How does contact with nonnatives affect immigration-related fears? While there is strong general support for the argument that intergroup contact decreases intergroup prejudice and fear, previous research arrives at mixed conclusions when applying this argument to the study of natives’ attitudes toward immigrants. We propose that people’s preexisting partisan affinities condition the effect of contact, which may explain the mixed findings. Building on the literature on motivated reasoning, we argue that contact reduces immigration-related threats among leftist voters, but have a threat-increasing or no effect among rightist voters. We find support for our argument using original surveys conducted in two very different contexts: the United States and Germany.
AlbaR.FonerN. (2014). Comparing immigrant integration in North America and Western Europe: How much do the grand narratives tell us?International Migration Review, 48, S263-S291.
2.
AlbaR.FonerN. (2015). Strangers no more: Immigration and the challenges of integration in North America and Western Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
4.
AnsolabehereS.SnyderJ. M.Jr.StewartC.III. (2001). Candidate positioning in U.S. House elections. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 136-159.
5.
BakkerR.EdwardsE.HoogheL.JollyS.MarksG.PolkJ.RovnyJ.SteenbergM.. . . VachudovaM. (2015). 2014 Chapel Hill expert survey (Version 2015.1). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, Available from chesdata.eu
6.
BartelsL. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior, 24, 117-150.
7.
BergJ. A. (2010). Race, class, gender, and social space: Using an intersectional approach to study immigration attitudes. The Sociological Quarterly, 51, 278-302.
8.
BohmanA. (2015). It’s who you know. Political influence on anti-immigrant attitudes and the moderating role of intergroup contact. Sociological Research Online, 20(3), 1-17.
9.
BolsenT.DruckmanJ. N.CookF. L. (2014). The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Political Behavior, 36, 235-262.
10.
BraderT.ValentinoN. A.SuhayE. (2008). What triggers public opposition to immigration? Anxiety, group cues, and immigration threat. American Journal of Political Science, 52, 959-978.
11.
CastlesS.MillerM. J. (1993). The age of migration: International population movements in the modern world. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
12.
CeobanuA. M.EscandellX. (2010). Comparative analyses of public attitudes toward immigrants and immigration using multinational survey data: A review of theories and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 309-328.
13.
ChongD.DruckmanJ. N. (2007). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101, 637-655.
14.
CitrinJ.GreenD. P.MusteC.WongC. (1997). Public opinion toward immigration reform: The role of economic motivations. The Journal of Politics, 59, 858-881.
15.
DancygierR. M. (2010). Immigration and conflict in Europe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
16.
DruckmanJ. N.PetersonE.SlothuusR. (2013). How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review, 107, 57-79.
17.
EllisonC. G.ShinH.LealD. L. (2011). The contact hypothesis and attitudes toward Latinos in the United States. Social Science Quarterly, 92, 938-958.
18.
EnosR. D. (2014). Causal effect of intergroup contact on exclusionary attitudes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 3699-3704.
19.
EssesV. M.DovidioJ. F.JacksonL. M.ArmstrongT. L. (2001). The immigration dilemma: The role of perceived group competition, ethnic prejudice, and national identity. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 389-412
20.
EzrowL.HomolaJ.TavitsM. (2014). When extremism pays: Policy positions, voter certainty, and party support in postcommunist Europe. The Journal of Politics, 76, 535-547.
21.
EzrowL.TavitsM.HomolaJ. (2014). Voter polarization, strength of partisanship, and support for extremist parties. Comparative Political Studies, 47, 1558-1583.
22.
FetzerJ. S. (2000). Public attitudes toward immigration in the United States, France, and Germany. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
23.
FischleM. (2000). Mass response to the Lewinsky Scandal: Motivated reasoning or bayesian updating?Political Psychology, 21, 135-159.
24.
FordW. S. (1986). Favorable intergroup contact may not reduce prejudice: Inconclusive journal evidence, 1960-1984. Sociology and Social Research, 70, 256-258.
25.
