyC. (2013). Anti-foreigner sentiment: State of the art. Sociology Compass, 7, 303-313.
47.
ZolbergA.WoonL. L. (1999). Why Islam is like Spanish: Cultural incorporation in Europe and the United States. Political Sociology, 27, 5-38.
