Drawing on three large-scale pre-registered survey experiments (N=3516) in the UK, this article investigates how perceived asylum-seeking legality, public preferences for refugee relocation, and inclusionary attitudes are shaped by symbolic and strategic boundaries. We first show that the authenticity of identity documents, identity markers, flight reasons, origin, and family ties drive perceived legality. The second experiment reveals that relocating refugees to participants’ local areas while maintaining high levels of residential segregation dampens willingness to welcome them. Further, respondents differentially welcome refugees depending on their origin, occupation, religion, and language skills. We term this layered moral calculus “bounded humanitarianism”, illustrating how symbolic boundaries translate into social and spatial exclusions. Finally, through a third experiment, we test two interventions: perspective-taking and loss-framed cost-information, finding that only perspective-taking boosts support for asylum seekers’ rights (e.g., right to work and expedited decisions), whereas loss-framed information treatment fails to reshape inclusionary attitudes. Our findings bridge boundary-making theory and asylum policies by showing how symbolic boundaries around identity and meritocratic worth shape attitudes towards asylum seekers and refugees and how perspective-taking interventions can challenge the potential exclusions.
Sonmez et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: