See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/335104321

The Influence of Media Portrayals of Immigration and Refugees on Consumer

Attitudes: A Experimental Design

Article in Howard Journal of Communication · August 2019

DOI: 10.1080/10646175.2019.1649762

CITATIONS READS

8 709

4 authors, including:

Chrysalis Wright Carissa Hamilton

University of Central Florida University of Central Florida
47 PUBLICATIONS 287 CITATIONS 3 PUBLICATIONS 19 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Chrysalis Wright on 28 November 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Howard Journal of Communications

ISSN: 1064-6175 (Print) 1096-4649 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uhjc20

The Influence of Media Portrayals of Immigration

and Refugees on Consumer Attitudes: A
Experimental Design

Chrysalis L. Wright, Taylor DeFrancesco, Carissa Hamilton & Lygia Machado

To cite this article: Chrysalis L. Wright, Taylor DeFrancesco, Carissa Hamilton & Lygia Machado
(2019): The Influence of Media Portrayals of Immigration and Refugees on Consumer Attitudes: A
Experimental Design, Howard Journal of Communications, DOI: 10.1080/10646175.2019.1649762

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10646175.2019.1649762

Published online: 10 Aug 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uhjc20
HOWARD JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATIONS
https://doi.org/10.1080/10646175.2019.1649762

The Influence of Media Portrayals of Immigration and

Refugees on Consumer Attitudes: A Experimental Design
Chrysalis L. Wright, Taylor DeFrancesco, Carissa Hamilton, and Lygia Machado
Department of Psychology, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The current study examined media portrayals of immigrants and refu- immigration media;
gees and participants attitudes regarding immigrants, immigration priming; refugees
policy, and Islamophobia using an experimental design. Participants
included 284 male and female college students who were primed
with negative, positive, or no media portrayals of immigrants and ref-
ugees prior to completing questionnaires related to their views
regarding immigrants, immigration policy, and Islamophobia. It was
hypothesized that there would be differences in participants attitudes
based on experimental condition, with participants exposed to nega-
tive portrayals reporting more negative attitudes compared to the
other experimental conditions. Factors related to participant suscepti-
bility to media portrayals were also examined and were hypothesized
to include participant age, race, biological sex, social class, and polit-
ical and religious affiliation. Significant differences were found based
on experimental condition for viewing immigration as an economic,
physical, social cohesion, and modernity threat as well as physical
benefits of immigration, intolerant attitudes toward immigrants, and
affective-behavioral and cognitive Islamophobia. Participants who
were primed with negative media portrayals reported more negative
attitudes. In addition, biological sex, race, social class, and political
and religious affiliation were found to relate to participant susceptibil-
ity to media portrayals of immigration and refugees. Implications for
future research are discussed.

Refugees and asylum seekers that have been migrating to the United States, from mostly
Muslim countries, have gained mass media attention over the past few years
(KhosraviNik, 2010). Controversy regarding immigration into the United States, particu-
larly from Mexico, has also become widespread over the past three decades (de Zuniga,
Correa, & Valenzuela, 2012). The images and portrayals of immigrants and refugees
within media are overwhelmingly negative. The media consistently stereotype immi-
grants and refugees, often linking them to threat and crime (de Zuniga et al., 2012;
Schemer, 2012). Such representations were particularly amplified during the 2016 U.S.
presidential election campaign, which also brought attention to what has been coined
fake news, where politicians or entertainment news media described factual stories that
did not align with their personal views incorrectly or presented stories that were

CONTACT Chrysalis L. Wright Chrysalis.Wright@ucf.edu Department of Psychology, University of Central Florida,

4000 Central Florida Blvd, Orlando, Florida 32816 USA
ß 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 C. L. WRIGHT ET AL.

fabricated and embellished (Brown, Ali, Stone, & Jewell, 2017; Douglas, 2018). Research
has suggested that fake news has the intent of validating and encouraging discrimin-
atory and racist opinions toward minority groups, particularly immigrants and refugees
(Cerase & Santoro, 2018).
This is particularly problematic considering the sociodemographic differences (e.g.,
education, income, gender, age) in internet use (Park, 2018), the increasing sociodemo-
graphic differences in exposure to political news (Prior, 2005), and the fact that most
Americans have reported that the news media are their primary source of information
about refugees and Muslims (Jackson, 2010). In addition, some research has shown that
negative portrayals of immigrants and refugees in media have the potential to influence
viewer attitudes in a negative manner (Esses, Medianu, & Laweson, 2013; Gattino &
Tartaglia, 2015; Schemer, 2012). Other studies have found that exposure to news media
portrayals of Muslims as terrorists is related to supportive attitudes regarding American
military action against Muslim countries and Muslim American civil restrictions
(Saleem, Prot, Anderson, & Lemieux, 2017). Furthermore, research has found that
exposure to fake news containing negative images of immigrants and refugees corre-
sponds to biased opinions and stereotypical views regarding minority groups (Schemer,
2012). In addition, information gathered via fake news is rather persistent, with partici-
pants still believing the false information even after being informed that the information
was not true (De keersmaecker & Roets, 2017). Fake news is not only hard for some
people to identify but it can also create confusion about what is real versus fake and is
continuously shared among members of the public unknowingly (Jang & Kim, 2018).
The current study is unique in that it examined the portrayals of immigrants and ref-
ugees in media and viewer’s attitudes regarding immigrants, immigration policy, and
Islamophobia using an experimental design. We focused on immigrants and refugees
considering the current political climate, the increase in exposure to and effects of fake
news, and current trends regarding media portrayals of immigrants and refugees in the
United States (Brown et al., 2017; de Zuniga et al., 2012; Douglas, 2018; KhosraviNik,
2010; Schemer, 2012). We wanted to determine if exposure to negative portrayals of
immigrants and refugees was associated with negative attitudes regarding immigrants
and immigration policy, as well as increased levels of Islamophobia among consumers.
We also wanted to determine if there were specific sociodemographic characteristics of
consumers that increased their susceptibility to negative media portrayals of immigrants
and refugees.

Portrayals of immigrants and refugees in the media

The news media frames the information that is presented to viewers, including political
information, debates, and news broadcasts (Estrada, Ebert, & Lore, 2016). For instance,
news networks, such as CNN and FOX, show increasingly opposing portrayals of immi-
grants and refugees with CNN usually showing more positive portrayals and FOX gen-
erally showing more negative portrayals (de Zuniga et al., 2012). Because the majority
of consumers rely on media as an educational source, the way in which the media
presents information can impact the opinions and attitudes of consumers (Estrada
et al., 2016; McKeever, Riffe, & Carpentier, 2012; Steinberg, 2004).
 HOWARD JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATIONS 3

