Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …


The European Journal of Communication Research

Ed. by Averbeck-Lietz, Stefanie / d'Haenens, Leen

IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.744
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.147

CiteScore 2018: 0.86

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.460
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.580

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 44, Issue 2


Interpersonal discussions and immigration attitudes

Antonis Kalogeropoulos
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Politics and International Relations University of Oxford Oxford United Kingdom
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ David Nicolas Hopmann
Published Online: 2019-06-08 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2018-2007


The antecedents of immigration attitudes have been extensively examined in academic research, in particular, with respect to media use and personal contact with immigrants. Research on the role of interpersonal discussions about the issue of immigration has been scarce, however. Results from a two-wave panel survey show that individuals holding unfavorable attitudes towards immigration engaged more often in interpersonal communication about immigration, which colored the overall effect of engaging in such discussions. The implications of these results are discussed in the concluding section.

Keywords: immigration attitudes; interpersonal communication; panel survey; disagreement


  • Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Oxford, England: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

  • Asch, S. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological monographs: General and applied, 70(9), 1–70.Google Scholar

  • Hopmann, D. N., & Bächler, C. (2017). Denmark: the rise of the Danish People’s Party. In Aalberg, T. et al. (Eds.) Populist Political Communication in Europe. Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Bennett, S., Flickinger, R., & Rhine, S. (2000). Political talk over here, over there, over time. British Journal of Political Science, 30(1), 99–119. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bille, L. (2014). Denmark. European Journal of Political Research Political Data Yearbook, 53(1), 104–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/2047-8852.12044Google Scholar

  • Binder, J., Zagefka, H., Brown, R., Funke, F., Kessler, T., Mummendey, A., …, Leyens, J. P. (2009). Does contact reduce prejudice or does prejudice reduce contact? A longitudinal test of the contact hypothesis among majority and minority groups in three European countries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(4), 843–856.Google Scholar

  • Boomgaarden, H., & Vliegenthart, R. (2009). How news content influences anti-immigration attitudes: Germany, 1993–2005. European Journal of Political Research, 48(4), 516–542.Google Scholar

  • Chandler, C. R., & Tsai, Y. (2001). Social factors influencing immigration attitudes: An analysis of data from the General Social Survey. The Social Science Journal, 38(2), 177–188.Google Scholar

  • Dinesen, P. T., Klemmensen, R., & Nørgaard, A. S. (2014). Attitudes toward immigration: The Role of Personal predispositions. Political Psychology, 37(1), 55–72.Google Scholar

  • de Dreu, C. K. W., & de Vries, N. K. (1996). Differential processing and attitude change following majority versus minority arguments. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35(1), 77–90.Google Scholar

  • de Vreese, C., & Boomgaarden, H. (2005). Projecting EU referendums fear of immigration and support for European integration. European Union Politics, 6(1), 59–82.Google Scholar

  • Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Erisen, E., & Erisen, C. (2012). The effect of social networks on the quality of political thinking. Political Psychology, 33(6), 839–865.Google Scholar

  • Eurobarometer (2015) Standard Eurobarometer 83 Tables of Results. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/eb/eb83/eb83_anx_en.pdfGoogle Scholar

  • Eveland, W. P. J. (2004). The effect of political discussion in producing informed citizens: The roles of information, motivation, and elaboration. Political Communication, 21(2), 177–193.Google Scholar

  • Goodin, R. E. (2006). Talking politics: Perils and promise. European Journal of Political Research, 45(2), 235–261.Google Scholar

  • Gordon, S., & Segura, G. (1997). Cross-national variation in the political sophistication of individuals: Capability or choice? The Journal of Politics, 59(1), 126–147.Google Scholar

  • Gorodzeisky, A., & Semyonov, M. (2015). Not only competitive threat but also racial prejudice: Sources of anti-immigrant attitudes in European societies. International Journal of Public Opinion, 28(3), 331–354.Google Scholar

