Mapping American Attitudes Towards Refugees and Immigrants: Insights into Anti-Refugee and Anti-Muslim Sentiments

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

REVIEWER 1.

Perceptions about Refugees and Other Out-Group Members in the US: A Latent Class Analysis Study

 

This paper reports an approach of that will have interest for a wide body of researchers and practitioners interested in population perceptions of migrants and minority groups. It has potential to be relevant to current political attitudes in the USA and beyond. A large body of social scientific work has drawn on the concept of ingroup-outgroup perceptions and I believe that the latent class analyses reported can provide additional insight to patterns in population perceptions to out-group and minority groups. However, the current presentation of the analyses and their background needs considerable work to bring the paper to international standard reporting. The paper lacks a strong argument for its approach and application to an old data-set. That argument can be made but it is not prominent. The presentation of the analyses does not help. I recommend that the authors revise the ms and its argument and presentation and resubmit for publication in Social Sciences. I hope that these comments will assist the authors in crafting a revised paper.

 

Introduction.

The argument of the Introduction needs reconstruction to make the case for re-analysing existing population data for evidence of different classes of response (responses not people) in the 2016 US ANES National data-set (l 164). That data-set was collected a considerable time ago, and the authors also need to establish the relevance of presenting it now. 

The Introduction needs to open with a para focusing attention on the overall argument. I find the current opening para (l18 ff) inappropriate for setting up the argument for identifying latent classes in Americans’ attitudes to refugees, immigrants and minority groups. This para focuses specifically on Syrians. The Introduction needs to be more focused on the central aim. I suggest a preview of something like the opening of the Discussion (at l349 ff). Some of the material there also should be in the Introduction, e.g., mention of out-group homogeneity effect”.

Please note that not all Syrian refugees are Muslim. There have been waves of Assyrian-Chaldean Christians as well. The introductory paragraph could be removed completely.

The whole Introduction needs focus and more background material on outgroup attitudes.

The paras beginning “In this/the present study” – (l42, l52, l20) need to have a stronger argument, leading into the sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3. An argument for the focus of the study would eliminate this rather inelegant construction. Note. A study cannot be “interested” (l120), “we” is a suitable way of discussing authors’ aims.

What do the authors wish to convey when discussing “switched attitudes” at the end of the Introduction (l 156). The reader expects here and strong “therefore” statement of the value of the LCA approach that leads into the actual Method and analyses.

Method and Results

The Method appropriately describes the data-set, and Table 1 presents the actual data analyzed. I think there could be a more detailed description of “our criteria” here (l 172). The actual response mode would make the Table 1 more useful than the long identifying numbers. I realise this is asking for a lot – but perhaps the material in the half table inserted after l253 and continued after l 282 (as Figures) could be incorporated to a single table describing the items and response modes. That requires some creativity on the authors’ part but I think would be worth the effort. I wonder if the Section 3. Analytic Approach would be better before Table 1 and in the Method Section, e.g., The descriptive paras beginning the Results (l 260 ff).

The Results Section then could begin with Best-fit model Table 2 (not 1) for a general readership. I ask the authors to consider that and to give a lead into the Model stats of Table 2 (not 1). 

The tables and figures seem to have been misnumbered throughout. I can see that the analyses require several tables, but I suggest trying to rationalise them and perhaps using the primary data material as a single table or as “additional material” appended to the paper. The actual figures of the latent classes would gain prominence and present the results of the analyses more clearly. Please check the figure numbering.

Discussion

This is a reasonable account of the results and value of analyses. Some of this material belongs in the Introduction, and can then be picked up here to showcase the value of the analyses. The identification of subgroup attitudes in different areas is worth reporting and linking back to earlier assumptions of homogeneity in national surveys. Are there “different subgroups of people” (l 373) or different patterns of variables in surveys? This is an interesting issue the authors may like to tackle in their Discussion or in relation to the Limitations of the paper. 

The limitations of using old data needs to be related to the authors’ concept of people’s “switching” or different or changing attitudes.

Overall, I welcome the application of LCA to existing data -with caveats about timing and switching etc. I see this paper as worth revising and representing for an international audience in 2025.

Author Response

• The argument of the Introduction needs reconstruction to make the case for re-analysing existing population data for evidence of different classes of response (responses not people) in the 2016 US ANES National data-set (l 164). That data-set was collected a considerable time ago, and the authors also need to establish the relevance of presenting it now. The Introduction needs to open with a para focusing attention on the overall argument. I find the current opening para (l18 ff) inappropriate for setting up the argument for identifying latent classes in Americans’ attitudes to refugees, immigrants and minority groups. This para focuses specifically on Syrians. The Introduction needs to be more focused on the central aim. I suggest a preview of something like the opening of the Discussion(at l349 ff). Some of the material there also should be in the Introduction, e.g., mention of out-group homogeneity effect”.Please note that not all Syrian refugees are Muslim. There have been waves of Assyrian-Chaldean Christians as well. The introductory paragraph could be removed completely. The whole Introduction needs focus and more background material on outgroup attitudes.

We expanded on the Introduction section and included information about why 2016 dataset is useful to study.