When immigrants and refugees are continuously portrayed in a negative manner, con-
sumers may feel more anxious and threatened, thus fueling the consumers’ negative views
towards immigrants and refugees (McKeever et al., 2012). In fact, anxiety toward undocu-
mented immigrants can be influenced by just a single news exposure (Atwell Seate &
Mastro, 2016). Exposure to messages from media that induce negative reactions toward
minority groups, specifically immigrants and refugees, not only reinforces negative feel-
ings, but also encourages observation of similar messages in the future, only further dis-
tancing immigrants and refugees from American citizens (Atwell Seate & Mastro, 2016).
Within the last three decades, the media’s coverage of immigration has heavily
focused on Hispanics, creating a strong association between the Hispanic population
and immigration, specifically undocumented immigration (Valentino, Brader, & Jardina,
2013). Often, the broadcasts discussing immigration are particularly pessimistic, oppos-
ing policies on immigration and immigration reform (Esses et al., 2013). The media
tend to broadcast negative and stereotypical images of immigrants in an attempt to
attract a larger audience and increase revenue (Esses et al., 2013; Kim, Carvalho, Davis,
& Mullins, 2011). In particular, news media outlets often link Hispanic immigrants with
poverty, disease and illness, illegal immigration, violent and nonviolent crime (e.g., kid-
naping and murder), burdens on the social welfare system, human smuggling, drugs,
trespassing, and challenges to American culture (Atwell Seate & Mastro, 2016; Aguirre,
Rodriguez, & Simmers, 2011; Esses et al., 2013; Estrada et al., 2016; Kim et al., 2011;
Schemer, 2012; Sowards & Pineda, 2013). Immigration is rarely linked with benefits,
such as new taxpayers or low-wage labor; however, the cultural and economic costs of
immigration are largely highlighted (Valentino et al., 2013), alongside the depletion of
resources due to the U.S.–Mexican border drug war (Aguirre et al., 2011).
In addition, common stigmas and stereotypical views about refugees and Muslims
that are portrayed in news media include that they are static, backwards, primitive,
aggressive and violent, intolerant, unassimilable, carriers of disease, and even deserving
of discrimination (Esses et al., 2013; Taras, 2013). The media have even used words and
phrases that are normally used when referring to animals breeding to refer to refugees
and asylum seekers (Leudar, Hayes, Nekvapil, & Baker, 2008). Other media outlets
made claims of those seeking asylum as “bogus” (Esses et al., 2013). Muslim men, in
particular, have frequently been portrayed as unreasonable fundamentalists (Jackson,
2010). As for female Muslims, the hijab is an easily recognizable symbol of the religion
but is associated with female oppression (Jackson, 2010). Furthermore, microaggressions
against Muslims presented in media may have particularly adverse effects on non-
Muslims as they may feel that such behavior is acceptable and normal and may even go
as far as perpetuating similar actions (Nadal et al., 2012).

Theoretical perspective
From a theoretical perspective, media priming may explain the relationship between the
way in which media present, or frame, information and the opinions and attitudes of
consumers (Estrada et al., 2016; McKeever, Riffe, & Carpentier, 2012; Steinberg, 2004).
Ramasubramanian (2007) proposed that media portrayals and reproduction of stereo-
types leads to biased schemas among consumers regarding stereotyped groups. These
4 C. L. WRIGHT ET AL.

schemas can then be stimulated, or primed outside of mental awareness, by future

media exposure that then influence attitudes and behaviors regarding stereotyped
groups (Eitam & Higgins, 2010; Higgins & Eitam, 2014; Loersch & Payne, 2011; 2014).
Furthermore, even short-term exposure to a prime can influence opinions about a ster-
eotyped group (Mastro, 2009). Some research has indicated that if people are aware of
the primed influence on their attitudes or actions, the priming effect dissolves (Higgins
1996; Loersch & Payne 2014). In addition, Wentura and Rothermund (2014) concluded
that the priming effect may be short-term (e.g., seconds) rather than long-term (e.g.,
minutes, days). However, other research has indicated that the priming effect is based
on the amount of exposure, or dosage, of the prime (Arendt, 2015; Roskos-Ewoldsen,
Klinger, & Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2007).

Factors influencing intolerant attitudes

Negative and intolerant attitudes regarding immigrants and refugees have been associated
with several factors examined in this study, including social class (Berg, 2009; de Zuniga
et al., 2012; Gattino & Tartaglia, 2015; McKeever et al., 2012; Schemer, 2012; Timberlake
& Williams, 2012; Watson & Riffe, 2013), political and religious ideology (Berg, 2009; de
Zuniga et al., 2012; Fryberg et al., 2012; Lopez Moreno, 2008; Ostfeld, 2017; Timberlake
& Williams, 2012; Watson & Riffe, 2013), as well as demographic variables of race, age,
and biological sex (Berg, 2009; de Zuniga et al., 2012; Knoll, Redlawsk, & Sanborn, 2014;
McKeever et al., 2012; Valentino et al., 2013; Watson & Riffe, 2013).
Specifically, with respect to social class, research has demonstrated that those with
higher levels of income and education tend to support immigration and feel more sym-
pathetic towards immigrants compared to those who are less wealthy (Berg, 2009; de
Zuniga et al., 2012; McKeever et al., 2012; Timberlake & Williams, 2012; Watson &
Riffe, 2013). Also, less educated individuals are more likely to depend on stereotypes
and news outlets to form judgements, are less motivated to make accurate judgements
about minorities, and are more vulnerable to priming (Schemer, 2012). Lower education
levels are also related to an increased viewing of reality and variety shows and an
increase in prejudice (Gattino & Tartaglia, 2015). In addition, those who are less edu-
cated also usually have a lower socioeconomic status (SES), making them economically
vulnerable and in competition with immigrants who could potentially take available
jobs (McKeever et al., 2012; Timberlake & Williams, 2012). In fact, those who are of
lower SES are more likely to express negative opinions towards immigrants during an
economic recession (Berg, 2009).
Political and religious ideology are also contributing factors. Research has demon-
strated that conservatives tend to have more negative views of immigrants and refugees
compared to liberals (Berg, 2009; de Zuniga et al., 2012; Fryberg et al., 2012; Lopez
Moreno, 2008; Timberlake & Williams, 2012) and those negative views are more easily
reinforced from exposure to negative portrayals of immigrants and refugees in media
when compared to liberals (de Zuniga et al., 2012). Conservatives may be more easily
primed because of media that they are exposed to in that conservative media, compared
to liberal media, are more likely to frame immigration and refugees in terms of threat
to the American public, increasing fear and anxiety among viewers, which then is
 HOWARD JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATIONS 5

related to an increase in negative views regarding immigrants and refugees (Fryberg

et al., 2012; Timberlake & Williams, 2012). Religious affiliation may also have an impact
on level of susceptibility to media portrayals of immigrants and refugees. According to
Watson and Riffe (2013), symbolic threat may explain why those who have Christian
values tend to have more antiimmigration beliefs compared to those who have cosmo-
politan worldviews (see also Ostfeld, 2017).
Race has also shown to be a risk factor when it comes to acceptance of media frames
of immigrants and refugees. Research has suggested that Whites may be more threat-
ened and have more negative views about immigration and refugees compared to those
from other racial backgrounds (Berg, 2009; McKeever et al., 2012; Watson & Riffe,
2013). In addition, when it comes to immigration, negative news about Hispanic indi-
viduals, but not other immigrants, causes extreme anxiety amongst white individuals,
which ultimately generates more opposition towards Hispanic immigrants (Valentino
et al., 2013). Age is also a factor. Generally, as people increase in age, their support for
immigration decreases (Berg, 2009; de Zuniga et al., 2012; McKeever et al., 2012). Older
people tend to report feeling more threatened by immigrants than their younger coun-
terparts (de Zuniga et al., 2012). In terms of biological sex, women tend to have more
positive attitudes towards unauthorized immigration compared to men (Berg, 2009;
Knoll et al., 2014; Watson & Riffe, 2013). Research has also shown numerous sex differ-
ences in attitudes towards outgroups, and men have consistently displayed more preju-
dice compared to women (Knoll et a., 2014).

The current study

The current study was an experimental design that examined portrayals of immigrants
and refugees in media and viewers’ attitudes regarding immigrants and immigration
policy, as well as Islamophobia. Participants were assigned to three experimental condi-
tions in which they were primed with either video clips containing negative portrayals
of immigrants and refugees, video clips containing positive portrayals of immigrants
and refugees, or no video clips. Participants then completed a series of questionnaires
related to their attitudes regarding immigrants and immigration policy and
Islamophobia. This study had two hypotheses:
H1: There would be differences in participants attitudes regarding immigrants and
immigration policy and Islamophobia based on experimental condition, with partici-
pants exposed to negative portrayals of immigrants and refugees reporting more nega-
tive attitudes compared to the other experimental conditions.
H2: Factors related to participant susceptibility to media portrayals of immigrants
and refugees would include participant age, race, biological sex, social class, and political
and religious affiliation.

