Economic evidence improves attitudes towards EU immigrants, new research shows

New research into UK attitudes on EU migration, led by Dr William Allen, Dr Kristoffer Ahlstrom-Vij, Dr Heather Rolfe, and Mr Johnny Runge, has found that all groups’ opinions on immigration—those of ‘Leavers’, ‘Remainers’ and non-voters—changed positively after seeing evidence of EU immigrants’ modestly positive economic impacts.

The greatest shifts in opinion were among those who either voted Leave or did not vote, with Remain voters’ opinions—already much more positive compared to the other groups—changing less dramatically. This could have been due to a ‘ceiling effect’ where this group had less room to shift their opinion.

These findings are particularly significant because, as demonstrated in the research experiment, Leave voters and non-voters held more sceptical and mixed views on migration respectively. They also account for a considerable proportion of the UK population.

The research, published in International Migration Review, examined whether evidence—presented either as text, with visualisations (such as graphs and infographics), or as an animated film—changed immigration attitudes and policy preferences. The team running the study found that all three modes of messaging tested were similarly effective in terms of changing attitudes and preferences.

In an LSE blog exploring the question ‘Can facts change views on migration?’ the researchers remarked that “while we thought the messages might be less effective or even backfire among those already having more negative views about immigrants, we actually found that the positive effects were particularly strong among people who either voted Leave or did not vote at all.

“Our results are consistent with the idea that people on both sides of an issue update their views when they encounter new information.”

Efforts to insert evidence into important policy debates warrants further academic investigation, the authors suggest:

“First, voters’ choices may be sensitive to what they know about migration in the shorter-term. Second, there are broader and more long-term concerns about what the quality of public debate signals for how well democracies are working.”