GainesB. J.KuklinskiJ. H.QuirkP. J.PeytonB.VerkuilenJ. (2007). Same facts, different interpretations: Partisan motivation and opinion on Iraq. The Journal of Politics, 69, 957-974.
26.
GivensT.FreemanG. P.LealD. L. (2008). Immigration policy and security: US, European, and commonwealth perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.
27.
GravelleT. B. (2016). Party identification, contact, contexts, and public attitudes toward illegal immigration. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80, 1-25.
28.
HainmuellerJ.HangartnerD. (2013). Who gets a Swiss passport? A natural experiment in immigrant discrimination. American Political Science Review, 107, 159-187.
29.
HainmuellerJ.HiscoxM. J. (2010). Attitudes toward highly skilled and low-skilled immigration: Evidence from a survey experiment. American Political Science Review, 104, 61-84.
30.
HainmuellerJ.HopkinsD. J. (2014). Public attitudes toward immigration. Annual Review of Political Science, 17, 225-249.
31.
HainmuellerJ.HopkinsD. J. (2015). The hidden American immigration consensus: A conjoint analysis of attitudes toward immigrants. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 529-548.
32.
HajnalZ.RiveraM. U. (2014). Immigration, Latinos, and white partisan politics: The new democratic defection. American Journal of Political Science, 58, 773-789.
33.
HartmanT. K.WeberC. R. (2009). Who said what? The effects of source cues in issue frames. Political Behavior, 31, 537-558.
34.
HawleyG. (2011). Political threat and immigration: Party identification, demographic context, and immigration policy preference. Social Science Quarterly, 92, 404-422.
35.
HomolaJ.TavitsM. (2016, September). Perceived threats about immigration. Presented at the APSA Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA.
36.
HopkinsD. J. (2010). Politicized places: Explaining where and when immigrants provoke local opposition. American Political Science Review, 104, 40-60.
37.
HopkinsD. J.TranV. C.WilliamsonA. F. (2014). See no Spanish: Language, local context, and attitudes toward immigration. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 2, 35-51.
38.
HuysmansJ. (2006). The politics of insecurity: Fear, migration and asylum in the EU. London, England: Routledge.
39.
IyengarS. (2016). E Pluribus Pluribus, or divided we stand. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80, 219-224.
40.
JacobyW. G. (2014). Is there a culture war? Conflicting value structures in American public opinion. American Political Science Review, 108, 754-771.
41.
JacobyW. G.CiukD. J. (2016, April). Core values in American society: Social construction and individual choice. Presented at the MPSA Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.
42.
JohnstonC. D.NewmanB. J.VelezY. (2015). Ethnic change, personality, and polarization over immigration in the American public. Public Opinion Quarterly79, 662-686.
43.
JostJ. T.FedericoC. M.NapierJ. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 307-337.
44.
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339-375.
45.
KarrethJ.SinghS. P.StojekS. M. (2015). Explaining attitudes toward immigration: The role of regional context and individual predispositions. West European Politics, 38, 1174-1202.
46.
KundaZ. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498.
47.
KunovichR. M. (2009). The sources and consequences of national identification. American Sociological Review, 74, 573-593.
48.
LahavG.CourtemancheM. (2012). The ideological effects of framing threat on immigration and civil liberties. Political Behavior, 34, 477-505.
49.
LaymanG. C.CarseyT. M.HorowitzJ. M. (2006). Party polarization in American politics: Characteristics, causes, and consequences. Annual Review of Political Science, 9, 83-110.
50.
LeboM. J.CassinoD. (2007). The aggregated consequences of motivated reasoning and the dynamics of partisan presidential approval. Political Psychology, 28, 719-746.
51.
ManevskaK.AchterbergP. (2013). Immigration and perceived ethnic threat: Cultural capital and economic explanations. European Sociological Review, 29, 437-449.
52.
MaydaA. M. (2006). Who is against immigration? A cross-country investigation of individual attitudes toward immigrants. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88, 510-530.
53.
McCartyN.PooleK. T.RosenthalH. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
54.
McLarenL. M. (2003). Anti-immigrant prejudice in Europe: Contact, threat perception, and preferences for the exclusion of migrants. Social Forces, 81, 909-936.