Method
Participants and procedure
Participants included a total of 284 college students from a large southeastern public
research university who were recruited through their undergraduate psychology courses
6 C. L. WRIGHT ET AL.

and received class credit for completing the 75-min online questionnaire. The majority
of participants were female (n ¼ 180, 63.47%). Most participants identified as White
(n ¼ 168, 59.2%), Hispanic (n ¼ 52, 18.3%), or African American (n ¼ 25, 8.8%). The
age of participants ranged from 18 to 57 (M ¼ 19.84, SD ¼ 5.18).
Participants were assigned to three experimental conditions in which they were
primed with either video clips containing negative portrayals immigrants and refugees,
video clips containing positive portrayals of immigrants and refugees, or no video clips.
Interrater reliability regarding the nature of the videos presented to participants in the
current study was assessed using intraclass reliability and was high for the videos exam-
ined in the current study (0.94). In an attempt to ensure participants were not aware of
the potential primed influence on their attitudes (Higgins, 1996; Loersch & Payne,
2014), assessed via questionnaire, participants were not asked to respond, rate, or evalu-
ate the video clips they were primed with in any way.
Participants in Condition 1 (n ¼ 96; 48 males and 48 females; 67.7% White, 16.7%
Hispanic, 8.3% African American; M age was 18.75; SD ¼ 2.29) viewed video clips por-
traying immigrants and refugees negatively. Video clips were derived from The Sons of
Liberty (6:05), CNN (0:52), MSNBC (5:22), Fox News (5:33 and 4:26), Alipac (4:37),
Rebel Media (1:45), and Ruptly (1:24). All videos were accessible via YouTube and took
29:04 minutes to view.
Participants in condition 2 (n ¼ 91; 22 males and 69 females; 52.7% White, 20.9%
Hispanic, 8.8% African American; M age was 20.47, SD ¼ 6.71) viewed video clips por-
traying immigrants and refugees positively. Video clips were derived from USA Today
(4:23), AFP news agency (1:19), NBC News (2:38), Vox (4:57 and 2:58), Hooplaha (2:47),
AJþ 4:33), and ChavezFund (4:10). All videos were accessible via YouTube and took
29:46 minutes to view.
Participants in condition 3 (n ¼ 97; 34 males and 63 females; 56.7% White, 17.5%
Hispanic, 9.3% African American; M age was 20.35, SD ¼ 5.46) did not view any video
clips. After viewing the video clips, participants then completed an online questionnaire
containing items related to views and attitudes regarding immigrants and immigration
policy and Islamophobia.

Measures
Immigration threats and benefits inventory
Participants in all conditions completed the Immigration Threats and Benefits
Inventory (Tartakovsky & Walsh, 2016). This is a 40-item questionnaire that assesses
participants views regarding economic threats (seven items; alpha reliability ¼ .91),
physical threats (eight items; alpha reliability ¼ .93), social cohesion threats (five items;
alpha reliability ¼ .92), modernity threats (four items; alpha reliability ¼ .78), economic
benefits (four items, alpha reliability ¼ .85), physical benefits (five items; alpha reliabil-
ity ¼ .85), cultural diversity benefits (three items; alpha reliability ¼ .82), and humani-
tarian benefits (four items; alpha reliability ¼ .89) associated with immigration and
immigrants and refugees.
A sample item for economic threats is “refugees drain our welfare funds,” for physical
threats is “refugees and illegal immigrants spread infectious diseases,” for social
 HOWARD JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATIONS 7

cohesion threats is “refugees and illegal immigrants are a threat to the American culture
of the U.S.,” for modernity threats is “refugees and illegal immigrants bring with them
values and norms which harm the modern nature of American society,” for economic
benefits is “refugees and illegal immigrants bring new knowledge and skills needed in
the U.S. economy,” for physical benefits is “refugees and illegal immigrants are quiet
and polite people,” for cultural diversity benefits is “refugees and illegal immigrants
teach openness and tolerance to us and to our children,” and for humanitarian benefits
is “accepting refugees and illegal immigrants can help to save lives.”
All items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) and
5 (strongly agree). Items for each category were averaged to derive at total scores that
were used in analyses. The complete questionnaire can be found in Appendix A.

Immigration Policy Questionnaire

Participants in all conditions completed the Immigration Policy Questionnaire
(Tartakovsky & Walsh, 2016). This is a 19-item questionnaire that assesses participants
views of immigration policy as defending the state (nine items; alpha reliability ¼ .90)
and defending asylum seekers’ rights (10 items; alpha reliability ¼ .93).
Sample items for viewing immigration policy as defending the state include “all illegal
immigrants should be deported” and “America should pay refugees and illegal immi-
grants to leave America.” Sample items for viewing immigration policy as defending
asylum seekers’ rights include “free health care should be available for all refugees and
illegal immigrants” and “refugees and illegal immigrants who committed no crimes
should be given permanent residence status after 10 years of living in America.”
All items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) and
5 (strongly agree). Items for each category were averaged to derive at total scores that
were used in analyses. The complete questionnaire can be found in Appendix B.

Intolerant attitudes toward immigrants and foreigners

Participants in all conditions answered six items related to intolerant attitudes toward
immigrants and foreigners (Gniewosz & Noack, 2015). Example items include
“immigrants increase the crime rate” and “one always has to be on alert in foreign
countries.” Items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly dis-
agree) and 5 (strongly agree). Items were averaged to derive a total score that was used
in analyses. Alpha reliability for the scale was .83. The complete questionnaire can be
found in Appendix C.

Islamophobia scale
Participants in all conditions completed the Islamophobia Scale (Lee, Gibbons,
Thompson, & Timani, 2009). This is a 16-item questionnaire that examines participants
affective-behavioral attitudes (eight items; alpha reliability ¼ .95) and cognitive attitudes
(eight items; alpha reliability ¼ .97) toward Muslims.
8 C. L. WRIGHT ET AL.

Sample items for affective-behavioral attitudes included, “If possible, I would avoid
going to places where Muslims would be” and “I dread the thought of having a profes-
sor that is Muslim.” Example items for cognitive attitudes included “Islam is a danger-
ous religion” and “Islam is anti-American.”
All items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to
5 (strongly agree). Items were then averaged to derive at a total affective-behavioral atti-
tudes and cognitive attitudes score that was used in analyses. The complete question-
naire can be found in Appendix D.

Demographic questionnaire
Participants were asked five questions related to their age, race (dummy coded as White
and non-White), biological sex, political party affiliation (dummy coded as Republican
and not Republican), religious affiliation (dummy coded as Christian and non-Christian).

Social class
Social class was assessed as a continuous variable using measures of parental education,
income and occupation as well as measures of self-identified social class identity
(Rubin, 2012; Rubin & Wright, 2015). Participants indicated the highest level of educa-
tion for both their mother and father, with response options ranging from no formal
schooling to graduated with a postgraduate degree (Masters or PhD). Participants also
indicated how they thought most people would rate the occupation of both of their
parents in terms of prestige and status on an 11-point scale ranging from 1 (extremely
low status and prestige) to 11 (extremely high status and prestige). Participants also pro-
vided a subjective indication of their family income during childhood using a 5-point
scale ranging from 1 (well below average) to 5 (well above average). Finally, participants
completed three subjective measures of social class for themselves, their mother, and
their father using a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (poor) to 6 (upper class).
After items were converted to z scores, they had a good mean correlation with one
another and good internal reliability (alpha ¼ .81). A composite measure of social class
based on the mean score of the z scores was used in analyses (for a similar approach,
see Rubin & Wright, 2017). The complete questionnaire can be found in Appendix E.

Results
Preliminary analyses were conducted to assess the reliability of scales, distributional
characteristics, intercorrelations of measures, and the extent of missing data. Missing
data for the current study were minimal (< 5%), therefore a simple mean substitution
method was used (Kline, 2005). This method of handling missing data is preferable to
deletion methods as it allows for complete case analyses, does not reduce the statistical
power of tests, and takes into consideration the reason for missing data (Twala, 2009).
Moreover, this method of data imputation is a good representation of the original data
as long as the missing data are less than 20%, which was the case in this study
(Downey & King, 1998).
 HOWARD JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATIONS 9

Table 1. Participants immigration attitudes and islamophobia.

