Cited by 21Migration, Refugees, and IntegrationSocial and Intergroup PsychologyRacial and Ethnic Identity Research

Out of context: the absence of geographic variation in US immigrants' perceptions of discrimination

Open access
Hopkins, Daniel J., Mummolo, Jonathan, Esses, Victoria M., Kaiser, Cheryl R., Marrow, Helen B., McDermott, Monica·2016·Politics, Groups, and Identities

Abstract

Immigrants' perceptions of discrimination correlate strongly with various political outcomes, including group consciousness and partisan identity. Here, we examine the hypothesis that immigrants' perceptions of discrimination vary across U.S. localities, as threatened responses by native-born residents may increase perceived discrimination among neighboring immigrants. We also consider the alternative hypothesis that barriers to the expression and detection of discrimination decouple native-born attitudes from immigrants' perceptions about their treatment. We test these claims by analyzing three national surveys of almost 11,000 first-generation Latino, Asian, and Muslim immigrants. The results indicate that immigrants' perceptions of discrimination hardly vary across localities. While anti-immigrant attitudes are known to be geographically clustered, immigrants' perceptions of discrimination prove not to be. This mismatch helps us narrow the potential causes of perceived discrimination, and it suggests the value of further research into perceived discrimination's consequences for immigrants' social and political incorporation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/21565503.2015.1121155

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Hopkins et al. (2016) found little evidence of spatial clustering in immigrants' individual-level perceived discrimination in the United States, despite native-born individuals' attitudes toward immigrants showing substantial geographic clustering.

    “Using data from national surveys, however, the authors find little evidence of spatial clustering in immigrants' individual-level perceived discrimination in the United States, despite the fact that the attitudes of native-born individuals toward immigrants show substantial evidence of such geographic clustering.”

    From Prejudice and Discrimination Toward Immigrants (2021) · cites this paper as Hopkins et al. 2016

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hopkins, D. J., Mummolo, J., Esses, V. M., Kaiser, C. R., Marrow, H. B., & McDermott, M.
Affiliations
  • Georgetown University (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Western University (CA)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Tufts University (US)
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Corresponding author
Hopkins, Daniel J.
Venue
Politics, Groups, and Identities
Published
2016-01-08
Volume
4
Issue
3
Pages
363-392
ISSN
  • 2156-5503 (ISSN-L)
  • 2156-5511
OpenAlex
W3125771623
Cited by
21
References
8
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2016: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
11.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Politics Groups and Identities (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Russell Sage Foundation (87-12-01)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Migration, Refugees, and Integration
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Racial and Ethnic Identity Research
Keywords
perceived discrimination, immigrants, regional variation, anti-immigrant sentiment, Latino immigrants, Asian immigrants, Muslim immigrants, locality, group consciousness, partisan identity, political incorporation, social integration

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