CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 415Social and Intergroup PsychologyMigration, Refugees, and IntegrationElectoral Systems and Political Participation

The muted consequences of correct information about immigration

Open access
Hopkins, Daniel J., Sides, John, Citrin, Jack·2019·The Journal of Politics
DOI 10.1086/699914
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Previous research shows that people commonly exaggerate the size of minority populations. Theories of intergroup threat predict that the larger people perceive minority groups to be, the less favorably they feel toward them. We investigate whether correcting Americans’ misperceptions about one such population—immigrants—affects related attitudes. We confirm that non-Hispanic Americans overestimate the percentage of the population that is foreign-born or in the United States without authorization. However, in seven separate survey experiments over 11 years, we find that providing accurate information does little to affect attitudes toward immigration, even though it does reduce the perceived size of the foreign-born population. This is true even when people’s misperceptions are explicitly corrected. These results call into question a potential cognitive mechanism that could underpin intergroup threat theory. Misperceptions about the size of minority groups may be a consequence, rather than a cause, of attitudes toward those groups.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/699914

Cites

28 of 28 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?

  • Survey experiments revealed that informing participants about the racial composition or the share of foreign-born citizens in the US did little to change their attitudes toward immigration, even though the information improved the accuracy of their factual beliefs.

    “Survey experiments revealed that informing participants about the racial composition or the share of foreignborn citizens in the US did little to change their attitudes toward immigration, even though the information improved the accuracy of their factual beliefs (Lawrence and Sides, 2014;Hopkins et al., 2019).”

    From Factual belief polarization between Democrats and Republicans: source or epiphenomenon of ideological and affective polarization? (2024) · cites this paper as Hopkins et al., 2019

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hopkins, D. J., Sides, J., & Citrin, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • George Washington University (US)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
ORCID
Venue
The Journal of Politics
Publisher
University of Chicago Press
Published
2019-01
Volume
81
Issue
1
Pages
315-320
ISSN
  • 0022-3816 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-2508
DOI
10.1086/699914
OpenAlex
W3123530161
Cited by
415
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 52 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 67 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 81 · 2019: 40 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1
FWCI
54.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Politics (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Migration, Refugees, and Integration
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
Keywords
immigration attitudes, misunderstanding, intergroup threat theory, foreign-born population, undocumented immigrants, public opinion, survey experiment

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