Advertisement

Political Behavior

, Volume 34, Issue 3, pp 477–505 | Cite as

The Ideological Effects of Framing Threat on Immigration and Civil Liberties

  • Gallya Lahav
  • Marie Courtemanche
Original Paper

Abstract

Assuming that migration threat is multi-dimensional, this article seeks to investigate how various types of threats associated with immigration affect attitudes towards immigration and civil liberties. Through experimentation, the study unpacks the ‘securitization of migration’ discourse by disaggregating the nature of immigration threat, and its impact on policy positions and ideological patterns at the individual level. Based on framing and attitudinal analysis, we argue that physical security in distinction from cultural insecurity is enough to generate important ideological variations stemming from strategic input (such as framing and issue-linkage). We expect then that as immigration shifts from a cultural to a physical threat, immigration issues may become more politically salient but less politicized and subject to consensus. Interestingly, however, the findings reveal that the effects of threat framing are not ubiquitous, and may be conditional upon ideology. Liberals were much more susceptible to the frames than were conservatives. Potential explanations for the ideological effects of framing, as well as their implications, are explored.

Keywords

Immigration Security Ideology Threat Civil liberties 

References

  1. Alexseev, M. A. (2005). Immigration phobia and the security dilemma: Russia, Europe and the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  3. American National Election Studies. (2004). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies.Google Scholar
  4. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. (2003). Report on hate crimes and discrimination against Arab-Americans: The post-September 11th backlash: Sept. 11, 2001–Oct. 11, 2002. Washington, DC: ADC.Google Scholar
  5. FOX News/Opinion Dynamics. April 25–26, 2005. http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm. Accessed 1 Jan 2011.
  6. Arian, A. (1995). Security threatened: Surveying Israeli opinion on peace and war. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Armitage, C. J. (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence: A test of three key hypotheses. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(11), 1421–1432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bell, D. (1973). The coming of post-industrial society: A venture in social forecasting. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  9. Bigo, D. (2002). Security and immigration: Toward a critique of the governmentality of unease. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 27, 64–92.Google Scholar
  10. Bobo, L. (1983). White’s opposition to busing: Symbolic racism or realist group conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(6), 1196–1210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brader, T., Valentino, N. A., & Suhay, E. (2008). What triggers public opposition to immigration? Anxiety, group cues and immigration threat. American Journal of Political Science, 52(4), 959–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Branton, R., & Jones, B. S. (2005). Reexamining racial attitudes: The conditional relationship between diversity and socioeconomic environment. American Journal of Political Science, 48(2), 359–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Budge, I., & Farlie, D. (1983). Party competition–Selective emphasis or direct confrontation? In H. Daalder & P. Mair (Eds.), West European party systems: Continuity and change. Beverly Hills and London: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Burns, P., & Gimpel, J. G. (2000). Economic insecurity, prejudicial stereotypes, and public opinion on immigration policy. Political Science Quarterly, 115(2), 201–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Buzan, B., Weaver, O., & de Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A new framework for analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Canetti-Nisim, D., Ariely, G., & Halperin, E. (2008). Life, pocketbook, or culture: The role of perceived security threats in promoting exclusionist political attitudes towards minorities in Israel. Public Research Quarterly, 61(1), 90–103.Google Scholar
  17. CBS News. CBS NEWS MONTHLY POLL #1, APRIL 2006 [Computer file]. ICPSR04614-v1. New York, NY: CBS News [producer], 2006. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2007-12-20. doi: 10.3886/ICPSR04614.
  18. CBS News. CBS NEWS MONTHLY POLL #2, JULY 2005 [Computer file]. ICPSR04397-v1. New York, NY: CBS News [producer], 2005. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2007-01-24. doi: 10.3886/ICPSR04397.
  19. Chandler, C. R., & Tsai, Y.-M. (2001). Social factors influencing immigration attitudes: An analysis of data from the general social survey. The Social Science Journal, 38(2), 177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chong, D. (1996). Creating common frames of reference on political issues. In D. C. Mutz, P. M. Sniderman, & R. A. Brody (Eds.), Political persuasion attitude change (pp. 196–224). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  21. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101(4), 637–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Citrin, J., Green, D., Muste, C., & Wong, C. (1997). Public opinion toward immigration reform: The role of economic motivations. Journal of Politics, 59(3), 858–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Citrin, J., & Sides, J. (2007). Public opinion about immigration: The role of identities, interests and information. British Journal of Political Science, 37(3), 477–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Claude-Valentin, M. (2004). Preventing illegal immigration: Juggling economic imperatives, political risks and individual rights. Brussels: Directorate of Social Affairs and Health, Directorate General III-Social Cohesion, Council of Europe publishing.Google Scholar
  25. Commission of the European Communities. (2004). Eurobarometer # 61/62: Public opinion in the European community. Brussels: Commission of the EC.Google Scholar
