Politicians and media frequently invoke immigration threats to shape public opinion. But how do outgroup threat frames affect norms of citizenship, including behavior, liberal value commitments, and national belonging? This paper presents evidence from an embedded vignette survey experiment in three immigrant-receiving societies: United States, United Kingdom, and Germany. I find immigration threats are filtered through partisanship in polarized settings, and asymmetrically affect norms of “good citizenship” among individuals on the partisan left. However, we see variation within this group: Democrats (US) de-value norms of behavior, like voting and being informed, while Labor supports (UK) repudiate liberal norms like tolerance and rally around national belonging. By contrast, in Germany, we observe more consensus in citizenship norm responses. The strong effect of immigration threat framing on the partisan left brings our attention to the strategic use of immigration discourse to move traditionally sympathetic citizens away from democratic civic ideals.
AbrajanoM.HajnalZ. L. (2017). White backlash: Immigration, race, and American politics. Princeton University Press.
2.
AlbertsonB.GadarianS. K. (2015). Anxious politics: Democratic citizenship in a threatening world. Cambridge University Press.
3.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison.
4.
AlmondG.VerbaS. (1963). The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Princeton University Press.
5.
AlthausS. L. (2002). American news consumption during times of national crisis. PS: Political Science and Politics, 35(3), 517–521.
6.
AndersonC. J.GuilloryC. A. (1997). Political institutions and satisfaction with democracy: A cross-national analysis of consensus and majoritarian systems. American Political Science Review, 91(1), 66–81.
AnsolabehereS.SchaffnerB. F. (2014). Does survey mode still matter? Findings from a 2010 multi-mode comparison. Political Analysis, 22(3), 285–303.
9.
ApplebyJ.FedericoC. M. (2018). The racialization of electoral fairness in the 2008 and 2012 United States presidential elections. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(7), 979–996.
10.
AptekarS. (2012). Naturalization ceremonies and the role of immigrants in the American nation. Citizenship Studies, 16(7), 937–952. https://doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2012.716211
11.
BechtelM. M.HainmuellerJ.HangartnerD.HelblingM. (2015). Reality bites: The limits of framing effects for salient and contested policy issues. Political Science Research and Methods, 3(3), 683–695. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2014.39
12.
BerinskyA. J. (2009). In time of war: Understanding American public opinion from World War II to Iraq. University of Chicago Press.
13.
BlaisA. (2000). To vote or not to vote?: The merits and limits of rational choice theory. University of Pittsburgh Pre.
14.
BlaisA.AchenC. H. (2019). Civic duty and voter turnout. Political Behavior, 41(2), 473–497.
15.
BlinderS. (2015). Imagined immigration: The impact of different meanings of ‘immigrants’ in public opinion and policy debates in Britain. Political Studies, 63(1), 80–100.
16.
BlinderS.JeannetA.-M. (2018). The ‘illegal’ and the skilled: Effects of media portrayals on perceptions of immigrants in Britain. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(9), 1444–1462. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2017.1412253
17.
BlumerH. (1958). Race prejudice as a sense of group position. Pacific Sociological Review, 1(1), 3–7.
18.
BolzendahlC.CofféH. (2013). Are ‘good’citizens ‘good’participants? Testing citizenship norms and political participation across 25 nations. Political Studies, 61, 45–65.
19.
BonikowskiB. (2016). Nationalism in settled times. Annual Review of Sociology, 42, 427–449.
BoucherA. K.GestJ. (2018). Crossroads: Comparative immigration regimes in a world of demographic change. Cambridge University Press.
22.
BoxellL.GentzkowMShapiroJ. M. (2020). Cross-country trends in affective polarization (NBER Working Paper No. 26669). National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
23.
BraderT.ValentinoN. A.SuhayE. (2008a). What triggers public opposition to immigration? Anxiety, group cues, and immigration threat. American Journal of Political Science, 52(4), 959–978.
24.
BraderT.ValentinoN.SuhayE. (2008b). Is it immigration or the immigrants? The emotional influence of groups on public opinion and political action. American Journal of Political Science, 52(4), 959–978.
25.
BrubakerR. (1992). Citizenship and nationhood in France and Germany. Harvard University Press.
26.
CalvoE.HellwigT. (2011). Centripetal and centrifugal incentives under different electoral systems. American Journal of Political Science, 55(1), 27–41.
27.
CarterN. M.PérezE. O. (2016). Race and nation: How racial hierarchy shapes national attachments. Political Psychology, 37(4), 497–513.
28.
CarvalhoJ.RuedinD. (2018). The positions mainstream left parties adopt on immigration: A cross-cutting cleavage?Party Politics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068818780533
CitrinJ.GreenD. P.MusteC.WongC. (1997). Public opinion toward immigration reform: The role of economic motivations. The Journal of Politics, 59(3), 858–881.
