Master’s Thesis
Refugees, Immigrants, Aliens and Tsunamis
The importance of the selection of semantical and rhetorical structures in verbal communication within the European immigration debate
Giulia Brambilla 11571543 Thesis supervisor: dhr. Michael Hameleers University of Amsterdam Graduate School of Communication Master’s Programme in Communication Science
Date of submission: 29.06.2018 Word count: 7512
Abstract
The aim of this research project is to assess the importance of the long neglected role of the use of language as cognitive heuristic, capable of influencing public opinion formation processes. In fact, the qualification of individuals as limited information processors (Fiske & Taylor, 1991) highlights the unyielding necessity of deeper understanding of the short-cuts influencing the electorate’s decision-making processes. Hence, in this research, particular attention has been devoted to the use of language and, more in detail, to the selection of semantical and rhetorical structures as framing devices.
The study has been conducted through an experimental design in the specific context of the European immigration debate in an attempt to understand the role politicians and media practitioners played in designating and framing with their strategic use of language the actors involved in the crisis and the underlying brand-news concepts implied.
Awareness of the impact that metaphorical language and emotions proved to have in influencing citizens’ attitudes and behavioral intentions toward immigration might allow significant implementations of political actors, NGOs and news-media communication strategies, fostering the resolution of the current crisis.
Keywords: immigration; persuasion; synonyms; metaphors; attitude change; behavioral intentions
Refugees, Immigrants, Aliens and Tsunamis
Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds.
The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind; the third on the proof, provided by the words of the speech itself. (Aristotele, Rethoric)
Since ancient times, mastering the art of persuasion has concerned political actors and news-makers. Even if nowadays political communication is constantly enriched by emerging techniques used to capture the attention of the public opinion, the historically rooted persuasive power of language should not be underestimated.
Hence, in this setting, the aim of this research project is to reassess the importance of use of language in framing and persuasion as cognitive heuristic: even in our multimedia networked society, basic linguistic features of verbal communication are still successful tools political actors can take advantage of to persuade an audience of the value of their ideas. (Menegatti & Rubini, 2013).
More specifically, in this context, the semantical and rhetorical dimensions of verbal communication will be considered. In fact, the power of lexical selection in framing a specific issue makes this feature particularly worth studying, especially in relation to persuasion and attitude change. Additionally, as far as rhetorics is concerned, the role of metaphors within political messages is analyzed primarily due to the widely acknowledged impact of metaphors in reducing susceptibility to persuasion (Guthrie, 1972) and implicitly suggesting problem solving strategies that might, hence, influence public opinions’ behavioral intentions (Schön, 1979).
In grater detail, the goal is to examine whether different lexical choices and figures of speech influence attitude change and behavioral intentions towards the topic of immigration, of broad and current interest. The ongoing crisis is particularly suitable for this research due to its uniqueness: the lack of previous immigration crises of this magnitude has made necessary a linguistic and figurative categorization of the new emerging concepts and actors involved by politicians and media-practitioners, whose framing selections have, in turn, shaped the entire public debate on immigration.
RQ: How do different semantical and rhetorical structures affect electors’ attitudes and behavioral intentions change?
The conclusive assessment of the relevance of metaphorical language and emotional dispositions in influencing public opinion highlighted by this research might enhance the efficacy of international communication strategies characterizing the current immigration debate.
In the upcoming section, a theoretical framework that further validates the importance of additional analyses in the field will be presented. Critical discussion of the findings of this research project, as well as strengths and limitations, will be addressed in the conclusive part, following the description of the plan of analysis employed in this research and the results obtained.
Theoretical background
When analyzing mechanisms that influence decision-making processes determining voters’ behavior, a fundamental assumption in order to comprehend the importance of the role of use of language in persuasion is that individuals - as human beings - are far from being rational thinkers. Citizens have been consistently appointed in literature as cognitive misers (Fiske &
Taylor, 1991), highlighting how, de facto, voters are primarily limited receptors of
information and, as such, they dispose of limited carrying capacities. Individuals employ an economy-minded approach to information processing, fully complying to what Zipf (1972) has defined as the principle of least effort, because they have restricted material resources (Hilgartner & Bosk, 1988), as well as limited cognitive resources to filter, select and elaborate the inextinguishable flow of information characterizing our contemporary society (Lau & Redlawsk, 2006).
In the light of the above, in depth analysis of the elements that impact on voters’ selection and digestion of political messages is key for a holistic understanding of public opinion’s formation processes.
The importance of cognitive heuristics in public opinion formation processes
As far as understanding of opinion formation processes is concerned, a brief overview of the basic models describing how individuals elaborate stimuli is a necessary starting point. In this regard, the two main models of information elaboration are the elaboration likelihood model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1984) and the heuristic systematic model (Chaiken, Liberman, & Eagly, 1989), both attesting that human beings employ two complementary strategies when
processing information. Individuals elaborate inputs displaying analytical and thorough consideration of the information received, through what is defined by Petty and Caccioppo (1984) as the central route. Simultaneously, information are assimilated through the peripheral route: individuals are influenced by the effects generated by cues within the stimulus, rather than powerful rational argumentative strategies.