• The paras beginning “In this/the present study” – (l42, l52, l20) need to have a stronger argument, leading into the sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3. An argument for the focus of the study would eliminate this rather inelegant construction.

We expanded on the arguments.

• A study cannot be “interested” (l120), “we” is a suitable way of discussing authors’ aims.

We made the edit.

• What do the authors wish to convey when discussing “switched attitudes” at the end of of the LCA approach that leads into the actual Method and analyses. I think there could be a more detailed description of “our criteria” here (l 172).

We clarified what “switched attitudes” refers to. We added the criteria after “our criteria.”

• . I realise this is asking for a lot – but perhaps the material in the half table inserted after l253 and continued after l 282 (as Figures) could be incorporated to a single table describing the items and response modes. That requires some creativity on the authors’ part but I think would be worth the effort.

We created a single table and located it at the end of the paper (see Appendix).

• I wonder if the Section  Analytic Approach would be better before Table 1 and in the Method Section, e.g., The descriptive paras beginning the Results (l 260 ff).The ResultsSection then could begin with Best-fit model Table 2 (not 1) for a general readership. I ask the authors to consider that and to give a lead into the Model stats of Table 2 (not 1). 

We made this change.

• The tables and figures seem to have been misnumbered throughout. I can see that the analyses require several tables, but I suggest trying to rationalise them and perhaps using the primary data material as a single table or as “additional material” appended to the paper. The actual figures of the latent classes would gain prominence and present the results of the analyses more clearly. Please check the figure numbering.

Edited and added an Appendix section at the end of the paper for some of the tables and figures.

• Are there “different subgroups of people” (l 373) or different patterns of variables in surveys? This is an interesting issue the authors may like to tackle in their Discussion or in relation to the Limitations of the paper. 

Added.

• The limitations of using old data needs to be related to the authors’ concept of people’s “switching” or different or changing attitudes. 

Using a 2016 dataset was related to the first election Trump became the president, and it was explained in detail in the revised version.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

·       Do you have a reference to support your claim: “most refugees in the world are Muslims”? (Line 29)

·       Typo on line 77. ‘ot’

·       Sentence starting with “moreover” on line 109, needs referencing.

·       Line 123. Pittinsky and colleagues (2008) is not listed in the reference list.

·       “Table 1. Best-fit models: A4 Refugee/Muslim.” Are all refugees Muslims? Or are all Muslims refugees? Or is it “Muslims that are also refugees”? Can you elaborate?

·       Typo on line 212 “uniqe”

·       Figure 5 needs adjusting, the labels looks like it reads “Allow Syrian Refugees favor/oppose torture” You capitalized each word of the first category but not the rest. Please be consistent.

·       Line 319 and 320. This sentence does not make sense: “Thus, we can imply that convincing people for the fact that immigrants are god for America’s economy is not enough in and of itself.”

·       Line 365. Typo in author’s name.

·       It is not clear to me how Class 1-4 are categorized. Is it by demographics and/or characteristics of some sort? Please elaborate.

·       Where was this referenced? And why? “

o   Blue, L., & Fenelon, A. (2011). Explaining low mortality among US immigrants relative to native-born Americans: the role of smoking. International journal of epidemiology, 40(3), 786-793. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyr011

·       You’ve listed these in your reference list but it was not cited in-text.

o   Allen-West, C., Allen-West, C., & 7, T. S. (2017, March 30). Inside the American Electorate: The 2016 ANES Time Series Study. Retrieved June 28, 2020, from http://cpsblog.isr.umich.edu/?p=1916

o   Brown, K. M. (2015). Developing Allophilia through Service Learning: A Case Study of Nursing Students at a University’s 472 Regional Campus. AURCO Journal, 21, 37–45. https://www.aurco.org/Journals/AURCO_Journal_2015/Brown.pdf

o   Drakulich, K., Wozniak, K. H., Hagan, J., & Johnson, D. (2020). Race and policing in the 2016 presidential election: Black lives matter, the police, and dog whistle politics. Criminology, 58(2), 370-402. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12239

o   Earle, M., & Hodson, G. (2020). Questioning white losses and anti-white discrimination in the United States. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(2), 160-168. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0777-1

o   Filion, N., Fenelon, A., & Boudreaux, M. (2018). Immigration, citizenship, and the mental health of adolescents. PloS one, 13(5), e0196859. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196859

o   Hartig, H. (2020, May 30). GOP views of accepting refugees to US turn more negative as admissions plummet. Retrieved August 01, 2020, from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/24/republicans-turn-more-negative-toward-refugees-as-number-admitted-to-u-s-plummets/

o   Koc, Y., & Anderson, J. R. (2018). Social distance toward Syrian refugees: The role of intergroup anxiety in facilitating positive relations. Journal of Social Issues, 74(4), 790-811. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12299

o   Krogstad, J. (2020, May 30). Key facts about refugees to the U.S. Retrieved August 01, 2020, from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/07/key-facts-about-refugees-to-the-u-s/

o   Madva, A., & Brownstein, M. (2018). Stereotypes, prejudice, and the taxonomy of the implicit social mind1. Noûs, 52(3), 611-644.