31.
DahlR. A. (1967). Pluralist democracy in the United States: Conflict and consent. Rand McNally.
32.
DaltonR. J. (2008a). Citizenship norms and the expansion of political participation. Political Studies, 56(1), 76–98.
33.
DaltonR. J. (2008b). The good citizen: How a younger generation is reshaping American politics. CQ Press.
34.
DancygierR. M. (2010). Immigration and conflict in Europe. Cambridge University Press.
35.
DancygierR. M.DonnellyM. J. (2013). Sectoral economies, economic contexts, and attitudes toward immigration. The Journal of Politics, 75(1), 17–35.
36.
DancygierR.MargalitY. (2019). The evolution of the immigration debate: Evidence from a new dataset of party positions over the last half-century. Comparative Political Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414019858936
37.
de FigueiredoR. J. P.Jr.ElkinsZ. (2003). Are patriots bigots? An inquiry into the vices of in-group pride. American Journal of Political Science, 47(1), 171–188.
38.
DiamondL. (2015). Facing up to the democratic recession. Journal of Democracy, 26(1), 141–155.
39.
DinesenP. T.KlemmensenR.NørgaardA. S. (2016). Attitudes toward immigration: The role of personal predispositions. Political Psychology, 37(1), 55–72.
40.
DunawayJ.BrantonR. P.AbrajanoM. A. (2010). Agenda setting, public opinion, and the issue of immigration reform. Social Science Quarterly, 91(2), 359–378.
41.
DunnK.OrellanaS.SinghS. (2009). Legislative diversity and social tolerance: How multiparty systems lead to tolerant citizens. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 19(3), 283–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457280903074052
42.
EnosR. D. (2014). Causal effect of intergroup contact on exclusionary attitudes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(10), 3699–3704.
43.
EzrowL.TavitsM.HomolaJ. (2014). Voter polarization, strength of partisanship, and support for extremist parties. Comparative Political Studies, 47(11), 1558–1583.
44.
EzrowL.XezonakisG. (2011). Citizen satisfaction with democracy and parties’ policy offerings. Comparative Political Studies, 44(9), 1152–1178.
45.
FieldhouseE.CuttsD.BaileyJ. (2020). Who cares if you vote? Partisan pressure and social norms of voting. Political Behavior. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-020-09661-y.
46.
FinkelE. J.BailC. A.CikaraM.DittoP. H.IyengarS.KlarS.MasonL.McGrathM. C.NyhanB.RandD. G. (2020). Political sectarianism in America. Science, 370(6516), 533–536.
47.
FordR.JenningsW. (2020). The changing cleavage politics of Western Europe. Annual Review of Political Science, 23, 295–314.
48.
FordR.MellonJ. (2020). The skills premium and the ethnic premium: a cross-national experiment on European attitudes to immigrants. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 46(3), 512–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2018.1550148
49.
GadarianS. K.AlbertsonB. (2014). Anxiety, immigration, and the search for information. Political Psychology, 35(2), 133–164.
50.
GidronN.AdamsJ.HorneW. (2020). American affective polarization in comparative perspective. Cambridge University Press.
51.
GoldsteinJ. L.PetersM. E. (2014). Nativism or economic threat: Attitudes toward immigrants during the great recession. International Interactions, 40(3), 376–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050629.2014.899219
52.
GoodmanS. W. (2014). Immigration and membership politics in Western European. Cambridge University Press.
53.
GoodmanS. W. (2020). ‘Good American citizens’: A text-as-data analysis of citizenship manuals for immigrants, 1921–1996. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2020.1785852
54.
GoodmanS. W. (2021). Replication data for: Immigration threat, partisanship and democratic citizenship: Evidence from the US, UK, and Germany. Harvard Dataverse.
55.
GoodmanS. W.AlarianH. M. (2019). National belonging and public support for multiculturalism. Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/rep.2019.52
56.
GrahamM. H.SvolikM. W. (2020). Democracy in America? Partisanship, polarization, and the robustness of support for democracy in the United States. American Political Science Review, 114(2), 392–409. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055420000052
57.
GreeneZ. (2017). Working through the issues: How issue diversity and ideological disagreement influence coalition duration. European Political Science Review, 9(4): 561–585.
58.
HainmuellerJ.HiscoxM. J. (2010). Attitudes toward highly skilled and low-skilled immigration: Evidence from a survey experiment. American Political Science Review, 104,(1), 61–84.
59.
HainmuellerJ.HopkinsD. J. (2014). Public attitudes toward immigration. Annual Review of Political Science, 17. 225–249.
60.
