Better understanding of attitudes toward immigration is crucial to avoid misperception of immigration in the public debate. Through two identical online survey experiments applying morphed faces of non-Western immigrants and textual vignettes, the authors manipulate complexion, education, family background, and gender in Denmark and Germany. For women, an additional split in which half of the women wore a headscarf is performed. In both countries, highly skilled immigrants are preferred to low-skilled immigrants. Danes are more skeptical toward non-Western immigration than Germans. Essentially, less educated Danes are very critical of accepting non-Western immigrants in their country. It is suggested that this difference is driven by a large welfare state in Denmark compared to Germany, suggesting a stronger fear in welfare societies that immigrants will exploit welfare benefits.
AalbergTIyengarSMessingS (2012) Who is a ‘deserving’ immigrant? An experimental study of norwegian attitudes. Scandinavian Political Studies35(2): 97–116.
2.
BailensonJNIyengarSYeeNet al.(2008) Facial similarity between voters and candidates causes influence. Public Opinion Quarterly72(5): 935–961.
3.
BengtssonÅHansenKMHarðarsonÓet al.(2014) The Nordic Voter: Myths of Exceptionalism, Colchester: ECPR-Press.
4.
BennettSEOldendickRTuchfarberAJet al.(1979) Education and mass belief systems: An extension and some new questions. Political Behavior1(1): 53–72.
5.
BerghahnSRostockP (2009) Der Stoff, Aus Dem Konflikte Sind, Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.
6.
BerinskyAJ (2004) Silent Voices: Public Opinion and Political Participation in America, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7.
BevelanderPOtterbeckJ (2010) Young people’s attitudes towards Muslims in Sweden. Ethnic and Racial Studies33(3): 404–425.
8.
BorjasGJ (1999) Immigration and welfare magnets. Journal of Labor Economics17(4): 607–637.
9.
BourdieuP (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
CeobanuAMEscandellX (2010) Comparative analyses of public attitudes toward immigrants and immigration using multinational survey data: A review of theories and research. Annual Review of Sociology36: 309–328.
11.
ChandlerCRTsaiYM (2001) Social factors influencing immigration attitudes: An analysis of data from the general social survey. The Social Science Journal38(2): 177–188.
12.
CitrinJGreenDPMusteCet al.(1997) Public opinion toward immigration reform: The role of economic motivations. Journal of Politics59(3): 858–881.
13.
Creighton M and Jamal A (2012) The social desirability of (in)tolerance toward Muslim immigrants in the United States: Results from a population-level list experiment. In: European population conference, Sweden, 13–16 June 2012, Stockholm.
14.
DancygierRDonnellyM (2013) Attitudes toward immigration in good times and bad. In: BartelsLBermeoN (eds) Mass Politics in Tough Times: Opinions, Votes and Protest in the Great Recession, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 148–179.
15.
DolezalMHelblingMHutterS (2010) Debating Islam in Austria, Germany and Switzerland: Ethnic citizenship, church–state relations and right-wing populism. West European Politics33(2): 171–190.
16.
DustmannCPrestonI (2007) Racial and economic factors in attitudes to immigration. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy7(1): 1–39.
17.
Esping-AndersenG (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
18.
FacchiniGMaydaAM (2009) Does the welfare state affect individual attitudes toward immigrants? Evidence across countries. Review of Economics and Statistics91(2): 295–314.
19.
FetzerJS (2000) Public Attitudes Toward Immigration in the United States, France, and Germany, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20.
Fietkau S and Faas T (2013) Visual techniques in measuring attitudes towards migrants. In: EPSA annual general conference, Barcelona, 20–22 June 2013.
21.
FreemanGP (1986) Migration and the political economy of the welfare state. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science485: 51–63.
22.
FreemanGP (1995) Modes of immigration politics in liberal democratic states. International Migration Review29(4): 881–902.
23.
GeddesA (2003) Migration and the welfare state in Europe. The Political Quarterly74(S1): 150–162.
24.
GrimBJFinkeR (2006) International religion indexes: Government regulation, government favoritism, and social regulation of religion. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion2: 1–40.
25.
Hadj-AbdouLRosenbergerSSaharsoSet al.(2011) The limits of populism: Accommodative headscarf policies in Austria, Denmark, and the Netherlands. In: SauerBRosenbergerS (eds) Politics, Religion and Gender Framing and Regulating the Veil, London: Routledge, pp. 132–149.
26.