Variable M SD
Economic benefits 3.61 .96
Economic threats 2.47 .92
Physical threats 2.30 .85
Physical benefits 3.00 .69
Social cohesion threats 1.80 .85
Modernity threats 2.34 .83
Cultural diversity benefits 3.91 .85
Humanitarian benefits 3.65 .96
Immigration as defending the state 2.43 .88
Immigration as defending asylum seekers’ rights 3.26 .97
Intolerant attitudes toward immigrants 2.45 .78
Islamophobia affective—behavioral 1.76 .83
Islamophobia—cognitive 1.99 1.00

Analyses relevant to the study aims included (a) descriptive statistics regarding partic-
ipants immigration attitudes and Islamophobia; (b) intercorrelations of study variables;
(c) a multivariate analysis of covariance to determine if there were significant differen-
ces in participants immigration attitudes and Islamophobia based on experimental con-
dition while controlling for participant age, race, biological sex, and political and
religious affiliation; and (d) hierarchical regression analyses to determine factors related
to participants’ susceptibility to media exposure of immigrants and refugees that would
impact their attitudes regarding immigrants, immigration policy, and Islamophobia.

Participants immigration attitudes and islamophobia

Descriptive statistics for participants’ views and attitudes regarding immigrants and immi-
gration policy and Islamophobia can be found in Table 1. Generally, participants reported
low levels of cognitive Islamophobia, affective-behavioral Islamophobia, viewing immigra-
tion as a social cohesion threat, economic threat, physical threat, modernity threat, and
immigration policies as defending the state. Participants reported higher levels of viewing
immigration as having economic benefits, physical benefits, cultural diversity benefits,
humanitarian benefits, and immigration policy as defending the rights of asylum seekers.

Intercorrelations of outcome variables

Intercorrelations of participant views and attitudes regarding immigrants and immigra-
tion policy and Islamophobia were conducted to determine how the outcome variables
were associated with each other. As can be seen in Table 2 all outcome variables were
significantly correlated with each other (p ¼ .00 for all correlations).

Experimental conditions
A multivariate analysis of variance was conducted to determine if there was a sig-
nificant difference in participants’ views and attitudes regarding immigrants and
immigration policy and Islamophobia based on experimental condition while control-
ling for participant age, race, biological sex, social class, and political and religious
affiliation.
10 C. L. WRIGHT ET AL.

Table 2. Intercorrelations of study variables.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Economic benefits .64 .59 .54 .46 .64 .72 .67 .62 .71 .55 .47 .53
2. Economic threats .73 .58 .56 .54 .59 .63 .73 .66 .71 .50 .55
3. Physical threats .70 .63 .63 .61 .60 .74 .60 .76 .65 .65
4. Social cohesion threats .62 .50 .63 .59 .65 .53 .70 .69 .59
5. Modernity threats .38 .43 .42 .52 .39 .61 .47 .51
6. Physical benefits .61 .59 .56 .60 .58 .48 .48
7. Cultural diversity benefits .73 .61 .67 .59 .59 .57
8. Humanitarian benefits .62 .69 .60 .54 .54
9. Immigration as defending the state .69 .78 .63 .59
10. Immigration as defending .62 .47 .50
asylum seekers’ rights
11. Intolerant attitudes toward immigrants .65 .61
12. Islamophobia affective—behavioral .76
13. Islamophobia—cognitive
p < .001.

Significant differences based on experimental condition were found for economic

threats of immigration, F(2, 199) ¼ 4.44, p ¼ .01, g2 ¼ .04; physical threats of immigra-
tion, F(2, 199) ¼ 5.65, p ¼ .004, g2 ¼ .05; social cohesion threats of immigration, F(2,
199) ¼ 3.05, p ¼ .05, g2 ¼ .03; modernity threats of immigration, F(2, 199) ¼ 5.79, p ¼
.004, g2 ¼ .06; physical benefits of immigration, F(2, 199) ¼ 3.42, p ¼ .04, g2 ¼ .03;
intolerant attitudes toward immigrants, F(2, 199) ¼ 3.21, p ¼ .04, g2 ¼ .03; affective
and behavioral Islamophobia, F(2, 199) ¼ 3.38, p ¼ .04, g2 ¼ .03; and cognitive
Islamophobia, F(2, 199) ¼ 4.02, p ¼ .02, g2 ¼ .04.
Significant differences based on experimental condition were not found for economic
benefits of immigration, F(2, 199) ¼ 2.30, p ¼ .10; cultural diversity benefits, F(2, 199)
¼ 1.87, p ¼ .16; humanitarian benefits of immigration, F(2, 199) ¼ 1.53, p ¼ .22; view-
ing immigration policies as defending the state, F(2, 199) ¼ 2.26, p ¼ .11; or viewing
immigration policies as defending the rights of asylum seekers, F(2, 199) ¼ 1.41, p ¼
.25. It should be noted that the effect size of experimental condition for the significant
outcome variables was rather small (Field, 2009).
As predicted, those who viewed video clips containing negative portrayals of immi-
grants and refugees reported higher levels of viewing immigration as an economic
threat, physical threat, social cohesion threat, and modernity threat to the United States.
They also reported increased levels of intolerant attitudes toward immigrants as well as
affective-behavioral and cognitive Islamophobia compared to participants who viewed
video clips containing positive portrayals of immigrants and refugees and participants
who viewed no video clips. In addition, those who viewed video clips containing posi-
tive portrayals of immigrants and refugees reported higher levels of viewing immigra-
tion as a physical benefit to the United States in comparison to those who viewed video
clips containing negative portrayals of immigrants and refugees and participants who
viewed no video clips. Descriptive can be found in Table 3.

Factors related to participants immigration attitudes and islamophobia

Hierarchical multiple-regression analyses were conducted to determine factors related to
participants’ views and attitudes regarding immigrants and immigration policy and
 HOWARD JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATIONS 11

Table 3. Descriptive statistics based on experimental condition.

Variable M SD
Economic benefits
Negative portrayals 3.48 .95
Positive portrayals 3.82 .93
No videos 3.52 1.00
Economic threats
Negative portrayals 2.66 .98
Positive portrayals 2.14 .88
No videos 2.54 .93
Physical threats
Negative portrayals 2.58 .91
Positive portrayals 1.98 .73
No videos 2.25 .84
Social cohesion threats
Negative portrayals 1.98 .94
Positive portrayals 1.56 .67
No videos 1.86 .90
Modernity threats
Negative portrayals 2.61 .94
Positive portrayals 2.06 .78
No videos 2.42 .79
Physical benefits
Negative portrayals 2.82 .79
Positive portrayals 3.20 .64
No videos 2.98 .72
Cultural diversity benefits
Negative portrayals 3.79 .90
Positive portrayals 4.13 .73
No videos 3.85 1.01
Humanitarian benefits
Negative portrayals 3.52 1.05
Positive portrayals 3.88 .95
No videos 3.65 .92
Immigration as defending the state
Negative portrayals 2.64 .89
Positive portrayals 2.24 .86
No videos 2.42 .85
Immigration as defending asylum seekers’ rights
Negative portrayals 3.02 1.02
Positive portrayals 3.38 1.02
No videos 3.21 .97
Intolerant attitudes toward immigrants
Negative portrayals 2.62 .81
Positive portrayals 2.23 .71
No videos 2.43 .73
Islamophobia affective—behavioral
Negative portrayals 1.97 .90
Positive portrayals 1.62 .79
No videos 1.55 .74
Islamophobia—cognitive
Negative portrayals 2.34 1.02
Positive portrayals 1.78 .99
No videos 1.83 .99

Islamophobia. Specifically, we wanted to examine factors that could result in partici-

pants being more susceptible to positive and/or negative media influences. These
included participant age, race (coded as 1 ¼ White and 0 ¼ non-White), biological sex,
social class, and political (coded as 1 ¼ Republican and 0 ¼ not Republican) and reli-
gious affiliation (coded as 1 ¼ Christian and 0 ¼ non-Christian). Hierarchical multiple-
regression analyses were only performed for significant outcome variables (economic
12 C. L. WRIGHT ET AL.