This distinction is even more clearly delineated by the pioneering dual-process model by Evans (1984) - further recalled by Kahneman (2011) - in which two different types of
information processing - Type 1, fast and intuitive, and Type 2, slow and reflective - are combined with two distinct cognitive mechanisms of information elaboration, System 1 and System 2. Intuitive thinking is associated with an ancestrally rooted form of cognition, mostly operating unconsciously: it is connected with instinct, low cognitive effort, experimental learning and, lastly, it is considered liable for several cognitive biases in reasoning and decision making. Contrastingly, System 2 is related to a more meticulous and attentive analysis of the information received, in a constant strive for epistemic rationality (Evans, 2014).
By admitting the importance of intuitive thinking as part of their dual-process models, Petty and Cacioppo (1986), Chaiken, Libermans and Eagly (1989), Evans (1984) and
Kahneman (2011) among others emphasized the significance for elaboration and decision-making processes of what psychological literature identifies as cognitive heuristics,
definitively questioning the model of the informed, attentive and rational citizen proposed by previous classic democratic theory (Barker & Hansen, 2005).
As far as of cognitive heuristics are concerned, there are different typologies commonly affecting public opinion formation processes. Lau and Redlawsk (2001) have grouped them into five categories: candidate’s ideology, candidate’s appearance, poll’s viability information and interest groups’ endorsement. Mainly candidate’s appearance has been subject to extensive research, especially as far as the influence of gender, weight, facial expression, and voice pitch is regarded (e.g. Huddy & Terkildsen, 1993; Klofstad, 2016; Laustsen & Petersen, 2016; Miller & Lundgren, 2010). On the contrary, one category of cognitive short-cuts that has been considerably neglected in the field of political
The power of language: the forgotten factor
Selection of specific grammatical, semantical and rhetorical structures within a political message not only implicitly constitutes a form of heuristic cue by indicating political
candidates’ ideology and party affiliation, but it also serves the purpose of framing a specific political reality and, consequently, favoring a coherent interpretation of the issue discussed.
Firstly, in fact, political actors’ word selection serves as guideline to their ideology and personal thoughts and beliefs (Slatcher et al., 2003) and, as far as this aspect is concerned, attention in literature has been especially devoted to the role of abstraction in language (Carnaghi et al., 2008). In fact, not only selection of different word categories - nouns or adjectives and verbs - is thought to be influenced by personality traits (Carney et al., 2008), but this, in turn, also determines affiliation to a specific political ideology (Jost et al., 2003), as highlighted by Cichocka et al. (2016).
However, in this context, rather than to the role of language as short-cut to identify political candidates’ ideology and party affiliation, attention will be devoted to another dimension of the use of language. In fact, of even greater relevance is the function language covers in influencing how a specific political issue is being framed. Frames are cognitive short-cut commonly employed to interpret phenomena by deconstructing complex scenarios, giving meaning to some aspects of the reality observed and, contemporarily, dismissing other facets that are less meaningful (Ervas, Gola, & Rossi, 2017).
We are not equipped to deal with so much subtlety, so much variety, so many permutations and combinations. And although we have to act in that environment, we have to reconstruct it on a simpler model before we can manage it.
Thus, frames provide meaning through a selective process, which filters people's perceptions and presents a specific perspective on a problem and it is primarily the use of language that enables this selective process, setting frames by associating words and concepts in an attempt to define the reality (Ervas, Gola, & Rossi, 2017).
Hence, the semantical and the rhetorical features of a verbal message - either as cues of one’s ideology or framing devices - play a crucial role in persuasion and political
communication, especially by impacting on what Petty and Cacioppo (1989) define as the peripheral route.
Given the acknowledged importance of cognitive heuristics in public opinion decision making processes and the long disregarded importance of the role of linguistic selections in political messages, this research aims at further investigating how - within equivalence framing - slight differences in the use of language can influence the electorate’s decision-making processes and behavioral intentions. In fact, according to the isolation effect, described by Kahneman and Tversky (1979) in their idealization of the prospect theory, different representations of similar decision-making scenarios - known as equivalence framing - affect people’s choices and evaluations.
Focus will be driven to the semantic differences in vocabulary selection, analyzing the impact of lexicon and special consideration will be additionally devoted to the role of
metaphors, that are primarily considered cognitive framing mechanisms (Ervas, Gola, & Rossi, 2017).
The European immigration debate and its language
In light of the aforementioned argumentations, it is possible to assert that politicians,
with particular wordings and problem definitions (Thorbjørnsrud, 2015). Often, in fact, political actors employ strategic uses of the language by using vagueness or rephrasing of existing terminology to legitimate the various measures adopted to manage crises (Rheindorf & Wodak 2016). Therefore, it is of considerable relevance to understand the impact that semantical and rhetorical features of verbal political communication generate on the electorate’s opinion formation process and, in turn, on the behavioral intentions of the receivers of the message.
