A study examines public attitudes towards different groups of migrants

The study is based on a very large dataset drawn from 100 experiments analysing respondents’ reactions to fictional immigrant profiles with randomly assigned attributes. Specifically, it examines the responses of over 140,000 people from 36 countries and takes into account a wide range of immigrant characteristics. Using this database, the added value of the study lies in identifying which attributes most influence the degree of acceptance of citizenship, whilst also controlling for the characteristics of the respondents. The results confirm something already suggested by previous literature: economic, cultural, legal and humanitarian factors are clearly relevant to understanding attitudes towards immigration.

However, the results should be interpreted with caution. The study measures stated preferences in experimental contexts, based on simplified profiles, and should not be interpreted as actual behaviour towards immigrants. Furthermore, the sample of countries consists mainly of nations from the Global North, so conclusions cannot be drawn that are valid for every context. There is also evidence that preferences have been changing over time, and the most recent studies point to greater acceptance of skilled immigrants, which would reinforce the idea that economic factors are gaining prominence. In this regard, another merit of the study is that it opens up new lines of research to better identify the changes taking place and the mechanisms that explain them.

In summary, the study is relevant because it helps to understand how certain social perceptions of immigration are formed, but, in my opinion, it does not justify turning those preferences into normative criteria for migration policy.

This study raises a legitimate question: which characteristics of immigrants influence citizens’ willingness to accept them? However, I have serious methodological reservations. Meta-analyses combine studies with different samples, varying criteria for representativeness, and experimental designs that are not strictly comparable. Aggregating all this data and drawing broad conclusions makes me sceptical. The standardisation effort is commendable, but it does not resolve the underlying problem.

The most robust finding — that political predispositions shape the criteria citizens use to evaluate immigrants — is not surprising. We humans share fairly universal concerns about who contributes to the host society; what varies is how political identity activates or suppresses those preferences. Furthermore, journalists should be cautious about the ‘global’ narrative: confidence intervals in the Global South are notably wider, reflecting real heterogeneity in preferences, not just a lack of data. And it is precisely in the Global South where the world’s most intense migration corridors occur. With 1.5 million observations, we still have a very partial picture.