Anti-immigration preferences among educated and racially egalitarian voters is hard to explain using existing frameworks of self-interest or prejudice. I address this puzzle by developing a theory of parochial altruism, which stipulates that voters are motivated to help others at a cost, but they prioritize helping compatriots. I hypothesize that parochial altruists or voters high in both “nationalism” and “altruism” are more supportive of immigration restrictions perceived to be in the national interest. However, parochial altruists are also expected to be more supportive of increasing immigration when it benefits their compatriots. I test my theory by conducting a population-based UK survey. Using a novel measure of elicited preferences, I first find most altruists who donate to domestic rather than global charities are as anti-immigration as egoists who do not donate at all. Using a conjoint experiment, I then show voters support increasing immigration when these alternative policies benefit their compatriots.
BaronJ. (2012). Parochialism as a result of cognitive biases. In WoodsA. K.GoodmanR.JinksD. (Eds.), Understanding social action, promoting human rights. Oxford University Press.
2.
BayramA. B. (2015). What drives modern Diogenes? Individual values and cosmopolitan allegiance. European Journal of International Relations, 21(2), 451–479.
3.
BechtelM. M.GenoveseF.ScheveK. F. (2019). Interests, norms, and attitudes toward global public goods: The case of climate cooperation. British Journal of Political Science, 49(4), 1–23.
4.
BekkersR.WiepkingP. (2010). A literature review of empirical studies of Philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), 924–973.
5.
BernhardH.FischbacherU.FehrE. (2006). Parochial altruism in humans. Nature, 442(7105), 912–915.
6.
BilligM. (1995). Banal Nationalism. Sage.
7.
BlauF. D.MackieC. (2016). The economic and fiscal consequences of immigration. The National Academies Press.
8.
BöhmR.BornsteinG.KoppelH. (2014). Between-group conflict and other-regarding preferences in nested social dilemmas. Jena Economic Research Papers, 11, 12–35.
9.
BrewerM. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love and outgroup hate?Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429–444.
10.
BrubakerR. (2015). Grounds for Difference. Harvard University Press.
11.
BuchanN. R.BrewerM. B.GrimaldaG.WilsonR. K.FatasE.FoddyM. (2011). Global social identity and global cooperation. Psychological Science, 22(6), 821–828.
12.
BuntaineM. T.PratherL. (2018). Preferences for domestic action over international transfers in global climate policy. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 5, 1–15.
13.
BurnsP.GimpelJ. G. (2000). Economic insecurity, prejudicial stereotypes, and public opinion on immigration policy. Political Science Quarterly, 115, 201–225.
14.
ChandraK. (2006). What is ethnic identity and does it matter?Annual Review of Political Science, 9(1), 397–424.
15.
ClemensM. (2011). Economics and emigration: Trillion-dollar bills on the sidewalk?Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25, 83–106.
16.
ClemensM. (2015). Global skill partnerships: A proposal for technical training in a mobile world. IZA Journal of Labor Policy, 4(2), 1–18.
17.
DawesC. T.LoewenP. J.FowlerJ. H. (2011). Social Preferences and Political Participation. The Journal of Politics, 73(3), 845–856.
18.
DickertS.VästfjällD.KleberJ.SlovicP. (2015). Scope insensitivity: The limits of intuitive valuation of human lives in public policy. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4(3), 248–255.
19.
DinesenP. T.KlemmensenR.NørgaardA. S. (2016). Attitudes toward immigration: The Role of personal predispositions. Political Psychology, 37(1), 55–72.
20.
DreuC. K. W. D.BallietD.HalevyN. (2014). Parochial cooperation in humans: Forms and functions of self-sacrifice in intergroup conflict. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Advances in motivation science (pp. 1–47). Elsevier.
21.
DruckmanJ. N. (2014). Pathologies of studying public opinion, political communication, and democratic responsiveness. Political Communication, 31(3), 467–492.
22.