HeathA. F.TilleyJ. R. (2005). British national identity and attitudes towards immigration. International Journal on Multicultural Societies, 7(2), 119–132.
HellwigT.KweonY. (2016). Taking cues on multidimensional issues: The case of attitudes toward immigration. West European Politics, 39(4), 710–730.
63.
HellwigT.SinnoA. (2017). Different groups, different threats: Public attitudes towards immigrants. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 43(3), 339–358.
64.
HetheringtonM. J. (2001). Resurgent mass partisanship: The role of elite polarization. American Political Science Review, 95(3), 619–631.
65.
HetheringtonM.WeilerJ. (2018). Prius or pickup?: How the answers to four simple questions explain America’s great divide. Houghton Mifflin.
66.
HomolaJ.TavitsM. (2018). Contact reduces immigration-related fears for leftist but not for rightist voters. Comparative Political Studies, 51(13), 1789–1820.
HopkinsD. J.SidesJ.CitrinJ. (2019). The muted consequences of correct information about immigration. The Journal of Politics, 81(1), 315–312.
69.
HopkinsD. J.TranV. C.WilliamsonA. F. (2014). See no Spanish: Language, local context, and attitudes toward immigration. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 2(1), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2013.872998.
70.
HowardM. M. (2009). The politics of citizenship in Europe. Cambridge University Press.
71.
HuddyL.MasonL.AarøeL. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109(1): 1–17.
72.
IyengarS.SoodGLelkesY. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431.
73.
JenningsW. (2009). The public thermostat, political responsiveness and error-correction: Border control and asylum in Britain, 1994-2007. British Journal of Political Science, 39(4), 847–870.
74.
JeongH. K. (2013). Do national feelings influence public attitudes towards immigration?Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 39(9), 1461–1477.
75.
JeritJ.BarabasJ. (2012). Partisan perceptual bias and the information environment. The Journal of Politics, 74(3), 672–684.
76.
KinderD. R.SearsD. O. (1981). Prejudice and politics: Symbolic racism versus racial threats to the good life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(3), 414.
77.
KnollB. R.RedlawskD. P.SanbornH. (2011). Framing labels and immigration policy attitudes in the Iowa caucuses: “Trying to out-Tancredo Tancredo”. Political Behavior, 33(3): 433–454.
78.
LajevardiN.AbrajanoM. (2018). How negative sentiment toward Muslim Americans predicts support for trump in the 2016 presidential election. The Journal of Politics, 81(1), 296–302. https://doi.org/10.1086/700001
79.
LenzG. S. (2013). Follow the leader?: How voters respond to politicians’ policies and performance. University of Chicago Press.
80.
LevenduskyM. (2009). The partisan sort: How liberals became democrats and conservatives became republicans. University of Chicago Press.
81.
LevenduskyM. S. (2018). Americans, not partisans: Can priming American national identity reduce affective polarization?The Journal of Politics, 80(1), 59–70.
82.
LijphartA. (1999). Patterns of democracy. Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. Yale University Press.
83.
LinW. (2013). Agnostic notes on regression adjustments to experimental data: Reexamining Freedman’s critique. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 7(1), 295–318.
84.
LubbersM.CoendersM. (2017). Nationalistic attitudes and voting for the radical right in Europe. European Union Politics, 18(1), 98–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116516678932
MacKuenM.WolakJ.KeeleL.MarcusG. E. (2010). Civic engagements: Resolute partisanship or reflective deliberation. American Journal of Political Science, 54(2), 440–458.
87.
MalkaA.LelkesY.BakkerB. N.SpivackE. (2020). Who is open to authoritarian governance within Western Democracies?Perspectives on Politics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592720002091
88.
MarcusG. E.Theiss-MorseE.SullivanJ. L.WoodS. L. (1995). With malice toward some: How people make civil liberties judgments. Cambridge University Press.
89.
MarshallT. (1950). Citizenship and social class and other essays. Cambridge University Press.
90.
MasonL. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. University of Chicago Press.
91.
McCartyN.PooleK. T.RosenthalH. (2016). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. Mit Press.
92.
McCoyJ.SomerM. (2019). Toward a theory of pernicious polarization and how it harms democracies: Comparative evidence and possible remedies. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 681(1), 234–271.
93.
McLarenL. M. (2001). Immigration and the new politics of inclusion and exclusion in the European Union: The effect of elites and the EU on individual-level opinions regarding European and non-European immigrants. European Journal of Political Research, 39(1), 81–108.
94.
McLarenL. M. (2017). Immigration, national identity and political trust in European democracies. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 43(3), 379–399.
95.
MerollaJ. L.RamosJ. M.ZechmeisterE. J. (2007). Crisis, charisma, and consequences: Evidence from the 2004 US presidential election. The Journal of Politics, 69(1), 30–42.
