Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-nzzs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-14T23:15:06.683Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Negativity Bias: The Impact of Framing of Immigration on Welfare State Support in Germany, Sweden and the UK

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 December 2019

Sabina Avdagic Open the ORCID record for Sabina Avdagic [Opens in a new window]  and
Lee Savage
Sabina Avdagic*
Affiliation:
Department of Politics, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK
Lee Savage
Affiliation:
Department of European and International Studies, King's College London, UK
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How does the framing of immigration influence support for the welfare state? Drawing on research from psychology, specifically the notion of negativity bias and the sequencing of negative and positive information, this article argues that negative immigration frames undermine welfare support, while positive frames have little or no effect. Individuals take less notice of positive frames, and the effect of such frames is further undermined by the previous exposure to negative frames, which tend to stick longer in people's minds. The findings, based on survey experiments on over 9,000 individuals in Germany, Sweden and the UK, show that negative framing of immigration has a strong and pervasive effect on support for welfare. The article also finds some evidence that this effect is further amplified for people who hold anti-immigrant and anti-welfare attitudes or feel economically insecure. The effect of positive framing is considerably weaker and does not strengthen welfare support in any of the three countries.

Keywords

welfare spendingimmigrationframing
Type
Article
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , April 2021 , pp. 624 - 645
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abou-Chadi, T (2016) Niche party success and mainstream party policy shifts – how Green and Radical Right parties differ in their impact. British Journal of Political Science 46(2), 417–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abou-Chadi, T and Krause, W (2018) The causal effect of radical right success on mainstream parties’ policy positions: a regression discontinuity approach. British Journal of Political Science, 1–19. doi: 10.1017/S0007123418000029.Google Scholar
Abrajano, MA, Hajnal, Z and Hassel, HJG (2017) Media framing and partisan identity: the case of immigration coverage and white macropartisanship. Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics 2(1), 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Afonso, A and Rennwald, L (2018) Social class and the changing welfare state agenda of populist radical right parties in Europe. In Manow, P, Palier, B and Schwander, H (eds), Welfare Democracies and Party Politics: Explaining Electoral Dynamics in Times of Changing Welfare Capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.171–198.Google Scholar
Alesina, A and Glaeser, EL (2004) Fighting Poverty in the US and Europe: A World of Difference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alesina, A, Miano, A and Stantcheva, S (2018) Immigration and Redistribution. NBER Working Paper 24733. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, W and Blinder, S (2013) Migration in the News: Portrayals of Immigrants, Migrants, Asylum Seekers and Refugees in National British Newspapers, 2010–2012. Migration Observatory Report, COMPAS, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Avdagic, S and Savage, L (2019) “Replication Data for: Negativity Bias: The Impact of Framing of Immigration on Welfare State Support in Germany, Sweden and the UK”, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/X0EC41, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:VJwHwPR1fMv+pzgrS8AgLw== [fileUNF]Google Scholar
Barabas, J and Jerit, J (2010) Are survey experiments externally valid? American Political Science Review 104(2), 226–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumeister, RF et al. (2001) Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology 5, 323–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bischof, D (2017). New graphic schemes for Stata: plotplain and plottig. Stata Journal 17(3), 748–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boomgaarden, HG and Vliegenthart, R (2007) Explaining the rise of anti-immigrant parties: the role of news media content. Electoral Studies 26(2), 404–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boydstun, AE, Ledgerwood, A and Sparks, J (2017) A negativity bias in reframing shapes political preferences even in partisan contexts. Social Psychological and Personality Science. doi: 10.1177/1948550617733520.Google Scholar
Brady, D and Finnigan, R (2014) Does immigration undermine public support for social policy? American Sociological Review 79(1), 17–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgoon, B, Koster, F and van Egmond, M (2012) Support for redistribution and the paradox of immigration. Journal of European Social Policy 22(3), 288–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burscher, B, van Spanje, J and de Vreese, CH (2015) Owning the issues of crime and immigration: the relation between immigration and crime news and anti-immigrant voting in 11 countries. Electoral Studies 38, 59–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, D and Druckman, JN (2007a) Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review 101, 637–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, D and Druckman, JN (2007b) Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science 10, 103–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahlberg, K, Edmark, K and Lundquist, H (2012) Ethnic diversity and preferences for redistribution. Journal of Political Economy 120(1), 41–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, MA and Bobko, P (1986) Contextual effects on escalation processes in public sector decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 37, 121–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eger, MA (2010) Even in Sweden: the effect of immigration on support for welfare state spending. European Sociological Review 2692, 203–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Fietkau, S and Hansen, KM (2018) How perceptions of immigrants trigger feelings of economic and cultural threats in two welfare states. European Union Politics 19(1), 119–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finseraas, H (2008) Immigration and preferences for redistribution: an empirical analysis of European survey data. Comparative European Politics 6, 407–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, R (2016) Who should we help? An