{"title":"Immigrants as natural supporters? Cross‐nation analysis with a multilevel mixed‐effects model","authors":"Skylar Biyang Sun, Xiaohang Zhao, Mengran Liu, Xinru Qiu","doi":"10.1111/pops.12946","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research often finds that immigrants tend to have a different profile from locals regarding confidence in the government. Both the origin's and destination's institutional features can influence immigrants' confidence. Scholars have relied on three major models—the cultural‐persistence model, the performance model, and the dual‐reference model—to explain the possible mechanisms behind this difference. Our research builds on previous studies by expanding the country coverage to explore the heterogeneity in immigrants' confidence. Specifically, we focus on how the level of democracy as an institutional factor is associated with immigrants' confidence. Using integrated datasets from the World Value Survey (WVS, 2017–21) and the European Value Study (EVS, 2017–20) and employing a multilevel model, we confirm that immigrants, on average, tend to have a higher level of confidence in the government. However, their confidence is contingent on institutional performance. In countries with high levels of democracy, the disparity in confidence between immigrants and locals becomes more pronounced. Moreover, the institutional performance in the origin country also influences immigrants' confidence in the government of the destination country. Immigrants constantly compare the institutional performance between the two places. Compared to immigrants from countries with a high level of democracy, immigrants from countries with a lower level of democracy tend to have higher confidence in the destination government. Our results provide support for all three major theoretical models.","PeriodicalId":48332,"journal":{"name":"Political Psychology","volume":" 74","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12946","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Research often finds that immigrants tend to have a different profile from locals regarding confidence in the government. Both the origin's and destination's institutional features can influence immigrants' confidence. Scholars have relied on three major models—the cultural‐persistence model, the performance model, and the dual‐reference model—to explain the possible mechanisms behind this difference. Our research builds on previous studies by expanding the country coverage to explore the heterogeneity in immigrants' confidence. Specifically, we focus on how the level of democracy as an institutional factor is associated with immigrants' confidence. Using integrated datasets from the World Value Survey (WVS, 2017–21) and the European Value Study (EVS, 2017–20) and employing a multilevel model, we confirm that immigrants, on average, tend to have a higher level of confidence in the government. However, their confidence is contingent on institutional performance. In countries with high levels of democracy, the disparity in confidence between immigrants and locals becomes more pronounced. Moreover, the institutional performance in the origin country also influences immigrants' confidence in the government of the destination country. Immigrants constantly compare the institutional performance between the two places. Compared to immigrants from countries with a high level of democracy, immigrants from countries with a lower level of democracy tend to have higher confidence in the destination government. Our results provide support for all three major theoretical models.
期刊介绍:
Understanding the psychological aspects of national and international political developments is increasingly important in this age of international tension and sweeping political change. Political Psychology, the journal of the International Society of Political Psychology, is dedicated to the analysis of the interrelationships between psychological and political processes. International contributors draw on a diverse range of sources, including clinical and cognitive psychology, economics, history, international relations, philosophy, political science, political theory, sociology, personality and social psychology.