  • Green, J., & Hobolt, S. B. (2008). Owning the issue agenda: Party strategies and vote choices in British elections. Electoral Studies, 27(3), 460–476.Google Scholar

  • Green-Pedersen, C., & Krogstrup, J. (2008). Immigration as a political issue in Denmark and Sweden. European Journal of Political Research, 47(5), 610–634.Google Scholar

  • Ha, S. (2010). The consequences of multiracial contexts on public attitudes toward immigration. Political Research Quarterly, 63(1), 29–42.Google Scholar

  • Hallin, D., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing media systems: Three models of media and politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hayes, A. F. (2007). Exploring the forms of self-censorship: On the spiral of silence and the use of opinion expression avoidance strategies. Journal of Communication, 57(4), 785–802.Google Scholar

  • Hellström, A., & Hervik, P. (2014). Feeding the beast: Nourishing nativist appeals in Sweden and in Denmark. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 15(3), 449–467.Google Scholar

  • Hibbing, J., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2002). Stealth democracy: Americans’ beliefs about how government should work. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Horsti, K. (2015). Techno-cultural opportunities: The anti-immigration movement in the Finnish mediascape. Patterns of Prejudice, 49(4), 343–366.Google Scholar

  • Horsti, K., & Nikunen, K. (2013). The ethics of hospitality in changing journalism: A response to the rise of the anti-immigrant movement in Finnish media publicity. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 16(4), 489–504.Google Scholar

  • Huckfeldt, R., & Beck, P. (1998). Ambiguity, distorted messages, and nested environmental effects on political communication. The Journal of Politics, 60(4), 996–1030.Google Scholar

  • Huckfeldt, R., Johnson, P. E., & Sprague, J. (2004). Political disagreement – The survival of diverse opinions within communication networks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1995). Citizens, politics and social communication: Information and influence in an election campaign. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Igartua, J., & Moral-Toranzo, F. (2011). Cognitive, attitudinal, and emotional effects of news frame and group cues, on processing news about immigration. Journal of Media Psychology, 23, 175–185.Google Scholar

  • Ikeda, K., & Huckfeldt, R. (2001). Political communication and disagreement among citizens in Japan and the United States. Political Behavior, 23(1), 23–51.Google Scholar

  • Johnson, P. E., & Huckfeldt, R. (2005). Agent-based explanations for the survival of disagreement in social networks. In A. S. Zuckerman (Ed.), The social logic of politics – Personal networks as contexts for political behavior (pp. 251–268). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar

  • Karjalainen, M., & Rapeli, L. (2015). Who will not deliberate? Attrition in a multi-stage citizen deliberation experiment. Quality & Quantity, 49(1), 407–422.Google Scholar

  • Kosiara-Pedersen, K. (2015). Denmark. European Journal of Political Research Political Data Yearbook, 54(1), 86–93.Google Scholar

  • Lazarsfeld, P., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1948). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

  • Lazer, D., Rubineau, B., Chetkovich, C., Katz, N., & Neblo, M. (2010). The coevolution of networks and political attitudes. Political Communication, 27(3), 248–274.Google Scholar

  • Lindekilde, L. (2014). The mainstreaming of far-right discourse in Denmark. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 12(4), 363–382.Google Scholar

  • Mackie, D. (1987). Systematic and nonsystematic processing of majority and minority persuasive communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33(1), 43–56.Google Scholar

  • MacKuen, M., & Brown, C. (1987). Political context and attitude change. The American Political Science Review, 81(2), 471. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Markus, G. (1979). Analyzing panel data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

  • Matthes, J. (2015). Observing the “spiral” in the spiral of silence. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 27(2), 155–176. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edu032Google Scholar

  • Mayda, A. M. (2006). Who is against immigration? A cross-country investigation of individual attitudes toward immigrants. Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(3), 510–530.Google Scholar

  • Mill, J. S. (1861). Considerations on representative government. London: Parker, Son, and Bourn.Google Scholar

  • Mutz, D. (1992). Mass media and the depoliticization of personal experience. American Journal of Political Science, 36(2), 483–508.Google Scholar

