Immigration and Perceived Social Position. Insights from an Unintended Survey Experiment

Andrea Fazio; Erminia Florio

doi:10.1515/bejeap-2022-0337

Article

Immigration and Perceived Social Position. Insights from an Unintended Survey Experiment

Andrea Fazio and Erminia Florio

Published/Copyright: February 15, 2023

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy Volume 23 Issue 2

Abstract

Using data from an involuntary survey experiment in Germany, we investigate whether priming people on immigration affects their self-perceived social standing. Our findings suggest that individuals who are administered a module concerning attitudes toward immigration perceive themselves as in a higher social position than would otherwise. Consistently with previous literature, we find that this effect is driven by right-wing-leaning individuals.

Keywords: attitudes towards immigration; priming; survey experiment; perceptions

JEL Classification: D31; J15

Corresponding author: Erminia Florio, University of Rome Tor Vergata, HEC Montréal and Sophia Cooperative affiliate, Rome, Italy, E-mail: erminia.florio@hec.ca, https://sites.google.com/view/erminiaflorio/home

Funding source: Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca

Award Identifier / Grant number: PRIN 2017K8ANN4

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Tommaso Reggiani, Fabio Sabatini, Francesco Salustri, and Francesco Scervini for useful comments and suggestions. Financial contribution from the Italian Ministry of University and Research PRIN 2017K8ANN4 “New approaches to political economy: from methods to data” is gratefully acknowledged. Usual caveats apply.

Appendix

Table A1:

Sample split by year.

	(1)	(2)
	Year 2004	Year 2014
	Perceived social position	Perceived social position
National identity module	0.135**	0.133***
National identity module	(0.059)	(0.050)
Observations	2401	3280
Adjusted R-squared	0.124	0.097
Region FE	Yes	Yes
Year dummies	Yes	Yes
Controls	Yes	Yes
Mean dep. var.	5.536	6.320

Robust SE: *p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01. Controls include: gender, age, age squared, income, unemployment status, marital status, land dummy, year dummy.

Table A2:

Balance test 2004.

	(1)	(2)	(3)
	ISSP citizenship	ISSP national identity	Difference
Perceived social position	5.471	5.603	0.137**
Perceived social position	(1.542)	(1.548)	(0.062)
Gender	0.513	0.489	−0.024
Gender	(0.500)	(0.500)	(0.020)
Age	48.471	48.224	−0.281
Age	(17.158)	(32.475)	(1.056)
Household income (log)	8.055	8.094	0.043
Household income (log)	(1.456)	(1.481)	(0.059)
Employed	0.548	0.559	0.013
Employed	(0.498)	(0.497)	(0.020)
Married	0.602	0.616	0.015
Married	(0.490)	(0.487)	(0.020)
Degree	0.094	0.083	−0.011
Degree	(0.292)	(0.275)	(0.012)
Self-position (left-right)	5.234	5.193	−0.034
Self-position (left-right)	(1.724)	(1.693)	(0.072)
Extraversion	6.486	6.553	0.066
Extraversion	(1.777)	(1.712)	(0.072)
Neuroticism	7.018	7.009	−0.008
Neuroticism	(1.721)	(1.652)	(0.070)
Conscientiousness	8.170	8.242	0.071
Conscientiousness	(1.390)	(1.350)	(0.057)
Openness	6.845	6.867	0.027
Openness	(1.718)	(1.709)	(0.071)
Agreeableness	6.384	6.364	−0.017
Agreeableness	(1.621)	(1.678)	(0.068)
Observations	1226	1175	2401

Table A3:

Aternative specification: results from ordered probit.

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
	Whole sample	Left-wing sample	Center-wing sample	Right-wing sample
	Perceived social position	Perceived social position	Perceived social position	Perceived social position
National identity module	0.088***	0.024	0.079**	0.180***
National identity module	(0.027)	(0.050)	(0.040)	(0.057)
Observations	5681	1710	2685	1286
Region FE	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Year dummies	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Controls	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Mean dep. var.	5.988	5.988	5.988	5.988

Robust SE: *p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01. Controls include: gender, age, age squared, income, unemployment status, marital status, land dummy, year dummy.

Figure A1:

Word count Citizenship module.

