The impact of mass-level ideological orientations on immigration policy preferences over time

Abstract

This paper introduces a dynamic perspective on how (personal) political ideology shapes reactions to immigration policies at the mass level. Greater ethnic diversity and growing calls for multiculturalism represent a disproportionately greater challenge to rightists because they value conformity, tradition, and stability more than leftists. Consequently, we hypothesize that the impact of political ideology on opposition to immigration has become stronger over time. Analyses show that: (a) leftists were less opposed to immigration than rightists in both 2002 and 2014, and (b) rightists have become more opposed to immigration in the time between 2002 and 2014, whereas leftists’ reactions remained stable across this period. We tested our motivated reasoning hypothesis in a repeated cross-sectional (fixed effects regression) analysis of individual-level data from 18 countries (N = 55,367). The individual-level data on political ideology and immigration policy preferences is from the European Social Survey data sets fielded in 2002 and 2014.

Can conservatives who (de)humanize immigrants the most be able to support them? The power of imagined positive contact

“…In today’s globalized world, immigration seems inevitable, whether for social, economic, demographic, political, or environmental reasons (Black et al, 2011), resulting in greater diversity in contemporary nation‐states (Sides & Citrin, 2007). Because such diversity, however, tends to provoke adverse reactions, particularly among conservative quarters of the majority group, factors that may reduce interethnic tensions need to be identified (e.g., Thomsen & Rafiqi, 2019a, 2019b).…”

“…In fact, individuals who endorse a conservative ideology have demonstrated greater opposition to immigration than their peers who endorse a liberal ideology (e.g., Chandler & Tsai, 2001; Davidov & Meuleman, 2012; Rustenbach, 2010; Semyonov et al, 2006; Sides & Citrin, 2007; Thomsen & Rafiqi, 2019a, 2019b; Wilkes et al, 2008). The reason why, according to Jost et al (2003) and Thorisdottir et al (2007), is that individuals who endorse a conservative ideology value stability and conformity (i.e., cultural unity) and both accept and justify inequalities, whereas those who endorse a liberal ideology value diversity, social change, and social equality (see also Jost et al, 2008).…”

“…The reason why, according to Jost et al (2003) and Thorisdottir et al (2007), is that individuals who endorse a conservative ideology value stability and conformity (i.e., cultural unity) and both accept and justify inequalities, whereas those who endorse a liberal ideology value diversity, social change, and social equality (see also Jost et al, 2008). Put differently, an individual with conservative stances considers that social changes indicate cultural disintegration, whereas an individual with liberal stances views specific social changes (e.g., greater ethnic diversity) as valuable progress (Greven, 2016; Hibbing et al, 2014; Sides & Citrin, 2007; Taber et al, 2001; Thomsen & Rafiqi, 2019a, 2019b; Zhirkov, 2014).…”