o   Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of personality and social psychology, 67(4), 741. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741

o   Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and social psychology review, 10(4), 336-353. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_4

o   Sherif, M. (1958). Group influences upon the formation of norms and attitudes. Readings in social psychology, 219-232.

o   Suleman, S., Garber, K. D., & Rutkow, L. (2018). Xenophobia as a determinant of health: an integrative review. Journal of public health policy, 39(4), 407-423. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41271-018-0140-1

o   UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Dimensions of Racism. Proceedings of a Workshop to Commemorate the End of the United Nations Third Decade to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination, 2005, HR/PUB/05/4, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/46cea5af2.html [accessed 9 September 2020]

 

o   USA for UNHCR. (2019). Refugees in America. Retrieved November 17, 2019, from https://www.unrefugees.org/refugee-facts/usa/.

Author Response

• Do you have a reference to support your claim: “most refugees in the world are Muslims”? (Line 29)

We changed the phrase “from Muslim-majority countries” and cited relevant literature to support the idea.

• Typo on line 77. ‘ot’

We corrected the typo.

• Sentence starting with “moreover” on line 109, needs referencing.

We added the reference.

• Line 123. Pittinsky and colleagues (2008) is not listed in the reference list.

It was supposed to be 2009, edited the in-text citation.

• “Table 1. Best-fit models: A4 Refugee/Muslim.” Are all refugees Muslims? Or are all Muslims refugees? Or is it “Muslims that are also refugees”? Can you elaborate?

We changed the term to “Refugees and Muslims.”

• Typo on line 212 “uniqe”

We corrected the typo.

• Figure 5 needs adjusting, the labels looks like it reads “Allow Syrian Refugees favor/oppose torture” You capitalized each word of the first category but not the rest. Please be consistent.

We made edits so that the capitalization is consistent.

• Line 319 and 320. This sentence does not make sense: “Thus, we can imply that convincing people for the fact that immigrants are god for America’s economy is not enough in and of itself.”

We re-worded the sentence.

• Line 365. Typo in author’s name.

We corrected the typo.

• It is not clear to me how Class 1-4 are categorized. Is it by demographics and/or characteristics of some sort? Please elaborate.

Classes 1-4 in this study are categorized based on patterns of individuals' responses regarding their attitudes toward Muslims, refugees, and immigrants. These latent classes were not determined by specific demographic characteristics such as age, gender, or socioeconomic status alone. Instead, the classes reflect underlying patterns of perceptions and attitudes toward these outgroups, which were identified through the data-driven approach of Latent Class Analysis (LCA).

• You’ve listed these in your reference list but it was not cited in-text.

We corrected the reference page and in-text citations.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

From the outset it is evident that an axiological observation that is not necessarily true, is taken for granted and then essentialised. This has immediate analytical implications that run through this text.

No distinctions are made between, refugees, immigrants and asylum seekers on the basis of existing theory and literature, nor is irregular migration factored in appropriately.

This study tries to answer "why" and "how" without properly using the appropriate qualitative interpretive approach. Using quantitative tools it only highlights trends. 

The literature cited is rather narrow and eclectically selected, thus the theoretical framework and state-of-the-art is fragmented and limited, tailored to match the author's narrative. Identifiable knowledge gaps on the topic of international migration seem to serve a lurking bias.

Author Response

• From the outset it is evident that an axiological observation that is not necessarily true, is taken for granted and then essentialised. This has immediate analytical implications that run through this text.

The intention was to create a foundation for the analysis rather than to essentialize the issue. I worked on the introduction section to strengthen this foundation. 

• No distinctions are made between, refugees, immigrants and asylum seekers on the basis of existing theory and literature, nor is irregular migration factored in appropriately.

 We understand the importance of distinguishing between these categories. However, the research goal was to explore migration in a broader sense rather than engage with the finer theoretical distinctions in depth.  

• This study tries to answer "why" and "how" without properly using the appropriate qualitative interpretive approach. Using quantitative tools it only highlights trends. 

The intention was not to provide an in-depth qualitative interpretation of the individual cases. However, we agree that qualitative approaches could offer richer insights, and we are actively considering this for further research in this area.

• The literature cited is rather narrow and eclectically selected, thus the theoretical framework and state-of-the-art is fragmented and limited, tailored to match the author's narrative. Identifiable knowledge gaps on the topic of international migration seem to serve a lurking bias.

We appreciate your suggestion to broaden the theoretical framework, and we will review the literature to expand the scope and ensure a more balanced representation

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 I think the topic and the revised reporting of the data warrant publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some of the English expression is a bit loose - see para 1 with Therefore and Furthermore etc -- I think they thought that was arguing.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My initial objections still apply and I notice that the amendments carried out have not improved the text enough to render it scholarly robust. Especially the eclectic use of sources, renders the very hypothesis of this study rather weak. Further, in the same vein, the conceptual framework is rather superficial and tends to oversimplify, as it relies on very few sources and does so, as stated, eclectically . In this light, with great reservation and reluctance, I will recommend its publication in its current form.