Perspective-Getting, Misinformation, and Public Support for Refugees

• In Event: Methodological Advances in the Politics of Immigration and Refugees: Part 2

Abstract

Negative attitudes towards refugees are common in the United States, as is opposition to policies designed to welcome more refugees into the country. At the same time, many Americans hold misperceptions about refugees, particularly regarding the threat they pose to US security. Can correcting these misperceptions result in Americans updating their views of refugees as a security threat, developing warmer feelings towards refugees, and becoming more supportive of pro-refugee policies? Can empathy shape the extent to which this information is effective at changing Americans' views of refugees?

We find that providing information improves the public's accuracy about the refugee vetting process, regardless of whether the information was embedded in an empathy-inducing refugee narrative or not. However, correcting misperceptions about the vetting process did not result in warmer attitudes toward refugees, greater support for lifting the refugee cap, or a higher likelihood of writing a letter to the Biden administration advocating for more refugee admissions. On the other hand, the refugee narrative did facilitate change on these outcomes, both on its own and when combined with the vetting information. It also increased inclusionary attitudes toward Afghan parolees resettled in the United States under Operation Allies Welcome, as well as respondents' willingness to host refugees under Airbnb's refugee hosting initiative.

These findings are drawn from two large surveys of nationally-representative samples of Americans in which we first identify an important source of misinformation about refugees, then develop strategies to reduce prejudice by correcting it. Our first study, fielded in November 2019, found that Americans systematically underestimate the amount of time dedicated to vetting refugees, with 60% giving answers below the 18-24 months of vetting that refugees experience. The second study, fielded in October 2021, aimed to correct this common misconception and to assess whether correction could facilitate attitude change.

An embedded experiment randomly assigned some respondents to read information from the US government about the vetting process. Drawing from theories about the ability of emotions to facilitate information processing, we also assigned some respondents to read this information embedded within a narrative designed to elicit empathy toward refugees. Finally, to compare the effects of information and empathy on attitude change, we assigned other respondents to read the refugee narrative without the information on vetting.

Our findings suggest that correcting misperceptions about an important component of the US refugee system is possible, but that this correction is unlikely to reduce prejudice toward refugees by itself. Instead, the results imply that information should be combined with refugee narratives to simultaneously decrease misinformation and increase inclusionary attitudes. The paper contributes to debates about the relative effectiveness of different prejudice reduction strategies and has practical implications for advocates and policymakers working on refugee issues.

Authors

• Lauren Prather, University of California, San Diego

• Claire Leslie Adida, UCSD

• Adeline Lo, University of Wisconsin, Madison

• Melina Raquel Platas Izama, NYU Abu Dhabi

• Scott Williamson, Bocconi University