Understanding Public Attitudes towards Refugees and Migrants

Published under Chatham House's and Overseas Development Institute (ODI)'s Forum on Refugee and Migration Policy initiative, this working paper is intended as a primer on public attitudes towards refugees and migrants within their host communities - outlining current global polling data on public attitudes and analysing what the literature has to say about the drivers influencing these attitudes.

Section 1 discusses public attitudes towards refugees and migrants at the global, regional, and national levels. Attention is paid to how attitudes differ towards different groups of refugees and migrants. The section also explores key demographic trends among poll respondents, but argues that demographics may not tell the whole story. The authors highlight a new move towards "attitudinal segmentation", an approach analysing public attitudes towards refugees and migrants in the context of other interlinked attitudes (including those related to multiculturalism, diversity, social change, and optimism about the future). South Africa has been described as the most hostile country in the world towards refugees and migrants, but such attitudes should be understood within the country's narrow conception of national belonging, endemic xenophobia, and its apartheid past. Although a presently limited global evidence base renders cross-context comparisons of such segmentation difficult, there are indications that in most countries the largest part of the public appears to fall within a "conflicted" or "anxious" middle.

Section 2 discusses the drivers of public attitudes, beginning with real-world concerns, emotions, and values. Despite the prevalence of misinformation on the topic of refugees and migrants, the authors question the effectiveness of "myth-busting" strategies. They explore how public attitudes draw on real-world concerns - in particular, those connected to the economy, culture, and society. Finally, they discuss the idea of migrants as threats and the importance of recognising that, for many people, attitudes are based on complex emotions and values. For instance, an analysis of public attitudes towards refugees in Germany finds that attitudes are based on a complex combination of feelings including obligation, scepticism, fear, empathy, and guilt (Purpose, 2017). And numerous studies talk about the prominent pull of narratives structured around the concept of "fairness".

Section 3 looks at the importance of external factors in driving public attitudes, primarily the impact of politicians, policy, the media, and civil society. The authors discuss the policy environment, political narratives, and media reporting, investigating issues of causality and the pressures these actors are under. For instance, the report notes the lack of refugee and migrant voices within news content and argues that this is connected to online news and increasing competition over audience numbers: "Issues around polarised reporting and a lack of nuance in coverage should be situated within the rapidly changing context in which journalism is taking place." Highlighted here are civil society initiatives - e.g., initiatives that bring migrants and host communities together and organisations that provide research and advocacy services - aiming to engage with public attitudes, and the key strategies employed.

Specifically, a number of civil society groups have been set up with the aim of creating opportunities for refugees, migrants and host populations to interact on a personal level. To be effective, the literature suggests contact must take place under certain conditions. In particular, if contact is short-term and/or negative it can have the effect of entrenching existing attitudes, rather than changing them. Civil society groups have also tried to influence the way refugees and migrants are presented in the media. Individual human interest stories, such as the separation of families as a result of the United States (US) travel ban, have shown the impact of relatable imagery in engaging members of the public, particularly those in the "anxious middle". It has been suggested that ascribing a human element to policy choices makes people more positive. This is complicated, however, by the fact that, while many initiatives aim to promote awareness of the difficulties faced by refugees and migrants, this risks portraying them as victims. In doing so, this could perpetuate perceptions of refugees as an unrelatable "other", reinforcing the idea that, while refugees and migrants are sympathetic figures, they are not "contributing" or "capable" - characteristics prised by many who see this "contribution" as key to successful integration. The authors conclude this section by emphasising the importance of effective messaging, highlighting how some strategies have been counterproductive. "With attitudes influenced in various ways by politicians, the media and civil society, it is worth noting that some of the more effective civil society initiatives may be those that achieve buy-in from politicians and the media."

Section 4 assesses the implications of this evidence base for those working on refugee and migration issues. It draws four key conclusions:

1. Public attitudes towards refugees and migrants are complex. Most people feel empathetic towards refugees, while also experiencing real anxieties about issues such as job security, public services, cultural change, and terrorism. Attempts to engage with them are unlikely to succeed without understanding and engaging with the real-world concerns, emotions, and values around which attitudes are formed. In particular, an overly positive standpoint on migration - ignoring the real complexities, difficulties, and concerns surrounding contemporary movements of people - may not be the most persuasive strategy. Instead, a more effective approach may be one that acknowledges genuine difficulties, promotes an open discussion of solutions, and initiates clear responses to real concerns.
2. Understanding and engaging with public attitudes works best when clearly rooted in national and local contexts, and the nuances of public attitudes within them. In particular, there is a need to reframe the "migration issue" from an abstract global debate to something that resonates in people's lives.
3. Traditional approaches to public engagement, such as "myth-busting", may have exacerbated negativity and are unlikely to resonate beyond those who are already supportive. More successful strategies might highlight the manageability of the situation, while emphasising shared values. Also, those working on refugee and migration issues should think strategically about public engagement, which will involve better defining goals and audiences. Such strategic thinking should also emphasise the importance of the messenger. "Elite" non-governmental organisation (NGO) representatives and politicians may be less effective in engaging with public attitudes than "regular" people, media personalities, and those who have themselves welcomed refugees and migrants into their communities.
4. Emotive and value-driven arguments may be more persuasive than facts and evidence. While evidence remains important in influencing policy debates, it is important to acknowledge its limitations as a persuasive tool.

"Given the several levels on which public attitudes are shaped, it is likely that strategies will be best employed along several different tracks, each with its own constraints and limitations. For example, although civil society appears a promising vehicle for bringing communities together, in many contexts, initiatives coming from a liberal point of reference must employ complex and targeted strategies to ensure that efforts go beyond those who are already supportive. The most effective strategies are likely to be those that work on several levels, from politicians and the media to civil society and the private sector."