Table 4. Hierarchical regression analysis for negative media portrayals.

Economic threats Physical threats Social cohesion threats
2 2 2 2
Predictors beta r Fchg r chg beta r Fchg r chg beta r2 Fchg r2chg
Demographic variables .08 2.54 .08 .11 3.81 .11 .08 2.51 .08
Age .05 .07 .06
Sex .19 .28 .25
Race .21 .17 .11
Social class .09 .87 .01 .17 6.53 .06 .17 10.35 .09
Social class .11 .28 .35
Political affiliation .15 6.51 .06 .32 19.40 .15 .37 27.33 .20
Republican .26 .41 .46
Religious affiliation .15 .36 .00 .32 .01 .00 .37 .23 .00
Christian .07 .01 .04

Modernity threats Intolerant attitudes Affective-behavioral islamophobia

Predictors beta r2 Fchg r2chg beta r2 Fchg r2chg beta r2 Fchg r2chg
Demographic variables 3.27 .10 .10 .04 1.33 .04 .13 4.64 .13
Age .10 .02 .06
Sex .26 .16 .24
Race .15 .14 .28
Social class .16 6.43 .06 .09 5.00 .05 .24 12.00 .11
Social class .28 .26 .36
Political affiliation .20 4.13 .04 .31 27.06 .22 .38 19.78 .14
Republican .20 .48 .39
Religious affiliation .22 3.06 .02 .31 .51 .00 .39 1.49 .01
Christian .18 .07 .11

Cognitive Islamophobia Physical benefits

Predictors beta r2 Fchg r2chg beta r2 Fchg r2chg
Demographic variables .22 8.31 .22 .04 1.13 .04
Age .14 .06
Sex .31 .19
Race .32 .02
Social class .25 4.16 .03 .06 1.60 .02
Social class .21 .15
Political affiliation .30 5.66 .05 .19 12.36 .13
Republican .22 .38
Religious affiliation .32 2.59 .02 .19 .17 .00
Christian .16 .05
  
p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.

threats, physical threats, social cohesion threats, modernity threats of immigration;

intolerant attitudes toward immigrants; affective-behavioral and cognitive Islamophobia;
physical benefits of immigration) for the experimental groups that were exposed to
negative and positive media portrayals of immigrants and refugees and were performed
for each experimental condition separately.
Demographic variables of participant age, biological sex, and race were entered first,
followed by social class, and then political and religious affiliation. Results can be found
in Tables 4 and 5.
For participants who were exposed to negative media portrayals of immigrants and
refugees, the block containing demographic variables of age, biological sex, and race
was a significant predictor for viewing immigration as a physical and modernity threat
as well as affective-behavioral and cognitive Islamophobia. More specifically, male par-
ticipants were more likely to view immigration as a physical and modernity threat and
 HOWARD JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATIONS 13

report higher levels of affective-behavioral and cognitive Islamophobia. White partici-

pants were also more likely to report higher levels of affective-behavioral and cognitive
Islamophobia. Although the block containing demographic variables was not significant
for viewing immigration as an economic or social cohesion threat, White participants
were more likely to report viewing immigration as an economic threat and male partici-
pants were more likely to report viewing immigration as a social cohesion threat.
Social class was a significant predictor of most outcome variables examined. There
was a significant, positive relationship between social class and viewing immigration as
a physical, social cohesion, and modernity threat to the United States. There was also a
positive relationship between social class and intolerant attitudes toward immigrants
and both affective-behavioral and cognitive Islamophobia.
Political affiliation was a significant predictor of all outcome variables examined.
Those who identified with the Republican party reported higher levels of viewing immi-
gration as an economic, physical, social cohesion, and modernity threat to the United
States as well as higher levels of intolerant attitudes toward immigrants and both affect-
ive-behavioral and cognitive Islamophobia.
Religious affiliation was also a significant predictor of all outcome variables. Those
who identified as Christian reported higher levels of viewing immigration as a physical
and social cohesion threat to the United States, but lower levels of viewing immigration
as an economic or modernity threat to the United States. They also reported higher lev-
els of intolerant attitudes toward immigrants as well as higher levels of both affective-
behavioral and cognitive Islamophobia.
For participants who were exposed to positive media portrayals of immigrants and
refugees, the only significant predictors of viewing immigration as a physical benefit to
the United States were political and religious affiliation. Those who identified with the
Republican Party were less likely to hold this view of immigration. However, those who
identified as Christian were more likely to view immigration as a physical benefit to the
United States.

Discussion
The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between media portrayals of
immigrants and refugees and participants’ attitudes regarding immigrants, immigration
policy, and Islamophobia. We used an experimental approach that primed participants
with either negative, positive, or no media portrayals of immigrants and refugees. It was
hypothesized that there would be differences in participants attitudes regarding immi-
grants and immigration policy and Islamophobia based on experimental condition, with
participants exposed to negative portrayals of immigrants and refugees reporting more
negative attitudes compared to participants in the other experimental conditions. It was
also hypothesized that factors related to participant susceptibility to media portrayals of
immigrants and refugees would include participant age, race, biological sex, social class,
and political and religious affiliation.
Before elaborating on the results, it is important to note that participants reported
low to moderate levels of negativity regarding immigrants, immigration policy, and
14 C. L. WRIGHT ET AL.

Islamophobia and that all outcome variables were significantly correlated with
one another.

Media portrayals of immigrants and refugees

Our hypothesis that there would be differences in participants’ attitudes regarding
immigrants, immigration policy, and Islamophobia based on experimental condition,
with participants exposed to negative portrayals of immigrants and refugees reporting
more negative attitudes compared to participants in the other experimental conditions,
was supported by the data. Because of the experimental nature of this design, it can the-
oretically be determined that viewing specific types of media portrayals of immigrants
and refugees caused participants attitudes in this area. This supports previous research
that has reported similar findings (Esses et al., 2013; Gattino & Tartaglia, 2015; Saleem
et al., 2017; Schemer, 2012). Even so, we exposed participants to video clips they may
not regularly view, ultimately creating an artificial exposure that may not reflect their
life experiences. This means that their responses may not necessarily reflect their actual
views (Bernard & Bernard, 2012; Creswell, 2013; Punch, 2013).
In addition, three things should be noted regarding our results. First, those who were
not exposed to any media portrayals of immigrants and refugees reported similar atti-
tudes as participants in other experimental conditions. This may indicate that partici-
pants in our control group held similar schematic views regarding immigrants and
refugees but did not have those attitudes brought to consciousness because they were
not primed in the current study (see Ramasubramanian, 2007). Second, the effect of
media portrayals of immigrants and refugees on participants’ attitudes was significant
but rather small, ranging from .03 to .06, which is common in experimental designs
(Cohen, 1988; Field, 2009; Grabe, Ward, & Hyde, 2008). However, even small effects
can have important real-world implications (McCartney & Rosenthal, 2000). Third, the
priming effect in this study may have yielded a short-term (i.e., the duration of the
study) rather than a long-term effect on participant attitudes (Wentura & Rothermund,
2014). These aspects of our results may indicate that we were unable to control for all
extraneous variables (Bernard & Bernard, 2012; Creswell, 2013; Punch, 2013). Even so,
our findings support those of previous studies (Atwell Seate & Mastro, 2016; Esses
et al., 2013; Gattino & Tartaglia, 2015; Saleem et al., 2017; Schemer, 2012) and highlight
the importance of further research examining the dosage effect of media priming
(Arendt, 2015; Roskos-Ewoldsen et al., 2007). This may be of particular importance
considering the increasing sociodemographic differences in exposure to political news
that has been reported in prior research (Prior, 2005).

