The Psychology of Separation: Border Walls and International Neighborliness (Pre-Recorded)

• In Event: Geographic Divisions

Abstract

What are the consequences for interstate and intersocietal relations of marking international borders with infrastructure? A vibrant research agenda has documented the proliferation of border walls and fences between countries, but little is known about the consequences of these structures for the way in which citizens view relationships between countries and their peoples. This study seeks to understand the impact of border walls on beliefs about the relationship between states and societies. Our working hypothesis is that border walls are a symbol of division, implicitly understood as a way to enforce separation. Border infrastructure suggests a distaste for what lies on the other side of the border, and thus signifies a poor relationship between the people and countries on either side. Importantly, we argue that border walls and fences engage psychological processes that transcend culture and operate independent of observers’ political sympathies. In other words, we hypothesized that these inferences would transpire regardless of people’s political loyalties in their home countries.

Using an experimental design, we test these hypotheses with a four-minute video about Tajikistan and Kazakhstan, two adjacent counties that are little known to the participants in our three experiments conducted in the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, Turkey and the US. The three-minute educational videos provided background on the two countries’ histories, food and customs, and purported to be educational videos from a series entitled, “Countries of the World.”

The videos were identical across conditions except for roughly 10 seconds in which the narration and the visuals varied. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of three versions of the experimental treatment: 1) a baseline Control version in which references to the border were accompanied by visuals of an open valley, 2) a Wall treatment version in which references to the border were accompanied by visuals of a wall, and 3) a condition which utilized the wall treatment as in the second condition, but also included a statement in the voice-over indicating that the Wall was built by Kazakhstan.

Results indicate that people in the United States, Ireland, and Turkey responded virtually identically, regardless of nationality or political sympathies, thus lending support to our theory that their reactions to border infrastructure are rooted in basic human psychology rather than in politics or in attitudes toward the advisability of barriers on international boundaries. The presence of a wall led respondents to hold more negative impressions of both countries. It also led them to perceive a more negative bilateral relationship between the two countries. The presence of a physical divider encouraged people to believe that these two countries could not get along. This effect occurred regardless of whether people’s political sympathies made them likely to favor the use of walls on the borders of their own country. These findings should inform debates about the wisdom and consequences of walling borders, especially in the absence of clear and present border threats.

Authors

• Beth A. Simmons, University of Pennsylvania

• Diana C. Mutz, University of Pennsylvania