Reducing Citizen Support for State Violence against Undocumented Immigrants

• In Event: Anti-immigrant Sentiment, Xenophobia, and Nativism

Abstract

The world faces an unprecedented immigration humanitarian crisis, requiring governments to implement policies that respect undocumented immigrants’ rights as well as measures that ensure their integration into recipient communities. Yet, governments increasingly respond to the arrival of immigrants with militarization and repression, often with the support of reluctant local populations. For local and international human rights organizations, one of the most pressing challenges is how to improve citizens’ attitudes toward undocumented immigrants, including promoting citizen rejection of state violence, but how can they do so? Previous studies have examined the effectiveness of information treatments or narrative strategies in reducing prejudice, but we still know little about whether these types of interventions are effective in reducing citizen support for the unlawful use of force against undocumented immigrants. While most studies have focused on the Global North, we contribute to this debate with evidence from the Global South, where immigration rates have been higher in recent years. In this study, we experimentally test whether media campaigns that combine real-life informational messages with a perspective-getting approach—hearing about outgroup members’ personal experiences—can reduce citizen support for state violence against undocumented immigrants and increase demands for accountability. We conduct our study in Mexico, an in-transit country whose authorities have turned to the militarization of the borders and detention of hundreds of thousands of immigrants. Participants were randomly assigned to a control group or to receive (1) a real-world information campaign deployed by an international humanitarian organization, (2) a testimony from an undocumented immigrant we interviewed during our fieldwork, victimized by Mexican security forces, or (3) a combination of the information and testimony treatments. We find that the testimony was more effective at reducing support for violence by inducing compassion for immigrants and anger toward state agents, but the informational message begat demands to hold perpetrators accountable. Our results suggest that human rights activists can combine outgroups’ personal narratives and informational campaigns to foster inclusionary attitudes and demands for justice, but also highlight the difficulty of generating positive attitudinal changes among those with the strongest anti-immigrant sentiments.

Authors

• Abby B. Cordova, University of Notre Dame

• Natan Skigin, Harvard University