  26. Dalton, R. (2008). Citizen politics: Public opinion and political parties in advanced industrial democracies (4th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  27. Davis, D., & Silver, B. (2004). Civil liberties vs. security: Public opinion in the context of the terrorist attacks on America. American Journal of Political Science, 48(2), 28–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. De Vries, C., & Edwards, E. (2009). Taking Europe to the extremes: Extremist parties and public Euroskepticism. Party Politics, 15(1), 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Doty, R. M., Peterson, B. E., & Winter, D. G. (1991). Threat and authoritarianism in the United States, 1978–1987. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(4), 629–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Druckman, J., Green, D., Kuklinski, J., & Lupia, A. (2006). The growth and development of experimental research in political science. American Political Science Review, 100(4), 627–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Espenshade, T., & Hempstead, K. (1996). Contemporary American attitudes toward US immigration. International Migration Review, 30(Summer), 535–570.Google Scholar
  32. Feldman, S. (1988). Structure and consistency in public opinion: The role of core beliefs and values. American Journal of Political Science, 32(2), 416–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Feldman, S., & Stenner, K. (1997). Perceived threat and authoritarianism. Political Psychology, 18(4), 741–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fetzer, J. (2000). Public attitudes toward immigration in the United States, France, and Germany. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Fosset, M. A., & Kiecolt, K. J. (1989). The relative size of minority populations and white racial attitudes. Social Science Quarterly, 70(4), 820–835.Google Scholar
  36. Franklin, M. (1992). The decline of cleavage politics. In M. Franklin, T. Mackie, & H. Valen (Eds.), Electoral change: Responses to evolving social and attitudinal structures in western countries (pp. 383–405). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Freeman, G. P. (1979). Immigrant labor and racial conflict in industrial societies: The French and British experience, 1945–1975. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion: A constructionist approach. The American Journal of Sociology, 95(1), 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Geddes, A. (2007). The EU politics of domestic order. In K. E. Jorgensen, M. Pollack, & B. Rosamond (Eds.), The handbook of EU politics. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Gibson, J. (1998). A sober second thought: An experiment in persuading Russians to tolerate. American Journal of Political Science, 42(3), 819–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Glaser, J. (1994). Back to the Black Belt: Racial environment and White racial attitudes in the south. Journal of Politics, 56(1), 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Guiraudon, V., & Lahav, G. (Eds.). (2006). Immigration policy in Europe: The politics of control. West European Politics, 29(2), March.Google Scholar
  44. Hainmueller, J., & Hiscox, M. (2010). Attitudes toward Highly skilled and low-skilled immigration: Evidence from a survey experiment. American Political Science Review, 104(1), 61–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hammar, T. (Ed.). (1985). European immigration policy: A comparative study. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Hetherington, M. J., & Weiler, J. D. (2009). Authoritarianism and polarization in American politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hooghe, L. (Ed.). (2007). What drives Euroskepticism? Party-public cueing, ideology, and strategic opportunity. European Union Politics, 8(1), 5–150 (Special issue).Google Scholar
  48. Huddy, L. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology, 22(1), 127–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Huddy, L., Feldman, S., Taber, C., & Lahav, G. (2005). Threat, anxiety, and support of antiterrorism policies. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 593–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Huysmans, J. (2000). The European Union and the securitization of migration. Journal of Common Market Studies, 38(5), 751–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Huysmans, J. (2006). The politics of insecurity: Fear, migration and asylum in the EU. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. Inglehart, R. (1977). The silent revolution: Changing values and political styles among western publics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.Google Scholar
  53. Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kinder, D. R. (2003). Communication and politics in the age of information. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 357–393). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Knoll, B., Redlawsk, D., & Sanborn, H. (2011). Framing labels and immigration policy attitudes in the Iowa caucuses: ‘trying to out-tancredo tancredo’. Political Behavior (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  57. Kuklinski, J. H., & Quirk, P. J. (2000). Reconsidering the rational public: Cognition, heuristics, and mass opinion. In A. Lupia, M. D. McCubbins, & S. L. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason: Cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality (pp. 153–182). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lahav, G. (2000). The rise of non-state actors in migration regulation in the United States and Europe: Changing the gatekeepers or bringing back the state? In N. Foner, R. Rumbaut, & S. Gold (Eds.), Immigration research for a new century: Multidisciplinary perspectives. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  59. Lahav, G. (2003). Migration and security: the Role of non-state actors and civil liberties. United Nations, Population Division, United Nations, New York: UN/POP/MIG/2003 http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/secoord2003/secoord.htm.
  60. Lahav, G. (2004). Immigration and politics in the New Europe: Reinventing borders. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lahav, G. (2009). The effects of threat and counterterrorism on migration control. In M. Crenshaw (Ed.), The consequences of counterterrorist policies in democracies. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  62. Levine, R. A., & Campbell, D. T. (1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes, and group behavior. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  63. Lord, C., Ross, M., & Lepper, M. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098–2109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Lupia, A. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review, 88(1), 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Lyon, D. (2002). Surveillance as social sorting: Privacy, risk, and digital discrimination. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  66. Marcus, G., Sullivan, J., Theiss-Morse, E., & Wood, S. (1995). With malice toward some: How people make civil liberties judgments. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  68. McLaren, L. M. (2001). Immigration and the new politics of inclusion and exclusion in the European Union: The effect of elites and the EU on individual-level opinions regarding European and Non-European immigrants. European Journal of Political Research, 39(1), 81–108.Google Scholar
