Cited by 811Migration, Refugees, and IntegrationSocial and Intergroup PsychologyElectoral Systems and Political Participation

How economic, humanitarian, and religious concerns shape European attitudes toward asylum seekers

Open access
Bansak, Kirk, Hainmueller, Jens, Hangartner, Dominik·2016·Science

Abstract

What types of asylum seekers are Europeans willing to accept? We conducted a conjoint experiment asking 18,000 eligible voters in 15 European countries to evaluate 180,000 profiles of asylum seekers that randomly varied on nine attributes. Asylum seekers who have higher employability, have more consistent asylum testimonies and severe vulnerabilities, and are Christian rather than Muslim received the greatest public support. These results suggest that public preferences over asylum seekers are shaped by sociotropic evaluations of their potential economic contributions, humanitarian concerns about the deservingness of their claims, and anti-Muslim bias. These preferences are similar across respondents of different ages, education levels, incomes, and political ideologies, as well as across the surveyed countries. This public consensus on what types of asylum seekers to accept has important implications for theory and policy.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1126/science.aag2147

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Attitudes toward high-skilled potential immigrants and asylum seekers tend to be more favorable than attitudes toward low-skilled potential immigrants and asylum seekers in Europe, the United States, and Canada.

    “Overall, attitudes toward high-skilled potential immigrants and asylum seekers tend to be more favorable than attitudes toward low-skilled potential immigrants and asylum seekers in Europe, the United States, and Canada (e.g., Bansak et al. 2016, Dempster & Hargrave 2017, Donnelly 2017, Ford & Mellon 2020, Hainmueller & Hopkins 2015, Wright et al. 2016).”

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

    In the FIG. 2 discussion (page not provided), the paper reports that European respondents were more likely to accept asylum seekers with higher-skill occupations than those with lower-skill occupations. Its survey covered fifteen European countries and evaluated asylum seekers, so it does not establish the broader claim about potential immigrants or attitudes in the United States and Canada. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In conjoint experiments in 15 European countries, Christian asylum seekers, and to a lesser extent agnostic asylum seekers, were consistently rated higher than Muslim asylum seekers.

    “in conjoint experiments in 15 European countries in which respondents were asked to evaluate profiles of asylum seekers who varied on nine attributes, Christian asylum seekers (and, to a lesser extent, agnostic asylum seekers) were consistently rated higher than Muslim asylum seekers (Bansak et al. 2016).”

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

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 29 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bansak, K., Hainmueller, J., & Hangartner, D.
Affiliations
University of Zurich (CH)
Corresponding author
  • Bansak, Kirk
  • Hainmueller, Jens
  • Hangartner, Dominik
Venue
Science
Published
2016-10-14
Volume
354
Issue
6309
Pages
217-222
ISSN
  • 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1095-9203
OpenAlex
W2523307252
Cited by
811
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 66 · 2025: 92 · 2024: 92 · 2023: 77 · 2022: 99 · 2021: 83 · 2020: 130 · 2019: 89 · 2018: 49 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1
FWCI
165.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (submittedVersion)
  • LSE Research Online Documents on Economics (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Swiss National Science Foundation (100017_159820)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Migration, Refugees, and Integration
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
Keywords
asylum seekers, attitudes toward refugees, employability, vulnerability, religious bias, Islamophobia, economic contribution, humanitarian challenges, deservingness, conjoint experiment, political ideology
MeSH terms
Altruism, Attitude, Christianity, Emigration and Immigration, Employment, Europe, Humans, Islam, Public Opinion, Surveys and Questionnaires, Refugees

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