Correcting citizens' misperceptions about non-western immigrants: corrective information, interpretations, and policy opinions
Abstract
Can corrective information change citizens’ misperceptions about immigrants and subsequently lead to favorable immigration opinions? While prior studies from the USA document how corrections about the size of minority populations fail to change citizens’ immigration-related opinions, they do not examine how other facts that speak to immigrants’ cultural or economic dependency rates can influence immigration policy opinions. To extend earlier work, we conducted a large-scale survey experiment fielded to a nationally representative sample of Danes. We randomly expose participants to information about non-Western immigrants’ (1) welfare dependency rate, (2) crime rate, and (3) proportion of the total population. We find that participants update their factual beliefs in light of correct information, but reinterpret the information in a highly selective fashion, ultimately failing to change their policy preferences.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A survey experiment among Danes revealed that participants did not change their attitudes either when they were informed about the size of the immigrant population or about other characteristics.
“A survey experiment among Danes, however, revealed that participants did not change their attitudes either when they were informed about the size of the immigrant population or about other characteristics (Jørgensen and Osmundsen, 2022).”
From Factual belief polarization between Democrats and Republicans: source or epiphenomenon of ideological and affective polarization? (2024) · cites this paper as Jørgensen and Osmundsen, 2022
Cites
The case for motivated reasoning.
Kunda, Z. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 · Cited by 9,022 · see citing works
Who Gets a Swiss Passport? A Natural Experiment in Immigrant Discrimination
HAINMUELLER, J., & HANGARTNER, D. (2013) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055412000494 · Cited by 433 · see citing works
Innumeracy about minority populations
Nadeau, R., Niemi, R. G., & Levine, J. (1993) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1086/269379 · Cited by 204 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Rekker, R., & Harteveld, E. (2024) · Acta Politica · doi:10.1057/s41269-022-00265-4 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Rekker, R. (2024) · Frontiers in Political Science · doi:10.3389/fpos.2024.1254826 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
- Authors
- Jørgensen, F. J., & Osmundsen, M.
- Affiliations
- Aarhus University (DK)
- Corresponding author
- Jørgensen, Frederik Juhl
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Political Science
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2020-11-23
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 64-73
- ISSN
- 2052-2630 (ISSN-L)
- 2052-2649
- OpenAlex
- W3109163098
- Cited by
- 47
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 6.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental Political Science (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Migration, Refugees, and Integration
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Keywords
- corrective information, non-Western immigrants, welfare dependency, crime rates, belief updating, immigration attitudes, Denmark
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review