In the Wake of Radical Right Electoral Success: A Cross-Country Comparative Study of Anti-

Immigration Attitudes Over Time

Andrea Bohman and Mikael Hjerm

Problem: Although anti-immigration ideas are a central part of RRPs’ political platforms, few studies
have asked what their electoral success has implicated for attitudes towards immigrants and
immigration in Europe. The few studies that touch upon the subject provide a mixed picture. Apart
from the limited attention directed at immigration attitudes, a main limitation in previous research is
the lack of studies modelling the attitudinal consequences of radical right success over time.

Goal of the article: This paper tests the theoretically assumed relationship between the
parliamentary presence of radical right parties and anti-immigration attitudes over time. Therefore,
we set out to examine what the rise of the radical right in Europe has implied for the development of
attitudes towards immigration between 2002 and 2012. Given what we know about the role of
politics in shaping attitudes in general and anti-immigrant attitudes in particular radical right
presence is theoretically expected to have changed how Europeans view immigration. This is based
on framing and group threat theory.

Conclusion: Contrary to expectations, it is found that neither the presence, the representational
strength, nor the nationalistic framing of an RRP affect opposition towards immigration over time.
Thus, the conclusion is that the RRPs, so far, have not driven anti-immigration attitudes in Europe.

Our analyses show that the presence of RRPs in national parliaments in Europe has passed largely
unnoticed when considering main patterns of general and nativist opposition as well as polarisation
of attitudes towards immigration. The question then is why the radical right presence has not
increased anti-immigration attitudes, even though this is theoretically argued. One possibility is the
counterfactual argument, that is, that there would have been a decline in anti-immigration attitudes
if it was not for radical right presence. Another possibility is related to local representation. We
consider only national representation, but the RRPs are also represented locally. A third possibility is
that the effects are not as immediate as we are trying to measure. This can change with media
support, electoral support and organisational features.

Hypotheses:

H1: People’s attitudes about immigration have generally become more negative

H2: Opposition towards immigration has become more dependent on immigrants’ ethnicity

H3: Attitudes towards immigration have become more polarised.

Research: Using multilevel models with applications for repeated cross-sectional data, the study
examines the implications of changes tied to the political advancements of the radical right with a
focus on three possible scenarios.

The mechanisms between radical right success and changing attitudes are framing and group threat
theory.

Group threat theory: Group threat theory posits that prejudice evolves as a response to a perceived
threat from an out-group, due to inter-group competition over scarce resources. However, later
applications of Group threat also include more symbolic resources such as cultural values and
identity. Further, group threat theory describes experiences of threat as formed against the backdrop
of particular contextual circumstances.
Framing: Political actors can frame issues and events in ways that further their own purposes,
presenting selective views to promote certain definitions and interpretations. This way, they convey
political frames that are not primarily intended to convince and persuade, but to provide meaning
and suggest how to understand issues and occurrences.

Frames affecting attitudes differently: By framing immigrant cultures as poles apart and as
incompatible with the national way of life, RRPs can increase out-group hostility by consolidating
these boundaries and by triggering feelings of threat. Second, political frames can influence anti-
immigration attitudes by signalling that immigration and immigrant presence are important political
issues. Third, political frames can enhance anti-immigration attitudes by legitimising such views.

To summarise the discussion on mechanisms, group threat theory sets the framework within which
contextual circumstances can enhance the perceived threat, whereas framing theory helps us to
think about how political actors can influence anti-immigration attitudes.

Different effects: The first, and obvious, effect is that the presence of RRPs is expected to increase
levels of anti-immigration attitudes in general. Second, and related to the RRP political frames, it is
possible that the RRPs have had a nativist effect on the attitudes in focus. Third, and related to
framing theory in general, is the possibility that RRPs increase polarisation within populations.

Framing
Relationship between radical
right and changing attitudes
Group threat theory