55.
NeundorfA.AdamsJ. (2016). The micro-foundations of party competition and issue ownership: The reciprocal effects of citizens’ issue salience and party attachments. British Journal of Political Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1017/S0007123415000642
56.
NewmanB. J. (2013). Acculturating contexts and Anglo opposition to immigration in the United States. American Journal of Political Science, 57, 374-390.
57.
NewmanB. J.HartmanT. K.TaberC. S. (2012). Foreign language exposure, cultural threat, and opposition to immigration. Political Psychology, 33, 635-657.
58.
NyhanB.ReiflerJ. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32, 303-330.
59.
PeffleyM.HurwitzJ. (2007). Persuasion and resistance: Race and the death penalty in America. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 996-1012.
60.
PettigrewT. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65-85.
61.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751-783.
62.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (2011). When groups meet: The dynamics of intergroup contact. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
63.
RedlawskD. P. (2002). Hot cognition or cool consideration? Testing the effects of motivated reasoning on political decision making. The Journal of Politics, 64, 1021-1044.
64.
RogowskiJ. C. (2016). Voter decision-making with polarized choices. British Journal of Political Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1017/S0007123415000630
65.
ScheepersP.GijsbertsM.CoendersM. (2002). Ethnic exclusionism in European countries: Public opposition to civil rights for legal migrants as a response to perceived ethnic threat. European Sociological Review, 18, 17-34.
66.
ScheveK. F.SlaughterM. J. (2001). Labor market competition and individual preferences over immigration policy. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 83, 133-145.
67.
SchlueterE.ScheepersP. (2010). The relationship between outgroup size and anti-outgroup attitudes: A theoretical synthesis and empirical test of group threat- and intergroup contact theory. Social Science Research, 39, 285-295.
68.
SchnapperD. (1994). The debate on immigration and the crisis of national identity. West European Politics, 17, 127-139.
69.
SearsD. O. (2001). The role of affect in symbolic politics. In KuklinskiJ. H. (Ed.), Citizens and politics: Perspectives from political psychology (pp. 14-40). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
70.
SemyonovM.RaijmanR.GorodzeiskyA. (2006). The rise of anti-foreigner sentiment in European societies, 1988-2000. American Sociological Review, 71, 426-449.
71.
SemyonovM.RaijmanR.GorodzeiskyA. (2008). Foreigners’ impact on European societies: Public views and perceptions in a cross-national comparative perspective. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 49, 5-29.
72.
SlothuusR.De VreeseC. H. (2010). Political parties, motivated reasoning, and issue framing effects. The Journal of Politics, 72, 630-645.
73.
SnidermanP. M.HagendoornL.PriorM. (2004). Predisposing factors and situational triggers: Exclusionary reactions to immigrant minorities. American Political Science Review, 98, 35-49.
74.
TaberC. S.LodgeM. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755-769.
75.
TavitsM. (2008). The role of parties’ past behavior in coalition formation. American Political Science Review, 102, 495-507.
76.
TavitsM.LetkiN. (2014). From values to interests? The evolution of party competition in new democracies. The Journal of Politics, 76, 246-258.
VelezY. R.LavineH. (2017). Racial diversity and the dynamics of authoritarianism. The Journal of Politics, 79, 519-533.
79.
VolkensA.LehmannP.MatthießT.MerzN.RegelS. (with WernerA.). (2016). The Manifesto data collection (Manifesto Project, MRG/CMP/MARPOR, Version 2016a). Berlin, Germany: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung. Available from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu
80.
WagnerU.HewstoneM.MachleitU. (1989). Contact and prejudice between Germans and Turks: A correlational study. Human Relations, 42, 561-574.
81.
WeldonS. A. (2006). The institutional context of tolerance for ethnic minorities: A comparative, multilevel analysis of Western Europe. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 331-349.
82.
WilsonT. C. (1996). Prejudice reduction or self-selection? A test of the contact hypothesis. Sociological Spectrum, 16, 43-60.
ZallerJ. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
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.
