Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:37:14.239Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bridging the Partisan Divide on Immigration Policy Attitudes through a Bipartisan Issue Area: The Case of Human Trafficking

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2018

Tabitha Bonilla  and
Cecilia Hyunjung Mo
Tabitha Bonilla
Affiliation:
Institute of Policy Research, Northwestern University, 2040 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60202-4100, USA, e-mail: [email protected]
Cecilia Hyunjung Mo
Affiliation:
Political Science, University of California, Berkeley, 210 Barrows Hall #1950, Berkeley, CA 94720-1950, USA, e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To date, while there is a rich literature describing the determinants of anti-immigrant sentiment, researchers have not identified a mechanism to reduce antipathy toward immigrants. In fact, extant research has shown that efforts to induce positive attitudes toward immigrants often backfire. What if a bridging frame strategy were employed? Can a bipartisan issue area in which there is general support act as a bridging frame to elicit more positive sentiment toward immigration among those who oppose more open immigration policies? We explore this question by conducting two survey experiments in which we manipulate whether immigration is linked with the bipartisan issue area of human trafficking. We find that in forcing individuals to reconcile the fact that a widely accepted issue position of combating trafficking also requires a reassessment of immigration policies, we can positively shift attitudes on immigration.

Keywords

human traffickingimmigrationframingbridging framessurvey experiments
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Experimental Political Science , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , Summer 2018 , pp. 107 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © The Experimental Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2018 

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

REFERENCES

Ansolabehere, Stephen, Rodden, Jonathan, and Snyder, James M.. 2008. “The Strength of Issues: Using Multiple Measures to Gauge Preference Stability, Ideological Constraint, and Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review 102 (2): 215–32.Google Scholar
Batson, C. Daniel and Ahmad, Nadia Y.. 2009. “Using Empathy to Improve Intergroup Attitudes and Relations.” Social Issues and Policy Review 3 (1): 141–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benford, Robert D. and Snow, David A.. 2000. “Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment.” Annual Review of Sociology 26 (1): 611–39.Google Scholar
Bonilla, Tabitha and Mo, Cecilia Hyunjung. 2018. “Replication Data for: Bridging the Partisan Divide on Immigration Policy Attitudes Through A Bipartisan Issue Area: The Case of Human Trafficking.” Harvard Dataverse, V1. doi:10.7910/DVN/YTZZIT.Google Scholar
Bouche, Vanessa and Wittmer, Dana. 2009. “Human Trafficking Legislation Across the States: The Determinants of Comprehensiveness.” Presented at the First Annual Interdisciplinary Conference on Human Trafficking.Google Scholar
Donsbach, Wolfgang. 2009. “Cognitive Dissonance Theory—Roller Coaster Career: How Communication Research Adapted the Theory of Cognitive Dissonance.” In Media Choice: A Theoretical and Empirical Overview, ed. Hartmann, Tilo. New York and London: Routledge, 128–49.Google Scholar
Druckman, James. 2004. “Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and the (Ir)relevance of Framing Effects.” American Political Science Review 98 (4): 671–86.Google Scholar
Facchini, Giobanni, Margalit, Yotam and Nakata, Hiroyuki. 2016. Countering Public Opposition to Immigration: The Impact of Information Campaigns. IZA Dicussion Paper 10420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feingold, David A. 2005. “Human Trafficking.” Foreign Policy (September/October): 26–32.Google Scholar
Findley, Michael G., Nielson, Daniel L., and Sharman, Jason Campbell. 2014. Global Shell Games: Experiments in Transnational Relations, Crime, and Terrorism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Garrison, Jennifer, Bensinger, Ken, and Singer-Vine, Jeremy. 2015. “The New American Slavery: Invited to the U.S., American Workers Find a Nightmare.” BuzzFeed News (July 24). accessed July 24, 2017.Google Scholar
Gerhards, Jürgen and Rucht, Dieter. 1992. “Mesomobilization: Organizing and Framing in Two Protest Campaigns in West Germany.” American Journal of Sociology 98 (3): 555–96.Google Scholar
Gubler, Joshua R., Karpowitz, Christopher F., Monson, J. Quin, and Romney, David A.. 2014. “Preaching to the Choir: When Empathy Fails to Induce Positive Attitudes Towards the Outgroup.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the 2014 Midwest Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Harmon-Jones, Eddie, Amodio, David M., and Harmon-Jones, Cindy. 2009. “Action-Based Model of Dissonance: A Review, Integration, and Expansion of Conceptions of Cognitive Conflict.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 41: 119–66.Google Scholar
Hart, William, Albarracín, Dolores, Eagly, Alice H., Brechan, Inge, Lindberg, Matthew J., and Merrill, Lisa. 2009. “Feeling Validated Versus Being Correct: A Meta-Analysis of Selective Exposure to Information.” Psychological Bulletin 135 (4): 555–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hetherington, Marc J. and Rudolph, Thomas J.. 2015. Why Washington Won’t Work: Polarization, Political Trust, and the Governing Crisis. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Imai, Kosuke, Keele, Luke, Tingley, Dustin, and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2011. “Unpacking the Black Box of Causality: Learning About Causal Mechanisms From Experimental and Observational Studies.” American Political Science Review 105 (4): 765–89.Google Scholar
McCallion, Michael J. and Maines, David R.. 1999. “The Liturgical Social Movement in the Vatican II Catholic Church.” Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change 21: 125–49.Google Scholar
Nazario, Sonia. 2007. Enrique’s Journey. New York, NY: Random House.Google Scholar
Newman, Benjamin, Hartman, Todd K., Lown, Patrick L., and Feldman, Stanley. 2014. “Easing the Heavy Hand: Humanitarian Concern, Empathy, and Opinion on Immigration.” British Journal of Political Science 45 (July): 583–607.Google Scholar
Pew Research Center. 2014. “Political Polarization in the American Public: How Increasingly Ideological Uniformity and Partisan Antipathy Affect Politics, Compromise and Every Day Life.” Pew Research Center (June).Google Scholar
Schneider, Anne and Ingram, Helen. 1993. “Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy.” American Political Science Review 87 (2): 334–47.Google Scholar
Smith, Paul J. 1997. Human Smuggling: Chinese Migrant Trafficking and the Challenge to America’s Immigration Tradition. Center for Strategic and International Studies.Google Scholar
Smith, Steven M., Fabrigar, Leandre R., Powell, Deborah M., and Estrada, Marie-Jöelle. 2007. “The Role of Information-Processing Capacity and Goals in Attitude-Congruent Selective Exposure Effects.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 33 (7): 948–60.Google Scholar
Snow, David A., Rochford, E. Burke, Worden, Steven K., and Benford, Robert D.. 1986. “Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation.” American Sociological Review 51 (4): 464–81.Google Scholar
Thomas, Helen T. 2002. Combating Trafficking of Women and Children in South Asia. Asian Development Bank, Country Paper.Google Scholar
UNODC. 2006. “Trafficking in Persons: Global Patterns.” New York, NY: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.Google Scholar
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 2013. “Human Trafficking and Smuggling.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (January 16). https://www.ice.gov/factsheets/human-trafficking, accessed December 2, 2015.Google Scholar
Valkenburg, Patti M., Peter, Jochen, and Walther, Joseph B.. 2016. “Media Effects: Theory and Research.” Annual Review of Psychology 67: 315–38.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Bonilla and Mo supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Bonilla and Mo supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 272.7 KB
Supplementary material: Link

Bonilla and Mo Dataset

Dataset

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