HainmuellerJHiscoxMJ (2007) Educated preferences: Explaining attitudes toward immigration in Europe. International Organization61(2): 399–442.
27.
HainmuellerJHiscoxMJ (2010) Attitudes toward highly skilled and low-skilled immigration: evidence from a survey experiment. American Political Science Review104(1): 61–84.
28.
HansonGHScheveKSlaughterMJ (2005) Individual preferences over high-skilled immigration in the United States. In: BhagwatiJHansonG (eds) Skilled Immigration Today: Problems, Prospects, and Policies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 207–246.
29.
HarrellASorokaSIyengarSet al.(2012) The impact of economic and cultural cues on support for immigration in Canada and the US. Canadian Journal of Political Science45(3): 499–530.
30.
HelblingM (2014) Opposing Muslims and the Muslim headscarf in Western Europe. European Sociological Review30(2): 242–257.
31.
HelblingMKriesiH (2014) Why citizens prefer high- over low-skilled immigrants: Labor market competition, welfare state and deservingness. European Sociological Review30(5): 595–614.
32.
HjorthF (2016) Who benefits? Welfare chauvinism and national stereotypes. European Union Politics17(1): 3–24.
33.
HopkinsDJ (2010) Politicized places: Explaining where and when immigrants provoke local opposition. American Political Science Review104(1): 40–60.
34.
IyengarSJackmanSMessingSet al.(2013) Do attitudes about immigration Predict willingness to admit individual immigrants? A cross-national test of the person-positivity bias’. Public Opinion Quarterly77(3): 641–665.
35.
KamCD (2007) Implicit attitudes, explicit choices: When subliminal priming predicts candidate preference. Political Behavior29(3): 343–367.
36.
KinderDRKiewietDR (1981) Sociotropic politics: The American case. British Journal of Political Science11(2): 129–161.
37.
KinderDRSearsDO (1981) Prejudice and politics: Symbolic racism versus racial threats to the good life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology40(3): 414–431.
38.
KuklinskiJHCobbMDGilensM (1997) Racial attitudes and the “New South”. Journal of Politics59(2): 323–349.
39.
LarsenKSKrumovKLeHVet al.(2009) Threat perception and attitudes toward documented and undocumented immigrants in the United States: Framing the debate and conflict resolution. European Journal of Social Sciences7(4): 115–134.
40.
MaddoxKBGraySA (2002) Cognitive representations of Black Americans: Reexploring the role of skin tone. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin28(2): 250–259.
41.
MartensULeutholdHSchweinbergerSR (2010) Parallel processing in face perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance36(1): 103–121.
42.
MaydaAM (2006) Who is against immigration? A cross-country investigation of individual attitudes toward immigrants. The Review of Economics and Statistics88(3): 510–530.
43.
NannestadP (2007) Immigration and welfare states: A survey of 15 years of research. European Journal of Political Economy23(2): 512–532.
QuillianL (1995) Prejudice as a response to perceived group threat: Population composition and anti-immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe. American Sociological Review60(4): 586–611.
46.
RonquilloJDensonTFLickelBet al.(2007) The effects of skin tone on race-related amygdala activity: An fMRI investigation. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience2(1): 39–44.
47.
ScheveKFSlaughterMJ (2001) Labor market competition and individual preferences over immigration policy. Review of Economics and Statistics83(1): 133–145.
48.
SherifM (1966) Group Conflict and Cooperation: Their Social Psychology, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
49.
SherifMSherifCW (1953) Groups in Harmony and Tension: An Integration of Studies of Intergroup Relations, Oxford: Harper & Brothers.
50.
SnidermanPMHagendoornLPriorM (2004) Predisposing factors and situational triggers: Exclusionary reactions to immigrant minorities. American Political Science Review98(1): 35–49.
51.
StockéV (2004) Entstehungsbedingungen von antwortverzerrungen durch soziale Erwünschtheit: Ein vergleich der prognosen der rational-choice theorie und des modells der frame-selektion. Zeitschrift für Soziologie33(4): 303–320.
52.
TajfelH (1982) Social Identity and Intergroup Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
53.
TurperSIyengarSAartsKet al.(2015) Who is less welcome? The impact of individuating cues on attitudes towards immigrants. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies41(2): 239–259.
WallanderL (2009) 25 years of factorial surveys in sociology: A review. Social Science Research38(3): 505–520.
56.
WilkesRGuppyNFarrisL (2008) No thanks, we’re full: Individual characteristics, national context, and changing attitudes toward immigration. International Migration Review42(2): 302–329.
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.