DruckmanJ. N.LupiaA. (2016). Preference change in competitive political environments. Annual Review of Political Science, 19, 13–31.
23.
FalkA.BeckerA.DohmenT.HuffmanD.SundeU. (2016). The preference survey module: A validated instrument for measuring risk, time, and social preferences (IZA Discussion Paper No. 9674).
24.
FehrE.SchmidtK. M. (2006). Chapter 8 The economics of fairness, reciprocity and altruism - Experimental evidence and new theories. In KolmS. C.YthierJ. M. (Eds.), Handbook on the economics of giving, reciprocity and altruism (pp. 615–691). Elsevier.
25.
GilensM.ThalA. (2018). Doing well and doing good? how concern for others shapes policy preferences and partisanship among affluent Americans. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(2), 209–230.
26.
GoodeJ. P.StroupD. R. (2015). Everyday nationalism: Constructivism for the masses. Social Science Quarterly, 96(3), 717–739.
27.
GoodwinM.MilazzoC. (2017). Taking back control? Investigating the role of immigration in the 2016 vote for Brexit. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 19(3), 450–464.
28.
HaidtJ. (2016). When and why nationalism beats globalism. Policy: A Journal of Public Policy and Ideas, 32(3), 46.
29.
HainmuellerJ.HangartnerD.YamamotoT. (2015). Validating vignette and conjoint survey experiments against real-world behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(8), 2395–2400.
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(3), 529–548.
32.
HainmuellerJ.HopkinsD. J.YamamotoT. (2014). Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis, 22(2014), 1–30.
33.
HansenO.-P. M.LeggeS. (2016). Drawbridges down: Altruism and immigration preferences (CES Working Paper No. 6204).
34.
HassinR. R.FergusonM. J.ShidlovskiD.GrossT. (2007). Subliminal exposure to national flags affects political thought and behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 19757–19761.
35.
HerrmannR. K. (2017). How Attachments to the nation shape beliefs about the world: A theory of motivated reasoning. International Organization, 71(S1), S61–S84.
36.
HertelG.KerrN. L. (2001). Priming in-group favoritism: The impact of normative scripts in the minimal group paradigm. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(4), 316–324.
37.
HoogheL.MarksG. (2018). Cleavage theory meets Europe’s crises: Lipset, Rokkan, and the transnational cleavage. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(1), 109–135.
38.
HopkinsD. J. (2018). The increasingly United States: How and why American political behavior nationalized. University of Chicago Press.
39.
HopkinsD. J.SidesJ.CitrinJ. (2019). The muted consequences of correct information about immigration. Journal of Politics, 81(1), 315–320.
40.
HruschkaD. J.HenrichJ. (2013, September). Economic and evolutionary hypotheses for crosspopulation variation in parochialism. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 559.
KahanD. M. (2016). The politically motivated reasoning paradigm. Emerging Trends in Social & Behavioral Sciences, 1–15.
43.
KahnemanD. (2012). A proposal to deal with questions about priming effects. Nature, 490(2), 1–2.
44.
KaufmannE. (2019). Whiteshift. The Overlook Press.
45.
KiewietD. R.Lewis-BeckM. S. (2011). No man is an Island: Self-interest, the public interest, and sociotropic voting. Critical Review, 23(3), 303–319.
46.
KinderD. R.KamC. D. (2010). Us against them: Ethnocentric foundations of American opinion. University Of Chicago Press.
47.
KochenovD. (2019). Citizenship. MIT Press.
48.
KunovichR. M. (2009). The sources and consequences of national identification. American Sociological Review, 74, 573–593.
49.
KustovA. (2019a). Borders of compassion: International migration and the politics of parochial altruism (Dissertation). Princeton University.
50.
KustovA. (2019b). Is there a backlash against immigration from richer countries? International hierarchy and the limits of group threat. Political Psychology, 40(5), 973–1000.