Susceptibility to media portrayals

Our hypothesis that participant susceptibility to media portrayals of immigrants and ref-
ugees would be related to participant age, race, biological sex, social class, and political
and religious affiliation was supported by the data. These particular factors are of
importance considering the sociodemographic differences in internet use (Park, 2018).
As in previous research, being male (Berg, 2009; Knoll et al., 2014; Watson & Riffe,
 HOWARD JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATIONS 15

2013), White (Berg, 2009; McKeever et al., 2012; Watson & Riffe, 2013), Christian
(Berg, 2009; de Zuniga et al., 2012; Fryberg et al., 2012; Lopez Moreno, 2008; Ostfeld,
2017; Timberlake & Williams, 2012; Watson & Riffe, 2013), and Republican (Berg,
2009; de Zuniga et al., 2012; Fryberg et al., 2012; Lopez Moreno, 2008; Timberlake &
Williams, 2012) was associated with reporting more negative attitudes regarding immi-
grants, immigration policy, and Islamophobia after being primed with negative media
portrayals of immigrants and refugees compared to other participants.
In regard to social class, our findings vary in comparison to previous research. We
found a positive relationship between social class and negative attitudes regarding immi-
grants, immigration policy, and Islamophobia. Previous research, however, has found
the opposite relationship (Berg, 2009; de Zuniga et al., 2012; Gattino & Tartaglia, 2015;
McKeever et al., 2012; Schemer, 2012; Timberlake & Williams, 2012; Watson & Riffe,
2013). There are two possible explanations for this difference in findings. We focused
on social class, where the majority of previous research has focused on indicators of
SES (Berg, 2009; McKeever et al., 2012; Timberlake & Williams, 2012). In addition, we
used a college sample in the current study and it has recently been noted that college is
less accessible to those from lower-class families and more accessible to students from
middle- and upper-class families (Williams, 2016).

Limitations and implications for future research

Although many of the limitations of the current study were discussed previously, there
are some additional limitations that merit discussion. The sample used was a college
population, representing a distinct group of emerging adults. Also, the study was
administered online, which may have interfered with how participants responded to
questions. Future research should include a social desirability question in order to help
assess the honesty of participants regarding their attitudes regarding immigrants, immi-
gration policy, and Islamophobia. In addition, as with other forms of media, it is pos-
sible that viewers select programing that reflects their personal interests and
experiences. Furthermore, instances of media portrayals of immigrants and refugees
used in the current study were chosen from both reputable news and unconfirmed
news sources in order to expose participants to both negative and positive portrayals of
immigrants and refugees found in the media. However, it is possible that the interpreta-
tions of certain media portrayals may have occurred in the opposite direction than what
was intended for some participants. The video clips may also have been interpreted crit-
ically before the questionnaire was answered, and this may negate the effect of its
effects. In addition, future research should examine more thoroughly the differences
and similarities between reputable and unconfirmed news sources on consumer atti-
tudes and behaviors.

Disclosure statement
The data presented, the statements made, and the views expressed are solely the responsibility of
the authors.
16 C. L. WRIGHT ET AL.

References
Aguirre, A. J., Rodriguez, E., & Simmers, J. K. (2011). The cultural production of Mexican iden-
tity in the U.S.: An examination of the Mexican threat narrative. Social Identities, 17(5),
695–707. doi:10.1080/13504630.2011.595209
Arendt, F. (2015). Toward a dose-response account of media priming. Communication Research,
42(8), 1089–1115. doi:10.1177/0093650213482970
Atwell Seate, A., & Mastro, D. (2016). Media’s influence on immigration attitudes: An intergroup
threat theory approach. Communication Monographs, 83(2), 194–213. doi:10.1080/03637751.
2015.1068433
Berg, J. A. (2009). White public opinion toward undocumented immigrants: Threat and interper-
sonal environment. Sociological Perspectives, 52(1), 39–58. doi:10.1525/sop.2009.52.1.39
Bernard, H. R., & Bernard, H. R. (2012). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Brown, C. S., Ali, H., Stone, E. A., & Jewell, J. A. (2017). U.S. children’s stereotypes and prejudi-
cial attitudes toward Arab Muslims. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy (ASAP), 17(1),
60–83. doi:10.1111/asap.12129
Cerase, A., & Santoro, C. (2018). From racial hoaxes to media hypes: Fake news’ real consequen-
ces. In Vasterman P. (Ed.), From media hype to twitter storm: News explosions and their impact
on issues, crises, and public opinion (pp. 333–354). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
De Keersmaecker, J., & Roets, A. (2017). Fake news’: Incorrect, but hard to correct. The role of
cognitive ability on the impact of false information on social impressions. Intelligence, 65, 107.
doi:10.1016/j.intell.2017.10.005
de Zuniga, H. G., Correa, T., & Valenzuela, S. (2012). Selective exposure to cable news and immi-
gration in the U.S.: The relationship between Fox News, CNN, and attitudes toward Mexican
immigrants. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(4), 597–615. doi:10.1080/08838151.
2012.732138
Douglas, C. (2018). Religion and fake news: Faith-based alternative information ecosystems in the
US and Europe. The Review of Faith & International Affairs, 16(1), 61–73. doi:10.1080/
15570274.2018.1433522
Downey, R. G., & King, C. (1998). Missing data in Likert ratings: A comparison of replacement
methods. Journal of General Psychology, 125(2), 175–191.
Eitam, B., & Higgins, E. T. (2010). Motivation in mental accessibility: Relevance of a representa-
tion (ROAR) as a new framework. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(10), 951–967.
Esses, V. M., Medianu, S., & Laweson, A. S. (2013). Uncertainty, threat, and the role of the media
in promoting the dehumanization of immigrants and refugees. Journal of Social Issues, 9(3),
518–536. doi:10.1111/josi.12027
Estrada, E. P., Ebert, K., & Lore, M. H. (2016). Apathy and antipathy: Media coverage of restrict-
ive immigration legislation and the maintenance of symbolic boundaries. Sociological Forum,
31(3), 555–576. 12262.doi:10.1111/socf
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Fryberg, S. A., Stephens, N. M., Covarrubias, R., Markus, H. R., Carter, E. D., Laiduc, G. A., &
Salido, A. J. (2012). How the media frames the immigration debate: The critical role of loca-
tion and politics. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy ( Policy), 12(1), 96–112. 1530-
2415.2011.01259.x. doi:10.1111/j
Gattino, S., & Tartaglia, S. (2015). The effect of television viewing on ethnic prejudice against
immigrants: A study in the Italian context. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 44,
46–52.
 HOWARD JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATIONS 17

