The Stability of Immigration Attitudes: Evidence and Implications

• In Event: Unpacking Immigration and Anti-Immigrant Attitudes

Abstract

Do voters have stable immigration views? While any account of immigration politics must make an assumption about whether underlying attitudes are stable, the literature has been ambiguous regarding the issue. To remedy this omission, we provide the first comprehensive assessment of the stability and change of immigration attitudes. Theoretically, we develop a framework to explicate the temporal assumptions in previous research and find that most studies assume attitudes are flexible. Empirically, we draw on nine panel datasets to test the stability question and use multiple approaches to account for measurement error. We find that immigration attitudes are remarkably stable over time and robust to major economic and political shocks. Overall, these findings provide more support for theories emphasizing socialization and stable predispositions rather than information or environmental factors. Consequently, scholars should exercise caution in using changing context to explain immigration attitudes or in using immigration attitudes to explain political change.
While a lot is known about what explains the cross-sectional variation in individual immigration attitudes and preferences, the literature has so far been rather ambiguous regarding the reality of their stability or change. It is common to assume that these attitudes are malleable and easily susceptible to information and contextual factors. Some scholars, however, conversely assume that these attitudes are rather fixed. While it may be possible to find empirical support for either of these perspectives under temporal constraints, the question is whether voters actually change their mind on immigration over the long term.
The stability of immigration attitudes has critical implications for understanding immigration politics. If these attitudes are flexible, then theories emphasizing the importance of predispositions have little validity. Alternatively, if these attitudes are stable, then arguments centered on information and contextual factors have limited traction. Despite the fact that any theory concerning immigration attitudes must make an assumption about their stability, empirical assessments of the issue are surprisingly lacking in the literature.
To remedy this omission, we provide the first comprehensive evaluation of immigration attitude stability. Using nine panel surveys from the US and Europe that together cover the 2008 recession, Brexit, and the refugee crisis, we find that individual views toward immigration are remarkably stable across time. Consistent with the literature on political socialization, we also find that younger individuals are more likely to change their views toward immigration compared to older adults. Importantly, these results hold under a number of alternative specifications.
Our results do not necessarily discredit theories that assume flexibility. However, they suggest the variation these theories attempt to explain is quite minimal. Specifically, exogenous shocks may change immigration attitudes, but these changes are small and quickly revert back to an individual's long-term equilibrium. Thus, our results challenge much of the previous literature on immigration attitudes and cast doubt on the explanatory power of theories emphasizing the role of information and contextual factors.

Authors

• Dillon Laaker, University of Wisconsin, Madison

• Alexander Kustov, University of North Carolina at Charlotte

• Cassidy Reller, University of California, San Diego