LaceteraN.MacisM.SlonimR. (2012). Will there be blood? Incentives and displacement effects in pro-social behavior. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 4(1), 186–223.
54.
McCroneD. (2002). Who do you say you are? Making sense of national identities in modern Britain. Ethnicities, 2(3), 301–320.
55.
MercerJ. J. (2005). Prospect theory and political science. Annual Review of Political Science, 8(1), 1.
56.
MilanovicB. (2015). Global inequality of opportunity: How much of our income is determined by where we live?Review of Economics and Statistics, 97(2), 452–460.
57.
MillerD.AliS. (2014). Testing the national identity argument. European Political Science Review, 6(2), 237–259.
58.
MusteC. P. (2013). The dynamics of immigration opinion in the United States, 1992-2012. Public Opinion Quarterly, 77(1), 398–416.
59.
MutzD. C.KimE. (2017). The impact of ingroup favoritism on trade preferences. International Organization, 71(4), 827–850.
60.
NewmanB. J.HartmanT. K.LownP. L.FeldmanS. (2013). Easing the heavy hand: Humanitarian concern, empathy, and opinion on immigration. British Journal of Political Science, 45(3), 1–25.
61.
NorrisP.InglehartR. (2019). Cultural backlash: Trump, Brexit, and authoritarian populism. Cambridge University Press.
62.
OlinerS. P.OlinerP. M. (1988). The altruistic personality: Rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe. Free Press.
63.
PennerL. A.DovidioJ. F.PiliavinJ. A.SchroederD. A. (2005). Prosocial behaviour: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 56(1), 365–392.
64.
PritchettL. (2006). Let their people come: Breaking the gridlock on global labor mobility. Center for Global Development.
65.
RobaloP.SchramA.SonnemansJ. (2017). Other-regarding preferences, in-group bias and political participation: An experiment. Journal of Economic Psychology, 62, 130–154.
66.
RotembergJ. J. (2014). Models of caring, or acting as if one cared, about the welfare of others. Annual Review of Economics, 6, 129–154.
67.
RuhsM. (2013). The price of rights: Regulating international labor migration. Princeton University Press.
68.
RuschH. (2016). Parochial altruism: Pitfalls and prospects. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(1004), 1–3.
69.
SchildkrautD. J. (2014). Boundaries of American identity: Evolving understandings of “Us”. Annual Review of Political Science, 17, 441–460.
70.
SchnellenbachJ.SchubertC. (2015). Behavioral political economy: A survey. European Journal of Political Economy, 40, 395–417.
71.
Schwartz-SheaP.SimmonsR. T. (1991). Egoism, parochialism, and universalism: Experimental evidence from the layered prisoners’ dilemma. Rationality and Society, 3(1), 106–132.
72.
SearsD. O.FunkC. L. (1990). The limited effect of economic self-interest on the political attitudes of the mass public. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19(3), 247–271.
73.
SingerP. (2015). The most good you can do: How effective altruism is changing ideas about living ethically. Yale University Press.
74.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Nelson-Hall.
75.
TankardM. E.PaluckE. L. (2016). Norm perception as a vehicle for social change. Social Issues and Policy Review, 10(1), 181–211.
76.
UhlmannE. L.PizarroD. A.TannenbaumD.DittoP. H. (2009). The motivated use of moral principles. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(6), 476–491.
77.
van LangeP.BallietD. P.ParksC. D.VugtM. (2014). Social Dilemmas: Under- standing human cooperation. Oxford University Press.
78.
WeedenJ.KurzbanR. (2017). Self-interest is often a major determinant of issue attitudes. Political Psychology, 38, 67–90.
79.
WongC. (2010). Boundaries of obligation in American politics: Geographic, national, and racial communities. Cambridge University Press.
80.
YamagishiT.MifuneN. (2008). Does shared group membership promote altruism? Fear, greed, and reputation. Rationality and Society, 20(1), 5–30.
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.
