Backlash to policy decisions: how citizens react to immigrants' rights to demonstrate

Abstract

Focusing on one specific aspect of immigrant political integration—how authorities deal with their political right to demonstrate—we show in a large-scale survey experiment that liberal policy decisions permitting demonstrations lead to a polarization in attitudes: citizens who agree with a permission become more sympathetic, while those in favor of banning become more critical of immigrants. This notion of opinion backlash to policy decisions adds a new perspective to the literature on immigration attitudes which has either assumed a congruence between public opinion and policy or ignored political sources of anti-immigrant sentiment altogether. By exploring the unintended consequences of policy decisions, we provide an alternative view and demonstrate the inherent dilemma of balancing citizen opinion and minority rights.

Testing the asymmetry hypothesis of tolerance: Thinking about socially disruptive protest actions

“…Using a national representative sample, we found empirical evidence for the asymmetry of political tolerance: it was easier to persuade the tolerant to become less tolerant than to convince the intolerant to become more tolerant (e.g., Gibson, 2006;Peffley et al, 2001). In fact, we found among the intolerant participants a backlash effect where consideration of alternate reasons to tolerate their least-liked ideological group resulted in higher intolerance, as found in other studies (e.g., Djupe et al, 2015;Traunmüller & Helbling, 2017). This supports the notion that tolerance is more fragile than intolerance because of the psychological discomfort and uneasiness of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1962;Harmon-Jones & Mills, 1999) that is involved (Verkuyten et al, 2022).…”

“…For example, calls for tolerance towards immigrants can lead to more positive attitudes among the already tolerant, but simultaneously to more negative attitudes among the intolerant (Djupe et al, 2015). Further, permissive policy approaches can decrease conservative peoples' support of Muslim minority members holding public rallies and demonstrations for a better recognition of their interests (Traunmüller & Helbling, 2017). Thus an emphasis on reasons for tolerance might backfire and have unanticipated consequences, similar to reactive effects in trying to reduce prejudice with invoking external social norms rather than autonomous choice (e.g., Brehm & Brehm, 2013;Legault et al, 2011).…”

A stranger at home? A multilevel analysis of anti-Muslim sentiment in Western European societies

“…Normative threats refer to fears produced by changes to the current order of values, which cause people to oppose a policy and act defensively (Stenner, 2005). These normative threats are experienced by persons differently, depending on their personal beliefs (Traunmüller and Helbling, 2020). As the accommodation of Islam policies may involve a burden of cultural change for the dominant social group, the fact that the policy is backed by the state authority may only heighten the feelings of cultural threat.…”

“…Second, it will look at the moderating effect of opinions about accommodating Islam in the country on anti-Muslim sentiments. The moderating effect of opinions has been explored in other contexts (Bishin et al, 2016; Bratton, 2002; Fejes, 2008; Traunmüller and Helbling, 2020; Zagarri, 2007), but the focus on the accommodation of Islam policies is still limited.…”

Rejecting Muslim minority practices

“…Another important question is whether people discriminate against Muslims relative to other religious groups, such as Christians or Jews: e.g., whether people more strongly reject Muslim practices compared to similar practices when Christians or Jews are involved in them. Comparing practices across 'similarly situated' groups is important for concluding that the rejection of a Muslim practice involves discrimination towards Muslims as a group (Sniderman, 2018; see also Petersen et al, 2011;Traunmüller & Helbling, 2022;Uzarevic et al, 2020;Van der Noll et al, 2018 for application of a similar design). People can apply a double standard by rejecting a practice for Muslims, but not a similar practice when other religious actors are engaged in it.…”