Doctoral Dissertation Research in Political Science: American Public Opinion and the Politics of Immigration

这个项目调查了对拉美裔移民的态度如何影响美国对移民政策的支持。公众对外国人的疑虑不止一次通过支持排他性移民政策来表达(例如，Higham 1955；King 2000)。政治学家一致认为，美国人普遍倾向于反对移民，但尚不清楚是否有一个或所有移民团体激活了这一立场(例如，Harwood 1986；Simon and Alexander 1993；Citrin et al.1997年)。虽然历史记录了无数反对爱尔兰、中国、德国和意大利新移民的爆发(例如，尚克曼1982；；伊格纳季耶夫1995；金2005)，但我们缺乏对一个移民群体的态度在多大程度上影响公众对移民的反对的系统了解。这个项目使用了两个原始的调查实验，其中包括内隐联想测试(IAT)，该项目试图展示美国人对移民政策的评价是如何受到反拉丁裔态度的微妙但不可磨灭的影响。越来越多的关于移民的民意调查数据揭示了两件事：对移民的相当大的反对和对更强有力的限制措施的坚定支持(盖洛普2000；拉平斯基等人)。1997年)。然而，这些民调没有揭示--事实上也不能完全揭示--对移民政策的支持在多大程度上受到了对特定移民的疑虑的影响。这是因为调查通常询问受访者关于这些政策的问题，而不是按种族识别移民。而且，当被问到针对特定群体的问题时，回答的有效性受到强烈的社会规范的威胁，这些规范反对表达对民族和种族群体的消极态度(Mendelberg 2001；Banaji et al.1995)。为了克服这些挑战，该项目采用了两个调查实验，其中包括内隐联想测试(IAT)，旨在捕捉对拉美裔移民的负面内隐态度。在这些实验中，所有受试者完成对不同移民群体的态度的标准自我报告，以及对解决非法和合法移民问题的政策建议的评估。在这些评估中，受试者被问及关于拉美裔移民或非拉美裔移民的政策建议。此设计旨在演示两件事。首先，美国人应该对移民和移民政策表现出明显的公正评价，而不是含蓄的态度措施。例如，预计受试者将支持更强有力的措施来限制移民，而不考虑外国人的种族和法律地位。然而，当引入含蓄的态度措施时，预计这些政策建议的评估将印上反拉丁裔的态度，即使它们没有提到拉丁裔。这项研究的发现对整个社会，特别是社会科学社区都有影响。通过记录隐含的反拉丁裔态度如何塑造个人对移民政策的偏好，这项研究系统地挑战了反对移民与移民种族无关的观点。相反，这项调查的证据将表明，仅仅是提出移民问题就会激活隐含的反拉丁裔态度，就像通过民意调查所发生的那样。通过这种方式，这些发现将通过诊断这些问题在多大程度上反映了除了政策偏好之外的隐含的反拉丁裔态度，从而对移民标准调查项目的有效性提出质疑。同样重要的是，证据将建议对调查反应的标准模型进行修订，以解释一个重要的被遗漏的变量，即内隐态度对调查项目的影响。

This project investigates how attitudes toward Latino immigrants color American support for immigration policies. More than once, public misgivings about foreigners have been expressed through support for exclusionary immigration policies (e.g., Higham 1955; King 2000). Political scientists concur that Americans are generally predisposed against immigration, yet it remains unclear whether one or all immigrant groups activate this stance (e.g., Harwood 1986; Simon and Alexander 1993; Citrin et al. 1997). Though history records numerous outbursts of opposition to Irish, Chinese, German, and Italian newcomers (e.g., Shankman 1982; Takaki 1989; Ignatiev 1995; King 2005), we lack a systematic understanding of the degree to which attitudes toward one immigrant group shape public opposition to immigration. Using two original survey-experiments which incorporate an Implicit Association Test (IAT), this project endeavors to demonstrate how Americans'' evaluations of immigration policies are subtly-but indelibly-influenced by anti-Latino attitudes. A growing volume of polling data on immigration reveals two things: sizeable opposition to immigration and solid support for stronger measures to curb it (Gallup 2000; Lapinski et al. 1997). Yet what these polls do not reveal-and in fact, cannot fully reveal-is the extent to which support for immigration policies is influenced by misgivings about particular immigrants. That is because surveys generally query respondents about these policies without identifying immigrants by ethnicity. And, when group-specific questions are asked, the validity of responses is threatened by strong social norms against the expression of negative attitudes toward ethnic and racial groups (Mendelberg 2001; Banaji et al.1995). To overcome these challenges, this project employs two survey-experiments which incorporate an Implicit Association Test (IAT) designed to capture negative implicit attitudes toward Latino immigrants. In these experiments, all subjects complete standard self-reports of attitudes toward various immigrant groups, as well as evaluations of policy proposals addressing illegal and legal immigration. During these evaluations, subjects are asked about these policy proposals with reference to either Latino immigrants or non-Latino immigrants. This design aims to demonstrate two things. First, in lieu of implicit attitude measures, Americans should display a markedly even-handed evaluation of immigrants and immigration policies. For instance, it is expected that subjects will support stronger measures to curb immigration regardless of the ethnicity and legal status of foreigners. Yet when implicit attitude measures are introduced, it is anticipated that anti-Latino attitudes will be stamped onto evaluations of these policy proposals, even when they make no reference to Latinos. The findings from this research have implications both for society in general and the social science community in particular. By documenting how implicit anti-Latino attitudes mold individuals'' preferences for immigration policy, this study systematically challenges the view that opposition to immigration has nothing to do with the ethnicity of immigrants. To the contrary, the evidence from this investigation will suggest that implicit anti-Latino attitudes are activated by merely broaching the issue of immigration, as occurs through public opinion polls. In this way, these findings will raise questions about the validity of standard survey items on immigration by diagnosing how far these questions capture implicit anti-Latino attitudes in addition to policy preferences. Equally important, the evidence will suggest revisions to standard models of survey response to account for an important omitted variable, namely, the influence of implicit attitudes on survey items.