Figure A2:

Word count Nationality module.

Figure A3:

Distribution of the perceived social position.

References

Alesina, A., A. Miano, and S. Stantcheva. 2018. “Immigration and Redistribution.” Technical Report: National Bureau of Economic Research.10.3386/w24733Search in Google Scholar

Alesina, A., E. Murard, and H. Rapoport. 2021. “Immigration and Preferences for Redistribution in Europe.” Journal of Economic Geography 21 (6): 925–54. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbab002.Search in Google Scholar

Alesina, A. F. and M. Tabellini (2020). The Political Effects of Immigration: Culture or Economics? Available at SSRN 3737621.10.2139/ssrn.3846698Search in Google Scholar

Avdeenko, A., and T. Siedler. 2017. “Intergenerational Correlations of Extreme Right-Wing Party Preferences and Attitudes toward Immigration.” The Scandinavian Journal of Economics 119 (3): 768–800. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjoe.12190.Search in Google Scholar

Benabou, R., and E. A. Ok. 2001. “Social Mobility and the Demand for Redistribution: The POUM Hypothesis.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 116 (2): 447–87. https://doi.org/10.1162/00335530151144078.Search in Google Scholar

Bonomi, G., N. Gennaioli, and G. Tabellini. 2021. “Identity, Beliefs, and Political Conflict.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 136 (4): 2371–411. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjab034.Search in Google Scholar

Bordalo, P., M. Tabellini, and D. Y. Yang. 2020. “Issue Salience and Political Stereotypes.” Technical Report: National Bureau of Economic Research.10.3386/w27194Search in Google Scholar

Dahlberg, M., K. Edmark, and H. Lundqvist. 2012. “Ethnic Diversity and Preferences for Redistribution.” Journal of Political Economy 120 (1): 41–76. https://doi.org/10.1086/665800.Search in Google Scholar

Fisman, R., I. Kuziemko, and S. Vannutelli. 2021. “Distributional Preferences in Larger Groups: Keeping up with the Joneses and Keeping Track of the Tails.” Journal of the European Economic Association 19 (2): 1407–38. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvaa033.Search in Google Scholar

Grigorieff, A., C. Roth, and D. Ubfal. 2020. “Does Information Change Attitudes toward Immigrants?” Demography 57 (3): 1117–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-020-00882-8.Search in Google Scholar

Kuziemko, I., R. W. Buell, T. Reich, and M. I. Norton. 2014. ““Last-place Aversion”: Evidence and Redistributive Implications.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 129 (1): 105–49. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjt035.Search in Google Scholar

McAllister, I., and M. P. Wattenberg. 1995. “Measuring Levels of Party Identification: Does Question Order Matter?” Public Opinion Quarterly 59 (2): 259–69. https://doi.org/10.1086/269472.Search in Google Scholar

Meiske, B. 2022. “Queen Bee Immigrant: The Effects of Status Perceptions on Immigration Attitudes.”.10.2139/ssrn.4150628Search in Google Scholar

Rammstedt, B. 2007. “The 10-item Big Five Inventory.” European Journal of Psychological Assessment 23 (3): 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.23.3.193.Search in Google Scholar

Senik, C., H. Stichnoth, and K. Van der Straeten. 2009. “Immigration and Natives’ Attitudes towards the Welfare State: Evidence from the European Social Survey.” Social Indicators Research 91 (3): 345–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-008-9342-4.Search in Google Scholar

Terwey, M. 2000. “ALLBUS: A German General Social Survey.” Schmollers Jahrbuch 120 (1): 151–8.10.3790/schm.120.1.151Search in Google Scholar

Weiner, M. D. 2015. “A Natural Experiment: Inadvertent Priming of Party Identification in a Split-Sample Survey.” Survey Practice 8 (6): 2831. https://doi.org/10.29115/sp-2015-0029.Search in Google Scholar

Weinschenk, A. C. 2014. “Personality Traits and the Sense of Civic Duty.” American Politics Research 42 (1): 90–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x13484172.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2022-09-05

Accepted: 2023-02-01

Published Online: 2023-02-15

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/bejeap-2022-0337

Keywords for this article

attitudes towards immigration; priming; survey experiment; perceptions