IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/eti/dpaper/22091.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How Do Racial Cues Affect Attitudes toward Immigrants in a Racially Homogeneous Country? Evidence from a survey experiment in Japan

Author

Listed:
  • IGARASHI Akira
  • MIWA Hirofumi
  • ONO Yoshikuni

Abstract

In the United States, race plays an important role in shaping intergroup relations. African Americans, for example, are highly disadvantaged. Yet, little is known about how race affects the formation of intergroup attitudes in non-U.S. contexts. Two conflicting possibilities have been raised: either non-U.S. countries follow the U.S. racial hierarchy and it is spreading throughout the world, or each society has develops its own norms through its unique history and institutions, and racial hierarchies are not shared in non-U.S. contexts. To examine these possibilities, we chose a homogeneous, predominantly non-white, and non-U.S. context, Japan, and conducted a survey experiment to measure Japanese people’s attitudes toward immigrants from White, African, and Asian American backgrounds. The results showed that Japanese do not prefer White Americans over African Americans as immigrants. Rather, they exhibited a preference for African Americans. These results indicate that the racial hierarchy that shapes intergroup attitudes in the U.S. is not necessarily shared in Japan.

Suggested Citation

  • IGARASHI Akira & MIWA Hirofumi & ONO Yoshikuni, 2022. "How Do Racial Cues Affect Attitudes toward Immigrants in a Racially Homogeneous Country? Evidence from a survey experiment in Japan," Discussion papers 22091, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
  • Handle: RePEc:eti:dpaper:22091
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.rieti.go.jp/jp/publications/dp/22e091.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Arnold & Will Dobbie & Crystal S Yang, 2018. "Racial Bias in Bail Decisions," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 133(4), pages 1885-1932.
    2. Valentino, Nicholas A. & Soroka, Stuart N. & Iyengar, Shanto & Aalberg, Toril & Duch, Raymond & Fraile, Marta & Hahn, Kyu S. & Hansen, Kasper M. & Harell, Allison & Helbling, Marc & Jackman, Simon D. , 2019. "Economic and Cultural Drivers of Immigrant Support Worldwide," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 1201-1226, October.
    3. Leeper, Thomas J. & Hobolt, Sara B. & Tilley, James, 2020. "Measuring Subgroup Preferences in Conjoint Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 207-221, April.
    4. Frank Edwards & Hedwig Lee & Michael Esposito, 2019. "Risk of being killed by police use of force in the United States by age, race–ethnicity, and sex," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116(34), pages 16793-16798, August.
    5. Hajnal, Zoltan L., 2009. "Who Loses in American Democracy? A Count of Votes Demonstrates the Limited Representation of African Americans," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 103(1), pages 37-57, February.
    6. Reny, Tyler T. & Newman, Benjamin J., 2021. "The Opinion-Mobilizing Effect of Social Protest against Police Violence: Evidence from the 2020 George Floyd Protests," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 115(4), pages 1499-1507, November.
    7. M. Marit Rehavi & Sonja B. Starr, 2014. "Racial Disparity in Federal Criminal Sentences," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 122(6), pages 1320-1354.
    8. Mason, Lilliana & Wronski, Julie & Kane, John V., 2021. "Activating Animus: The Uniquely Social Roots of Trump Support," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 115(4), pages 1508-1516, November.
    9. Giani, Marco & Méon, Pierre-Guillaume, 2021. "Global Racist Contagion Following Donald Trump's Election," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(3), pages 1332-1339, July.
    10. Hainmueller, Jens & Hopkins, Daniel J. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2014. "Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 1-30, January.
    11. Leeper, Thomas J. & Hobolt, Sara & Tilley, James, 2020. "Measuring subgroup preferences in conjoint experiments," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100944, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    12. Abrajano, Marisa A. & Elmendorf, Christopher S. & Quinn, Kevin M., 2018. "Labels vs. Pictures: Treatment-Mode Effects in Experiments About Discrimination," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(1), pages 20-33, January.
    13. Antoine J. Banks & Heather M. Hicks, 2019. "The Effectiveness of a Racialized Counterstrategy," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 63(2), pages 305-322, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Becker, Malte & Krüger, Finja & Heidland, Tobias, 2022. "Country, culture or competition: What drives attitudes towards immigrants in Sub-Saharan Africa?," Kiel Working Papers 2224, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    2. Henrik Serup Christensen & Lauri Rapeli, 2021. "Immediate rewards or delayed gratification? A conjoint survey experiment of the public’s policy preferences," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 63-94, March.