96.
MerollaJ.RamakrishnanS. K.HaynesC. (2013). “Illegal,” “undocumented,” or “unauthorized”: Equivalency frames, issue frames, and public opinion on immigration.”Perspectives on Politics, 11(3), 789–807.
97.
NelsonT. E.KinderD. R. (1996). Issue frames and group-centrism in American public opinion. The Journal of Politics, 58(4), 1055–1078.
98.
NewmanB. J.HartmanT. K.TaberC.S. (2012). Foreign language exposure, cultural threat, and opposition to immigration. Political Psychology, 33(5), 635–657.
99.
PérezE. O.DeichertM.EngelhardtA. M. (2019). E Pluribus Unum? How ethnic and national identity motivate individual reactions to a political ideal. The Journal of Politics, 81(4), 1420–1433.
100.
QuillianL. (1995). Prejudice as a response to perceived group threat: Population composition and anti-immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe. American Sociological Review, 60, 586–611.
101.
RiekB. M.ManiaE. W.GaertnerS. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 336–353.
102.
RikerW. H.OrdeshookP. C. (1968). A theory of the calculus of voting. The American Political Science Review, 62(1), 25–42.
103.
RokeachM. (1960). The open and closed mind. Basic Books.
104.
SatherleyN.YogeeswaranK.OsborneD.SibleyC. G. (2018). If they say “yes,” we say “no”: Partisan cues increase polarization over national symbols. Psychological Science, 29(12), 1996–2009.
105.
ScheveK. F.SlaughterM. J. (2001). Labor market competition and individual preferences over immigration policy. Review of Economics and Statistics, 83(1), 133–145.
106.
SchildkrautD. (2014). Boundaries of American identity: Evolving understandings of “us”. Annual Review of Political Science, 14, 441–460.
107.
SchildkrautD. J. (2005). Press” one” for English: Language policy, public opinion, and American identity. Princeton University Press.
108.
SchildkrautD. J. (2011). National identity in the United States. In SchwartzS. J.LuyckxK.VignolesV. L. (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 845–865). Springer.
109.
SidesJ.CitrinJ. (2007). European opinion about immigration: The role of identities, interests and information. British Journal of Political Science, 37(3), 477–504.
110.
SidesJ.TeslerM.VavreckL. (2018). Identity crisis: The 2016 presidential campaign and the battle for the meaning of America. Princeton University Press.
111.
SnidermanP. M.PetersenM. B.SlothuusR.StubagerR.PetrovP. (2019). Reactions to terror attacks: A heuristic model. Political Psychology, 40(S1), 245–258. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12575.
112.
SobolewskaM.FordR. (2020). Brexitland: Identity, diversity and the reshaping of British politics. Cambridge University Press.
113.
SobolewskaM.GalandiniS.Lessard-PhillipsL. (2017). The public view of immigrant integration: Multidimensional and consensual. Evidence from survey experiments in the UK and the Netherlands. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 43(1), 58–79.
114.
StoufferS. A. (1955). Communism, conformity and civil liberties. Doubleday.
115.
SullivanJ. L.PieresonJ.MarcusG. E. (1982). Political tolerance and American democracy. University of Chicago Press.
116.
TajfelH.BilligM.G.BundyR. P.FlamentC. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149–178.
117.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 33(47), 74.
118.
TeslerM. (2012). The return of old-fashioned racism to White Americans’ partisan preferences in the early Obama era. The Journal of Politics, 75(1), 110–123.
119.
Theiss-MorseE. (2009). Who counts as an American?: The boundaries of national identity. Cambridge University Press.
120.
TomzM.WeeksJ. L. P. (2020). Public opinion and foreign electoral intervention. American Political Science Review, 114(3), 856–873. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055420000064
121.
TriandafyllidouA. (2003). Immigrants and national identity in Europe. Routledge.
122.
van der ZwetA. (2016). To see ourselves as others see us: Identity and attitudes towards immigration amongst civic nationalists. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42(8), 1242–1256.
123.
Van HauwaertS. M.EnglishP. (2019). Responsiveness and the macro-origins of immigration opinions: Evidence from Belgium, France and the UK. Comparative European Politics, 17(6), 832–859.
124.
WhiteI. KLairdC. N.AllenT. D. (2014). Selling out?: The politics of navigating conflicts between racial group interest and self-interest. American Political Science Review, 108(4), 783–800.
125.
WilsonD. C.BrewerP. R. (2013). The foundations of public opinion on voter ID laws: Political predispositions, racial resentment, and information effects. Public Opinion Quarterly, 77(4), 962–984.
126.
WrightM. (2011). Diversity and the imagined community: Immigrant diversity and conceptions of national identity. Political Psychology, 32(5), 837–862.
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.
