Narratives on migration and political polarization: How the emphasis in narratives can drive us apart

E. Levi, M. Bayerlein, G. Grimalda, T. Reggiani
{"title":"Narratives on migration and political polarization: How the emphasis in narratives can drive us apart","authors":"E. Levi, M. Bayerlein, G. Grimalda, T. Reggiani","doi":"10.5817/wp_muni_econ_2023-07","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Nowadays, immigration is a polarizing topic in politics. In this paper, we investigate how much this political polarization is driven by the depiction narratives made of immigrants vis-a-vis the natives. Furthermore, we look at whether polarization is rooted in private preferences over narratives or in how they are endorsed in public settings and social media. Our empirical strategy consists of a survey experiment in the 2021 German elections and a field experiment on Twitter in which we manipulate the “pinned tweets” of experimental users. To build our narratives, we manipulate either the policy position — hostile toward or accepting migration — or an emphasis on the out-group, on the in-group, or on economic reciprocity. We find that political polarization is driven both by the policy position and emphasis in narratives. On Twitter, the out-group emphasis drives supporters of different parties apart, and the corresponding hostile narrative becomes the only one going viral. In the survey, right-wing participants prefer the reciprocity emphasis more, but we still find evidence of more polarization when allowing the participants to go public.","PeriodicalId":188529,"journal":{"name":"MUNI ECON Working Papers","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MUNI ECON Working Papers","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5817/wp_muni_econ_2023-07","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Nowadays, immigration is a polarizing topic in politics. In this paper, we investigate how much this political polarization is driven by the depiction narratives made of immigrants vis-a-vis the natives. Furthermore, we look at whether polarization is rooted in private preferences over narratives or in how they are endorsed in public settings and social media. Our empirical strategy consists of a survey experiment in the 2021 German elections and a field experiment on Twitter in which we manipulate the “pinned tweets” of experimental users. To build our narratives, we manipulate either the policy position — hostile toward or accepting migration — or an emphasis on the out-group, on the in-group, or on economic reciprocity. We find that political polarization is driven both by the policy position and emphasis in narratives. On Twitter, the out-group emphasis drives supporters of different parties apart, and the corresponding hostile narrative becomes the only one going viral. In the survey, right-wing participants prefer the reciprocity emphasis more, but we still find evidence of more polarization when allowing the participants to go public.
关于移民和政治两极分化的叙事:叙事中的强调如何将我们分开
如今,移民是一个政治上两极分化的话题。在本文中,我们调查了这种政治两极分化在多大程度上是由移民与本地人的描述叙事所驱动的。此外,我们还研究了两极分化是源于个人对叙事的偏好,还是源于它们在公共环境和社交媒体上的认可。我们的实证策略包括2021年德国大选的调查实验和Twitter的现场实验,其中我们操纵实验用户的“固定推文”。为了构建我们的叙事,我们要么操纵政策立场——对移民持敌对态度,要么接受移民——要么强调群体外、群体内或经济互惠。我们发现,政治两极分化是由政策立场和叙事重点共同驱动的。在Twitter上,对群体外的强调让不同党派的支持者分道扬镳,相应的敌对叙事成为唯一一种病毒式传播的叙事。在调查中,右翼参与者更倾向于互惠的强调,但我们仍然发现,当允许参与者公开时,两极分化的证据更多。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信