  69. McLaren, L. M. (2003). Anti-immigration prejudice in Europe: Contact, threat perception, and preferences for the exclusion of migrants. Social Forces, 81(3), 909–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. McLaren, L. M., & Johnson, M. (2007). Resources, group conflict and symbols: Explaining anti-immigration hostility in Britain. Political Studies, 55(4), 709–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Mears, D. (2001). The immigration-crime nexus: Toward an analytic framework for assessing and guiding theory, research and policy. Sociological Perspectives, 44(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Messina, A. (1989). Race and party competition in Britain. Cambridge, MA: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  73. Neiman, M., Johnson, M., & Bowler, S. (2006). Partisanship and views about immigration in Southern California: Just how partisan is the issue of immigration? International Migration, 44(2), 35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Nelson, T. E., Clawson, R. A., & Oxley, Z. M. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91(3), 567–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Norris, P., Kern, M., & Just, M. R. (2003). Framing terrorism: The news media, the government, and the public. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  76. Oxley, D., Smith, K., Alford, J., Hibbing, M., Miller, J., Scalora, M., et al. (2008). Political attitudes vary with physiological traits. Science, 321, 1667–1670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Peffley, M. A., & Hurwitz, J. (1985). A hierarchical model of attitude restraint. American Journal of Political Science, 29(4), 871–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Peffley, M., Knigge, P., & Hurwitz, J. (2001). A multiple values model of political tolerance. Political Research Quarterly, 54(2), 379–406.Google Scholar
  79. Petrocik, J. (1996). A theory of issue ownership and the 1980 presidential election. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 825–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Pollack, P. H., I. I. I., Lilie, S. A., & Vittes, M. E. (1993). Hard issues, core values and vertical constraint: The case of nuclear power. British Journal of Political Science, 23(1), 29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Putnam, R. D. (2007). E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century: The 2006 Johan Skytte prize lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Quillian, L. (1995). Prejudice as a response to perceived group threat: Population composition and anti-immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe. American Sociological Review, 60(4), 586–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Rudolph, C. (2006). National security and immigration. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Schain, M. (1988). Immigration and changes in the French party system. European Journal of Political Research, 16, 597–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Schattschneider, E. E. (1975) (1960, 1st ed.). The semisovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press.Google Scholar
  86. Scheepers, P., Gijsberts, M., & Coenders, M. (2002). Ethnic exclusionism in European countries: Public opposition to civil rights for legal migrants as a response to perceived threat. European Sociological Review, 18(1), 17–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Scheve, K., & Slaughter, A.-M. (2001). Labor market competition and individual preferences over immigration policy. Review of Economics and Statistics, 83(1), 133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(3), 515–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Simon, J. (1989). The economic consequences of immigration. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.Google Scholar
  90. Sniderman, P., Fletcher, J., Russell, P., & Tetlock, P. (1996). The clash of rights: Liberty, equality, and legitimacy in pluralist democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  91. Sniderman, P. M., Hagendoorn, L., & Prior, M. (2004). Predisposing factors and situational triggers: Exclusionary reactions to immigrant minorities. American Political Science Review, 98(1), 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Taber, C., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  94. Tichenor, D. (2002). Dividing lines: The politics of immigration control in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  95. Time. (2006, March 29–30). http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm. Accessed 1 Jan 2011.
  96. Tolbert, C. J., & Hero, R. E. (1996). Race/ethnicity and direct democracy: An analysis of California’s illegal immigration initiative. The Journal of Politics, 58(3), 806–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Wæver, O., Buzan, B., Kelstrup, M., & Lemaitre, P. (1993). Identity, migration and the new security agenda in Europe. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  98. Weiner, M. (Ed.). (1993). International migration and security. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  99. Welch, S., & Sigelman, L. (2000). Getting to know you? Latino-Anglo social contact. Social Science Quarterly, 81(1), 67–83.Google Scholar
  100. Yankelovich, D. (1991). Coming to public judgment: Making democracy work in a complex world. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
  101. Zaller, J. (1990). Political awareness, elite opinion leadership, and the mass survey response. Social Cognition, 8(1), 125–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Zolberg, A. (2000). The politics of immigration policy: An externalist perspective. In N. Foner, R. G. Rumbaut, & S. J. Gold (Eds.), Immigration research for a new century (pp. 60–68). New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceState University of New York at Stony BrookStony BrookUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceMarietta CollegeMariettaUSA

Personalised recommendations