Gniewosz, B., & Noack, P. (2015). Parental influences on adolescents’ negative attitudes toward
illegal immigrants. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(9), 1787–1802. doi:10.1007/s10964-
015-0291-3
Grabe, S., Ward, L. M., & Hyde, J. S. (2008). The role of the media in body image concerns
among women: A meta-analysis of experimental and correlational studies. Psychological
Bulletin, 134(3), 460–476. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.460
Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T.
Higgins and A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp.
133–168). New York: Guilford.
Higgins, E. T., Eitam, B. (2014). Priming … Shmiming: It’s about knowing when and why stimu-
lated memory representations become active. Social Cognition, 32(Suppl), 225–242.
Jackson, L. (2010). Images of Islam in US media and their educational implications. Educational
Studies: Journal of the American Educational Studies Association, 46(1), 3–24.
Jang, S. M., & Kim, J. K. (2018). Third person effects of fake news: Fake news regulation and
media literacy interventions. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 295–302. doi:10.1016/j.chb.
2017.11.034
KhosraviNik, M. (2010). The representations of refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants in
British newspapers: A critical discourse analysis. Journal of Language and Politics, 9(1), 1–28.
doi:10.1075/jlp.9.1.01kho
Kim, S., Carvalho, J. P., Davis, A. G., & Mullins, A. M. (2011). The view of the border: News
framing of the definition, causes, and solutions to illegal immigration. Mass Communication
and Society, 14(3), 292–314. doi:10.1080/15205431003743679
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The
Guildford Press.
Knoll, B. R., Redlawsk, D. P., & Sanborn, H. (2014). Response to ‘Framing unauthorized immi-
grants: The effects of labels on evaluatins,’ by Ommundsen, et al. (2014). Psychological Reports,
115(3), 913–917. doi:10.2466/17.PR0.115c28z2
Lee, S. A., Gibbons, J. A., Thompson, J. M., & Timani, H. S. (2009). The Islamophobia Scale:
Instrument development and initial validation. International Journal for the Psychology of
Religion, 19(2), 92–105. doi:10.1080/10508610802711137
Leudar, I., Hayes, J., Nekvapil, J., & Baker, J. T. (2008). Hostility themes in media, community
and refugee narratives. Discourse & Society, 19(2), 187–221. doi:10.1177/0957926507085952
Loersch, C., & Payne, B. K. (2011). The situated inference model an integrative account of the
effects of primes on perception, behavior, and motivation. Perspectives on Psychological Science,
6(3), 234–252.
Loersch, C., & Payne, B. K. (2014). Situated inference and the what, who, and where of priming.
Social Cognition, 32(Suppl), 137–151.
Lopez Moreno, J. H. (2008). Media influence on perceptions toward Mexican undocumented
immigrants living in the U.S. Dissertation Abstracts International, 68, 7710.
Mastro, D, (2009). Effects of racial and ethnic stereotyping. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.),
Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 325–341). New York, NY: Taylor and
Francis.
McCartney, K., & Rosenthal, R. (2000). Effect size, practical importance, and social policy for
children. Child Development, 71(1), 173–180. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00131
McKeever, B. W., Riffe, D., & Carpentier, F. D. (2012). Perceived hostile media bias, presumed
media influence, and opinions about immigrants and immigration. Southern Communication
Journal, 77(5), 420–437. doi:10.1080/1041794X.2012.691602
Nadal, K. L., Griffin, K. E., Hamit, S., Leon, J., Tobio, M., & Rivera, D. P. (2012). Subtle and
overt forms of Islamophobia: Microaggressions toward Muslim Americans. Journal of Muslim
Mental Health, 6(2), 15–37. doi:10.3998/jmmh.10381607.0006.203
Ostfeld, M. (2017). The backyard politics of attitudes toward immigration. Political Psychology,
38(1), 21–37. doi:10.1111/pops.12314
Park, Y. J. (2018). Explicating net diversity in trend assessment. Communication Research, 45(5),
783–809. doi:10.1177/0093650215601883
18 C. L. WRIGHT ET AL.

Prior, M. (2005). News vs. entertainment: How increasing media choice widens gaps in political
knowledge and turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 48, 577–592.
Punch, K. F. (2013). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Ramasubramanian, S. (2007). Media-based strategies to reduce racial stereotypes activated by
news stories. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 84(2), 249–264. doi:10.1177/
107769900708400204
Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R., Klinger, M. R., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, B. R. (2007). Media priming: A
meta-analysis. In R. W. Preiss, B. M. Gayle, N. Burrell, M. Allen, & J. Bryant (Eds.), Mass
media effects research (pp. 53–80). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rubin, M. (2012). Social class differences in social integration among students in higher educa-
tion: A meta-analysis and recommendations for future research. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education, 5(1), 22–38. doi:10.1037/a0026162
Rubin, M., & Wright, C. L. (2015). Age differences explain social class differences in students’
friendship at university: Implications for transition and retention. Higher Education, 70(3),
427–439. doi:10.1007/s10734-014-9844-8
Rubin, M., & Wright, C. L. (2017). Time and money explain social class differences in students’
social integration at University. Studies in Higher Education, 42(2), 315–330.
Saleem, M., Prot, S., Anderson, C. A., & Lemieux, A. F. (2017). Exposure to Muslims in media
and support for public policies harming Muslims. Communication Research, 44(6), 841–869.
doi:10.1177/0093650215619214
Schemer, C. (2012). The influence of news media on stereotypic attitudes toward immigrants in a
political campaign. Journal of Communication, 62(5), 739–757. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.
01672.x
Sowards, S. K., & Pineda, R. D. (2013). Immigrant narratives and popular culture in the U.S.:
Border spectacle, unmotivated sympathies, and individualized responsibilities. Western Journal
of Communication, 77(1), 72–91. doi:10.1080/10570314.2012.693648
Steinberg, S. L. (2004). Undocumented immigrants or illegal aliens? Southwestern media por-
trayals of Latino immigrants. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 28(1), 109–133.
Taras, R. (2013). Islamophobia never stands still’: Race, religion, and culture. Ethnic and Racial
Studies, 36(3), 417–433. doi:10.1080/01419870.2013.734388
Tartakovsky, E., & Walsh, S. D. (2016). Testing a new theoretical model for attitudes toward
illegal immigrants: The case of social workers’ attitudes toward asylum seekers in Israel.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 47(1), 72–96. doi:10.1177/0022022115613860
Timberlake, J. M., & Williams, R. H. (2012). Stereotypes of U. S. immigrants from four global
regions. Social Science Quarterly, 93(4), 867–890. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2012.00860.x
Twala, B. (2009). An empirical comparison for techniques for handling incomplete data using
decision trees. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 23(5), 373–405. doi:10.1080/08839510902872223
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. doi:10.1111/j.14677-9221.2012.00928.x
Watson, B. R., & Riffe, D. (2013). Perceived threat, immigration policy support, and media cover-
age: Hostile media and presumed influence. International Journal of Public Opinion Research,
25(4), 459–479. doi:10.1093/ijpor/eds032
Wentura, D., & Rothermund, K. (2014). Priming is not priming is not priming. Social Cognition,
32(Suppl), 47–67.
Williams, J. (2016, July 11). College and the new class divide. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved
from https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2016/07/11/how-college-helping-create-class-divide-
america-essay.
 HOWARD JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATIONS 19

Appendix A. Immigration threats and benefits questionnaire

Use the scale below to indicate your level of agreement with each statement:
a. strongly disagree
b. disagree
c. neither disagree nor agree
d. agree
e. strongly agree
[economic threats]
1. Refugees and illegal immigrants send money home and thus damage the U.S. economy.
2. Refugees and illegal immigrants take work from locals and thus hurt them economically.
3. Children of refugees and illegal immigrants overload U.S. schools and decrease the quality
of education for U.S. children.
4. Refugees raise apartment prices in United States.
5. Refugees drain our welfare funds.
6. Use of the cheap labor force of refugees and illegal immigrants harms economic develop-
ment of the United States.
7. Refugees and illegal immigrants overload social services who then have less resources to
help Americans in difficulty.
[physical threats]
8. Refugees and illegal immigrants are involved in a lot of drinking and drugs.
9. Refugees and illegal immigrants spread infectious diseases.
10. Refugees and illegal immigrants help enemies of the United States.
11. Refugees and illegal immigrants commit many violent crimes against Americans.
12. Many refugees and illegal immigrants are involved in theft, burglary, and robberies.
13. Refugees and illegal immigrants pollute the environment in American cities and towns
which they live in.
14. Many refugees and illegal immigrants are involved in prostitution.
15. Refugees and illegal immigrants constitute a threat for American women.
[social cohesion threat]
16. Refugees and illegal immigrants weaken American culture as they bring in foreign food,
music, and dance.
17. Refugees and illegal immigrants look, dress and speak differently to American citizens,
which damages the feeling of cohesion in American society.
18. Refugees and illegal immigrants are a threat to the American culture of the United States.
19. Refugees and illegal immigrants Muslim festivals thus endangering the Christian atmos-
phere in the U.S.
20. Refugees and illegal immigrants look and behave so differently to Americans that they will
not be able to be part of American society.
[modernity threat]
21. Refugees and illegal immigrants bring with them conservative values, which strengthen
nondemocratic elements in American society.
22. Refugees and illegal immigrants bring with them values and norms which harm the mod-
ern nature of American society.
23. Refugees and illegal immigrants bring patriarchal family norms and values which threaten
gender equality in America.
24. Refugees and illegal immigrants bring non-progressive rules of raising children (e.g., phys-
ical punishment) to the United States.
[economic benefits]
25. Refugees and illegal immigrants help America to develop good economic and political rela-
tions with their countries of origin.
26. Refugees and illegal immigrants help to make U.S. economics competitive in the global
economic arena.
20 C. L. WRIGHT ET AL.