    3. Vrânceanu, Alina & Dinas, Elias & Heidland, Tobias & Ruhs, Martin, 2023. "The European refugee crisis and public support for the externalisation of migration management," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 279441, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    4. Janne Tukiainen & Sebastian Blesse & Albrecht Bohne & Leonardo M. Giuffrida & Jan Jäässkeläinen & Ari Luukinen & Antti Sieppi, 2021. "What Are the Priorities of Bureaucrats? Evidence from Conjoint Experiments with Procurement Officials," EconPol Working Paper 63, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    5. Chu, Haoran & Liu, Sixiao, 2021. "Light at the end of the tunnel: Influence of vaccine availability and vaccination intention on people’s consideration of the COVID-19 vaccine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 286(C).
    6. KASUYA Yuko & MIWA Hirofumi & ONO Yoshikuni, 2022. "Why are There More Women in the Upper House?," Discussion papers 22094, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    7. Tellez,Juan Fernando & Balcells,Laia, 2022. "Social Cohesion, Economic Security, and Forced Displacement in the Long-Run : Evidence from Rural Colombia," Policy Research Working Paper Series 10019, The World Bank.
    8. Christensen, Henrik Serup, 2020. "How design features affect evaluations of participatory platforms," SocArXiv 4ubwh, Center for Open Science.
    9. Raman, Shyam & Kriner, Douglas & Ziebarth, Nicolas & Simon, Kosali & Kreps, Sarah, 2022. "COVID-19 booster uptake among US adults: Assessing the impact of vaccine attributes, incentives, and context in a choice-based experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 310(C).
    10. Brian Burgoon & Theresa Kuhn & Francesco Nicoli & Frank Vandenbroucke, 2022. "Unemployment risk-sharing in the EU: How policy design influences citizen support for European unemployment policy," European Union Politics, , vol. 23(2), pages 282-308, June.
    11. Pieter Vanhuysse & Michael Jankowski & Markus Tepe, 2021. "Vaccine alliance building blocks: a conjoint experiment on popular support for international COVID-19 cooperation formats," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(3), pages 493-506, September.
    12. Michael J. Frith, 2021. "Analysing conjoint experiments in Stata: the conjoint command," London Stata Conference 2021 14, Stata Users Group.
    13. Lim, Sijeong & Dolsak, Nives & Prakash, Aseem & Tanaka, Seiki, 2022. "Distributional concerns and public opinion: EV subsidies in the U.S. and Japan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    14. Henrik S Christensen & Marco S La Rosa & Kimmo Grönlund, 2020. "How candidate characteristics affect favorability in European Parliament elections: Evidence from a conjoint experiment in Finland," European Union Politics, , vol. 21(3), pages 519-540, September.
    15. Tukiainen, Janne & Blesse, Sebastian & Bohne, Albrecht & Giuffrida, Leonardo M. & Jääskeläinen, Jan & Luukinen, Ari & Sieppi, Antti, 2024. "What are the priorities of bureaucrats? Evidence from conjoint experiments with procurement officials," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    16. Liam F. Beiser-McGrath & Thomas Bernauer & Jaehyun Song & Azusa Uji, 2021. "Understanding public support for domestic contributions to global collective goods," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 166(3), pages 1-20, June.
    17. Knotz, Carlo Michael & Gandenberger, Mia Katharina & Fossati, Flavia & Bonoli, Giuliano, 2021. "Public attitudes toward pandemic triage: Evidence from conjoint survey experiments in Switzerland," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 285(C).
    18. Alberto López Ortega, 2024. "Do political duos diminish discriminatory voter preferences? Evidence from a combined conjoint experiment," European Union Politics, , vol. 25(1), pages 106-129, March.
    19. Barceló, Joan & Sheen, Greg Chih-Hsin & Tung, Hans H. & Wu, Wen-Chin, 2022. "Vaccine nationalism among the public: A cross-country experimental evidence of own-country bias towards COVID-19 vaccination," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 310(C).
    20. Yoshiaki Kubo & Isamu Okada, 2022. "COVID-19 health certification reduces outgroup bias: evidence from a conjoint experiment in Japan," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eti:dpaper:22091. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: TANIMOTO, Toko (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rietijp.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.