  • Mutz, D. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Mutz, D. C. (1997). Mechanisms of momentum: Does thinking make it so? The Journal of Politics, 59(1), 104–125.Google Scholar

  • Mutz, D. C., & Mondak, J. J. (2006). The workplace as a context for cross-cutting political discourse. The Journal of Politics, 68(1), 140–155.Google Scholar

  • Myers, D. G., & Bishop, G. D. (1970). Discussion effects on racial attitudes. Science, 169(3947), 778–779.Google Scholar

  • Nemeth, C. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological review, 93(1), 23–32.Google Scholar

  • Nir, L. (2011). Disagreement and opposition in social networks: Does disagreement discourage turnout? Political Studies, 59(3), 674–692.Google Scholar

  • Nir, L. (2012). Cross-National Differences in Political discussion: Can political systems narrow deliberation gaps? Journal of Communication, 62(3), 553–570.Google Scholar

  • Noelle-Neumann, E. (1974). The spiral of silence. A theory of public opinion. Journal of communication, 24(2), 43–51.Google Scholar

  • Odmalm, P. (2011). Political parties and “the immigration issue”: Issue ownership in Swedish parliamentary elections 1991–2010. West European Politics, 34(5), 1070–1091.Google Scholar

  • Pattie, C. J., & Johnston, R. J. (2008). It’s good to talk: Talk, disagreement and tolerance. British Journal of Political Science, 38(4), 677–698.Google Scholar

  • Rydgren, J. (2010). Radical right-wing populism in Denmark and Sweden: Explaining party system change and stability. SAIS Review of International Affairs, 30(1), 57–71.Google Scholar

  • Savelkoul, M., Scheepers, P., Tolsma, J., & Hagendoorn, L. (2010). Anti-Muslim attitudes in the Netherlands: Tests of contradictory hypotheses derived from ethnic competition theory and intergroup contact theory. European Sociological Review, 27(6), 741–758.Google Scholar

  • Schemer, C. (2012). The influence of news media on stereotypic attitudes toward immigrants in a political campaign. Journal of Communication, 62(5), 739–757.Google Scholar

  • Scheufele, D. (2002). Examining differential gains from mass media and their implications for participatory behavior. Communication Research, 29(1), 46–65.Google Scholar

  • Scheufle, D. A., & Moy, P. (2000). Twenty-five years of the spiral of silence: A conceptual review and empirical outlook. International Journal of public opinion Research, 12(1), 3–28.Google Scholar

  • Schmitt-Beck, R., & Lup, O. (2013). Seeking the soul of democracy: A review of recent research into citizens’ political talk culture. Swiss Political Science Review, 19(4), 513–538.Google Scholar

  • Stolle, D., Soroka, S., & Johnston, R. (2008). When does diversity erode trust? Neighborhood diversity, interpersonal trust and the mediating effect of social interactions. Political Studies, 56(1), 57–75.Google Scholar

  • Sundberg, J. (2012). Finland. European Journal of Political Research Political Data Yearbook, 51(1), 96–102.Google Scholar

  • Valentino, N. A., Brader, T., & Jardina, A. E. (2013). Immigration opposition among U.S. whites: General ethnocentrism or media priming of attitudes about Latinos? Political Psychology, 34(2), 149–166.Google Scholar

  • van Klingeren, M., Boomgaarden, H. G., Vliegenthart, R., & de Vreese, C. H. (2015). Real world is not enough: The media as an additional source of negative attitudes toward immigration, comparing Denmark and the Netherlands. European Sociological Review, 31(3), 268–283.Google Scholar

  • Wanta, W., & Wu, Y.-C. (1992). Interpersonal communication and the agenda-setting process. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 69(4), 847–855.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2019-06-08

Published in Print: 2019-06-07

Citation Information: Communications, Volume 44, Issue 2, Pages 185–203, ISSN (Online) 1613-4087, ISSN (Print) 0341-2059, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2018-2007.

Export Citation

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in