27. Refugees and illegal immigrants bring with them languages which are needed in a glo-
bal economy.
28. Refugees and illegal immigrants bring new knowledge and skills needed in the
U.S. economy.
[physical benefits]
29. Refugees and illegal immigrants abuse less alcohol and drugs than Americans.
30. Refugees and illegal immigrants commit less crimes than Americans.
31. Refugees and illegal immigrants mind their own business and don’t bother Americans.
32. Refugees and illegal immigrants preserve order and cleanness in the areas where they live
more than Americans.
33. Refugees and illegal immigrants are quiet and polite people.
[cultural diversity benefits]
34. Refugees and illegal immigrants teach openness and tolerance to us and to our children.
35. Refugees and illegal immigrants bring a new culture, for example, food, music, and art,
which can enrich American culture.
36. Refugees and illegal immigrants enrich us by giving us an opportunity to learn about cul-
tures we might never learn about otherwise.
[humanitarian benefits]
37. Accepting refugees and illegal immigrants can help us to feel positive about ourselves as a
“light to the nations.”
38. Accepting refugees and illegal immigrants can help to save lives.
39. Providing asylum to refugees and illegal immigrants is good for creating a positive image
of America around the world.
40. By providing asylum to refugees and illegal immigrants we strengthen democracy in America.

Appendix B. Immigration Policy Questionnaire

Use the scale below to indicate your level of agreement with each statement:
a. strongly disagree
b. disagree
c. neither disagree nor agree
d. agree
e. strongly agree
[Defending the state]
1. The U.S. government should invest more to fortify the state borders and strengthen border
control to prevent illegal immigration.
2. Refugees and illegal immigrants should be forbidden to send money “home.”
3. The U.S. government should strengthen police forces in order to more effectively find and
arrest illegal immigrants.
4. All illegal immigrants should be deported.
5. Refugees and immigrants who enter America illegally should be imprisoned.
6. Refugees who work illegally should be fined.
7. The U.S. government needs to build detention facilities for illegal immigrants and put all
illegal immigrants there.
8. There should be greater implementation of punishing individuals and companies who hire
illegal immigrants and refugees.
9. America should pay refugees and illegal immigrants to leave America.
[Defending asylum seekers’ rights]
10. Refugees and illegal immigrants who committed no crimes should be given permanent
residence status after 10 years of living in America.
11. Refugees and illegal immigrants should be permitted to work so as to be able to support
themselves and their families financially.
 HOWARD JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATIONS 21

12. Free health care should be available for all refugees and illegal immigrants.
13. America should demand that employers pay refugees and illegal immigrants the minimal
salary and cover all the obligatory insurances.
14. Female refugees and illegal immigrants should get the same maternity rights as
American women.
15. Refugees and illegal immigrants should have free access to the same social and psycho-
logical services as Americans.
16. Free school education should be available for children of refugees and illegal immigrants.
17. Free health care should be available for children of refugees and illegal immigrants.
18. Refugees and illegal immigrants should be provided with free English language courses.
19. Refugees and illegal immigrants should have social security rights like American citizens.

Appendix C. Intolerant attitudes toward immigrants and foreigners

Use the scale below to indicate your level of agreement with each statement:
a. strongly disagree
b. disagree
c. neither disagree or agree
d. agree
e. strongly agree
1. Immigrants increase the crime rate.
2. Immigrants take away the jobs of people who are born in America.
3. Immigrants who work in America should eventually go back home.
4. One always has to be on alert in foreign countries.
5. Immigrants should choose their spouses among their own nationals only.
6. Immigrants come to America just to exploit our social system.

Appendix D. Islamophobia Scale

Instructions: Using the scale below, please select the number that best describes to what extent
you agree or disagree with each of the following items. There is no right or wrong answer. Please
do not leave any item blank.
a. strongly disagree
b. disagree
c. neither disagree or agree
d. agree
e. strongly agree
[affective-behavioral subscale]
1. I would support any policy that would stop the building of new mosques (Muslim place of
worship) in the United States.
2. If possible, I would avoid going to places where Muslims would be.
3. I would become extremely uncomfortable speaking with a Muslim.
4. Just to be safe, it is important to stay away from places where Muslims could be.
5. I dread the thought of having a professor that is Muslim.
6. If I could, I would avoid contact with Muslims.
7. If I could, I would live in a place where there were no Muslims.
8. Muslims should not be allowed to work in places where many Americans gather, such
as airports.
[cognitive subscale]
9. Islam is a dangerous religion.
10. The religion of Islam supports acts of violence.
22 C. L. WRIGHT ET AL.

11. Islam supports terrorist acts.

12. Islam is anti-American.
13. Islam is an evil religion.
14. Islam is a religion of hate.
15. I believe that Muslims support the killings of all non-Muslims.
16. Muslims want to take over the world.

Appendix E. Social class questionnaire

1. The highest education level achieved by my father was/is:
a. No formal schooling
b. Primary school (Kindergarten to Year 6)
c. Secondary or high school (Years 7 to 10)
d. Senior secondary school (Years 11 & 12)
e. Technical and Further Education (TAFE)
f. University - undergraduate degree (Bachelor degree)
g. University - postgraduate degree (Masters or PhD)
h. Don’t know
2. The highest education level achieved by my mother was/is:
a. No formal schooling
b. Primary school (Kindergarten to Year 6)
c. Secondary or high school (Years 7 to 10)
d. Senior secondary school (Years 11 & 12)
e. Technical and Further Education (TAFE)
f. University - undergraduate degree (Bachelor degree)
g. University - postgraduate degree (Masters or PhD)
h. Don’t know
3. Please indicate how you think most people would rate your mother’s main occupation in
terms of its prestige and status.
a. Extremely low status and prestige
b. Very low
c. Low
d. Moderately below average
e. Slightly below average
f. Average
g. Slightly above average
h. Moderately above average
i. High
j. Very high
k. Extremely high status and prestige
l. Don’t know
4. Please indicate how you think most people would rate your father’s main occupation in
terms of its prestige and status.
a. Extremely low status and prestige
b. Very low
c. Low
d. Moderately below average
e. Slightly below average
f. Average
 HOWARD JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATIONS 23

g. Slightly above average

h. Moderately above average
i. High
j. Very high
k. Extremely high status and prestige
l. Don’t know
5. My family income when I was a child was:
a. Well below average
b. Slightly below average
c. Average
d. Slightly above average
e. Well above average
f. Don’t know
6. The number of bedrooms in the house that I lived in when I was 15 years old was:
a. One
b. Two
c. Three
d. Four
e. Five
f. Six
g. Seven or more
7. My mother’s social class was/is:
a. Working-class
b. Lower middle-class
c. Middle-class
d. Upper Middle-class
e. Upper-class
f. Don’t know
8. My father’s social class was/is:
a. Working class
b. Lower middle-class
c. Middle-class
d. Upper middle-class
e. Upper class
f. Don’t know
9. My social class is:
a. Working class
b. Lower middle-class
c. Middle-class
d. Upper middle-class
e. Upper class
f. Don’t know

View publication stats