Public attitudes towards migrants: understanding cross‐national and individual differences

Immigration has become an enduring feature of many societies in the world. Additionally, during the recent refugee crisis, countries in the Middle East accommodated millions of people, and Europe received around 1.5 million new asylum claims. Although there are important legal differences among categories of migrants, in public perception the term typically is viewed to also include refugees and asylum seekers. Public attitudes towards immigration have become a major societal issue. These attitudes can influence policy makers, and settling into a supportive or rather more hostile environment makes a difference for immigrants’ adjustment and mental health. Countries and individual citizens vary widely in their views about immigration and immigrants1. In social sciences, an increasing number of empirical studies on these attitudes are being conducted, although predominantly in Western societies. A host of factors appear to drive people’s attitudes towards immigration. They are difficult to isolate and also tend to affect each other. In general, however, public attitudes differ depending on contextual factors, migrant characteristics, and personal characteristics. First, countries differ in their average support to immigration and their level of polarization. For example, people in North America tend to hold more positive views towards immigration than Europeans, and East Europeans tend to be more negative than West Europeans1. Furthermore, the public in some countries is consensually rather hostile toward immigration (i.e., Czech Republic, Hungary), while other countries are internally quite divided (e.g., The Netherlands, Norway), or consensually rather supportive (Canada, New Zealand)2. There are various reasons for these country differences, including the country’s immigration and emigration history, the political context, the immigration and integration policies, the size of the immigrant population, and its composition in terms of country of origin, religion, and level of educational and work skills3. Second, in their immigration policies, countries often make distinctions between types of migrants – e.g., Western and non-Western; European Union (EU) and non-EU immigrants – and the public tends to do the same. Public attitudes are, for example, more negative towards immigrants who are culturally less similar, such as Muslims in Europe4. Additionally, newcomers who are considered to have migrated voluntarily (i.e., labor migrants) face more negative public attitudes than involuntary migrants (i.e., refugees). Migrants who have chosen themselves to migrate often elicit feelings of threat and anger, and therefore more negative reactions, whereas refugees may elicit humanitarian concerns and feelings of empathy, and therefore more positive responses5. Third, some sections of the population are supportive of immigrants and refugees, while other sections are rather negative or even hostile. In general, more positive attitudes are found among the higher educated and political liberals, who tend to have a more cosmopolitan orientation, experience little competition and threat from migrants, and more strongly value openness, change and cultural diversity. Furthermore, the perception that migrants make a valuable contribution to society and the experience of positive contacts with migrants are predictors of more favorable attitudes3, 5. In contrast, stronger national attachment, feelings of relative deprivation, perceived economic competition and cultural threats, and an authoritarian predisposition in which conformity to social norms is central, explain anti-immigrant sentiments3. Additionally, the perception that immigrants are a burden on society and challenge the status quo, and the direct exposure to massive increase in arrivals of refugees, increase hostility towards newcomers. From a person x context interaction perspective, it can be expected that the role of these personal factors be not uniform. Psychological characteristics will matter more under some conditions than others. For example, people with an authoritarian predisposition are particularly prone to react with increased negativity towards culturally dissimilar immigrants (non-Western, Muslims), who are perceived as normative threatening, rather than towards culturally similar immigrants (Western, Christian). Another example is that people who have economic concerns and worries about crime are more negative towards Eastern European immigrants, whereas those who perceive cultural or terrorism-related threats have more negative views towards Muslim immigrants6. Additionally, individual differences matter more for anti-immigrant attitudes when the proportion of immigrants is higher, the economic situation is declining, and the ideological climate in society is dominated by hierarchy enhancing and status quo preserving norms and values7. Further, stronger national attachment tends to be associated with stronger anti-immigrant attitudes in non-settler countries, but not in settler countries in which cultural diversity is a constitutive norm of the national identity. Information about immigrants can invoke both feelings of threat and countervailing humanitarian concerns, whereby the former can override the latter, but also the latter can override the former8. System justification motivations can be used by politicians and policy makers to garner support for refugees (e.g., “Open hearts and welcoming communities: it’s the Canadian way”9). In general, research has demonstrated that people tend to overestimate the number of immigrants and refugees entering their country, and that subjective perceptions are much more important for people's attitudes than actual changes and events. This means that how public policies are being framed and how immigrants are depicted in the media and by politicians is important. It matters whether newcomers are described as a potential threat to the host society or rather as making a valuable contribution and being in need of help. Apart from those with very strong positive or negative views about immigration, most people are struggling with the challenges and uncertainties that the arrival of large numbers of newcomers imply. Taking their concerns and doubts seriously is critical for broadening public support for immigration and refugee settlement. Public opposition to immigration can be a major social and political disruptive force and has negative implications for the opportunities of newcomers. Understanding what drives individuals to be positive or rather negative towards immigrants, and when and how the various psychological determinants become less or more important for their attitudes, is crucial for trying to avoid the divisive consequences of migration and increase the successful accommodation of newcomers. Mass immigration is a global phenomenon affecting most countries, and there is much at stake for societies, communities and individuals, including the mental health of newcomers.