Myths and Misinformation: What Do People Think About Immigrants?

By Zhaoyang Liu

What misperceptions do people hold about immigrants? Where do they come from? How might they affect the way people think about political solutions to challenges over immigration? On July 8, 2017, the Harvard Department of Economics released a study that detailed both people’s beliefs about immigration and how those beliefs affected their stances on redistribution. Dictionary.com defines redistribution as “the theory, policy, or practice of lessening or reducing inequalities in income through such measures as progressive income taxation and antipoverty programs.”

The paper, titled “Immigration and Redistribution,” was written by Italian economist Alberto Alesina and two colleagues, Havard Ph.D. candidate Armando Miano and Harvard professor Stefanie Stantcheva. For their study, the team designed international surveys, which were administered to native citizens within France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, the U.K. and the U.S. They defined immigrants as “somebody legally living in the country of the respondent, but born abroad.”

The surveys start with collecting the background information of respondents, such as their social and economic situations, as well as their political alignments. They proceed to gather information about the respondents’ perception of multiple aspects of immigrants and immigration. After this, there is a section regarding government policies, with a particular focus on redistribution.

The research concluded that overall, native citizens had large misconceptions about the number and composition of immigrants, regardless of political beliefs, opinions about immigrants, or any socioeconomic factors. They also found that the perceived work ethic and education of immigrants, along with the variable of knowing an immigrant personally, affected people’s opinions on immigration, especially in regards to redistribution, in this case public or private money spent to help improve the lives of immigrants. The researchers explained, “We find strikingly large biases in natives’ perceptions of the number and characteristics of immigrants: in all countries, respondents greatly overestimate the total number of immigrants, think immigrants are culturally and religiously more distant from them, and are economically weaker — less educated, more unemployed, poorer, and more reliant on [welfare] than is the case.”

The study alternated its order of questions; those who were asked first about their perceptions of immigration, without being given any information about immigrants, were more likely to oppose redistribution than those who were initially presented the redistribution questions. Some respondents were also randomly given one of three sets of information treatments: the first one detailed the actual number of immigrants in their country, the second one stated which regions the immigrants in their country came from and the third presented a day in the life of a hard-working, low-income immigrant. These treatments yielded results different from those found in the control group. In fact, people who received the treatments maintained the change in perception throughout follow-up surveys.

Some of the findings are described as follows:

“The discrepancy between perceptions and reality is striking. With the exception of Sweden, the average respondent in all countries thinks the share of immigrants is at least twice as high as it is in reality. In the U.S., respondents believe that there are on average 36.1% immigrants, when the actual share of immigrants is 10%. In Italy, the share of immigrants is 10%, but respondents believe it is 26.4%. Swedish respondents are the most accurate, but still substantially inaccurate: the actual number of immigrants is 17.6%, but the average perception is 27%.” . . . “In all countries except France, respondents also very significantly overestimate the share of Muslim immigrants. The largest misperceptions along this dimension are in the U.S. – where respondents believe that the share of immigrants who are Muslim is 23%, while the reality is closer to 10% – and in Sweden — where the perceived share of Muslims is 45%, while the reality is 27%. The U.K., Italy, and Germany overestimate the share of Muslim immigrants by between 10 and 14 percentage points. In all countries, without exception, respondents strongly underestimate the share of Christian immigrants (the religion of the majority of people living in our sample countries), by at least 20 percentage points and often by much more. In the U.S. respondents believe 40% of immigrants are Christian, when the true number is 50% higher (at 61%); in the U.K, the perception is 30%, while there are in reality again almost twice as many at 58%. The same holds for all other countries.”

© 2018 by Alberto Alesina, Armando Miano, and Stefanie Stantcheva. All rights reserved.

The entire publication, which includes data figures and additional information, can be read at the following link:

https://scholar.harvard.edu/stantcheva/publications/immigration-and-support-redistribution

Additional readings and data portals can be found below:

Reflection Questions:

1. Across all countries surveyed, the perceived shares of immigrants are higher than the actual values. What factors influence people to think this way? How is this fundamental fallacy related to other perceptions or misconceptions about immigrants? What role might stereotypes and biases play in shaping the way people think and act?

2. What might cause people from all six countries to believe that there are more Muslim immigrants and less Christian immigrants than in reality? What might this misconception reveal about attitudes towards Islam and Muslims?

3. What role does media play in shaping the way people think about immigration? What is the role of the press in countering misperceptions of immigrants? What power do journalists have? What are the limits of their influence?

4. How do specific factors cause the perception of immigrants to differ from country to country? Make a list of each of the six countries surveyed (France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, the U.K. and the U.S.) and their unique immigration circumstances.

You might also like