experimental test of discrimination in the British Welfare State. Political Studies 64(3), 630–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, K (2008) Framing persuasive appeals: episodic and thematic framing, emotional response, and policy opinion. Political Psychology 29, 169–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harell, A, Soroka, S and Iyengar, S (2016) Race, prejudice and attitudes toward redistribution: a comparative experimental approach. European Journal of Political Research 55(4), 723–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hainmueller, J and Hiscox, MJ (2007) Educated preferences: explaining attitudes toward immigration in Europe. International Organization 61(2), 399–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hainmueller, J and Hopkins, DJ (2015) The hidden American immigration consensus: A conjoint analysis of attitudes towards immigrants. American Journal of Political Science 59(3), 529–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haynes, C, Merolla, JL and Ramakrishnan, SK (2016) Framing Immigrants: News Coverage, Public Opinions, and Policy. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Hjorth, F (2016) Who benefits? Welfare chauvinism and national stereotypes. European Union Politics 17(1), 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holbrook, AL et al. (2001) Attitudes toward presidential candidates and political parties: initial optimism, inertial first impressions, and a focus on flaws. American Journal of Political Science 45, 930–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ito, TA et al. (1998) Negative information weighs more heavily on the brain: the negativity bias in evaluative categorizations. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 75, 887–900.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ivarsflaten, E (2008) What unites right-wing populists in Western Europe? Comparative Political Studies 41(1), 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacoby, WG (2000) Issue framing and public opinion on government spending. American Journal of Political Science 44(4), 750–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Cartee, KS and Copland, GA (1991) Negative Political Advertising: Coming of Age. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D and Tversky, A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47, 263–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen, CA (2011) Ethnic heterogeneity and public support for welfare: is the American experience replicated in Britain, Sweden and Denmark? Scandinavian Political Studies 34, 332–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledgerwood, A and Boydstun, AE (2014) Sticky prospects: loss frames are cognitively stickier than gain frames. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 143, 376–385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewick, M, Czapinski, J and Peeters, G (1992) Positive–negative asymmetry or ‘When the heart needs a reason’. European Journal of Social Psychology 22, 425–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malhotra, N, Margalit, Y and Mo, CH (2013) Economic explanations for opposition to immigration: distinguishing between prevalence and conditional impact. American Journal of Political Science 57(2), 391–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margalit, Y (2013) Explaining social policy preferences: evidence from the great recession. American Political Science Review 107(1), 80–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mau, S and Burkhardt, C (2009) Migration and welfare state solidarity in Western Europe. Journal of European Social Policy 19, 213–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, D (2011) Population-Based Survey Experiments. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Naumann, E and Stoetzer, LF (2017) Immigration and support for redistribution: survey experiments in three European countries. West European Politics 41(1), 80–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, TE, Clawson, RA and Oxley, ZM (1997a) Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review 91, 567–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, TE, Oxley, ZM and Clawson, RA (1997b) Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior 19(3), 221–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD (2018) Social expenditure database. https://www.oecd.org/social/expenditure.htmGoogle Scholar
Rozin, P and Royzman, EB (2001) Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review 5, 296–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runst, P (2017) Does immigration affect demand for redistribution? – An experimental design. German Economic Review. doi: 10.1111/geer.12133.Google Scholar
Schmidt-Catran, AW and Spies, DC (2016) Immigration and welfare support in Germany. American Sociological Review 81(2), 242–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senik, C, Stichnoth, H and Straeten, K (2008) Immigration and natives’ attitudes towards the welfare state: evidence from the European Social Survey. Social Indicators Research 91, 345–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sides, J and Citrin, J (2007) European opinion about immigration: the role of identities, interests and information. British Journal of Political Science 37(3), 477–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sniderman, P and Theriault, SM (2004) The structure of political arguments and the logic of issue framing. In Saris, WE and Sniderman, P (eds), Studies in Public Opinion—Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement Error and Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 133–166.Google Scholar
Soroka, SN (2006) Good news and bad news: asymmetric responses to economic information. Journal of Politics 68, 372–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sparks, J and Ledgerwood, A (2017) When good is stickier than bad: understanding gain/loss asymmetries in sequential framing effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 146, 1086–1105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stockemer, D and Barisione, M (2017) The ‘new’ discourse of the Front National under Marine Le Pen: a slight change with a big impact. European Journal of Communication 32(2), 100–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valentino, NA et al. (2019) Economic and cultural drivers of immigrant support worldwide. British Journal of Political Science 49(4), 1201–1226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Avdagic and Savage supplementary material

Appendix

Download Avdagic and Savage supplementary material(File)
File 228.9 KB
Supplementary material: Link

Avdagic and Savage Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/X0EC41
Link