In this research, the influence of these two linguistic features as framing devices is examined in the light of the ongoing immigration crisis affecting European borders in recent years. The rationale at the basis of this decision is the determinant role played by political actors and news-media in shaping the immigration discourse in their attempt to define new rising concepts and actors. In fact, the absence of previous immigration crises of this
magnitude in the European Union has made necessary a categorization of the actors involved, generating a plethora of new terms and metaphors in an attempt to better designate newly arising concepts (e.g. “illegal immigrants”, “economic migrants”, “asylum-seekers”, “refugees”). Hence, the current political debate requires advanced comprehension of how political actors, international organizations and, more in general, media practitioners have configured this debate with their linguistic categorizations and how this can influence European citizens’ attitudes and behaviors towards the phenomenon.
Before moving into deeper understanding of the role of semantical and rhetorical structures in the European immigration debate, an outline of previous research on the impact of lexicon and figurative language in persuasion is provided. Moreover, an overview of the most commonly used terms and metaphors employed to refer to the growing number of people forced to flee their native countries is presented.
Immigrants, refugees, asylum-seekers: many terms, one concept?
As far as semantics is concerned, in this research attention is driven to the role of synonymity in language. Two words are considered to be synonyms only if they share at least one
dictionary interpretation with minimal register difference and do not differ in regard to speech community (e.g. dialect). They should have similar extensions (i.e. there is no hypernym or hyponym relation between the words) and they should be similar in emotive meaning (Oversteegen & van Wijk, 2003). According to Oversteegen and van Wijk (2003), the more similar properties that apply, the more synonymous the words are. In fact, as previously mentioned, two words do not need to necessarily share all of their meanings to be synonyms. As matter of fact, language complies to principles of economy: there is no need in any language for two expressions which can be used arbitrarily in all contexts (Edgerton & Bloomfield, 1933). Hence, it is plausible to think that these subtle differences in meaning and connotation generated by the selection of different terms to refer to the same concept might influence framing and, in turn, personal interpretation of the reality presented.
However, in this case, attention will be devoted more specifically to the strategic linguistic vagueness adopted in the European immigration debate and the use of false synonyms: multiple words referring to slightly different concepts have been often wrongly treated as synonyms in the immigration discourse, potentially generating an harmful overlap between different actors.
In fact, in regard to terminology, in her study of the U.K. immigration debate Wodak (2006) illustrates how different concepts - “immigrant”, “refugee” - have been misused by the media, determining the production of terms as “illegal asylum-seekers”, “illegal refugees”, “economic refugees”, among the others. The arbitrary and inappropriate use of these terms,
which are referring to different underlying concepts, has shaped the immigration discourse. Hence, the publics’ ability to discern between the two distinct groups of migrants, incorrectly equating illegal immigration with the concept of “asylum-seeker/refugee”, has been hindered by the arbitrary use of these false synonyms. Differently from economic migrants and illegal immigrants, in fact, refugees benefit from a specific international status guaranteed by the 1951 Refugee Convention, United Nations multilateral treaty, which not only identifies specific eligibility clauses but states obligations and duties that have to be internationally undertaken by signatory States.
Hence, an explorative analysis will be conducted to identify the implications that the indistinct use of these false synonyms has for individuals’ attitudes towards people entering Europe. In the light of above, the two terms selected are “immigrant” and “refugee”.
H1: The use of different terminology to refer to people forced to leave their native countries has an positive/negative effect on the respondents’ attitude change towards migrants.
Aliens, tsunamis, toxic wastes, guests: the imagery around immigration
As far as framing is concerned, far from being considered a decorative device, metaphors play a relevant role especially in this regard, since they are the product of a selective cognitive operation through which elaborate realities are framed through reference to concrete domains to enable us to simplify, understand and discuss about abstract concepts (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). Extensive literature has considered the role of metaphors within political messages, since metaphors can both serve as a framing and reasoning device in shaping public discourse (Burgers, Konijn, & Steen, 2016).
First of all, metaphors are effective framing devices to influence the electorate’s opinion formation process due to the widely acknowledged impact in reducing
counterargument production and increasing agreement with the content of the message a person is exposed to (Guthrie, 1972). In fact, the process of understanding a metaphor generates disproportionate devolvement of the cognitive resources of a comprehender in understanding the persuasive message rather than rejecting the message presented:
metaphorically intense speeches induce greater attitude change than non metaphorical intense speeches (Siltanen, 1981).
Secondly, according to Schön (1979) and Entman (1993), metaphors not only have an impact on framing a social problem but also on shaping the debate to an auspicable solution. Generative metaphors, as named by Schön (1979), shape the debate already suggesting a direction for problem solving. Hence, metaphors may influence how the reader conceptualizes the immigration problem and how the issue is figuratively characterized and perceived can subsequently lead to legitimization of specific behavioral intentions to solve the problem.
In regard to metaphors, according the the holistic analysis conducted by Castaño
Castaño, Laso Martín and Verdaguer (2017), the figurative representation of immigration in the public discourse has revolved around a number of metaphors that primarily dehumanize immigrants: migrants are described as a natural catastrophe (e.g. flood, avalanche, tsunami, toxic wastes) with an uncontrollable destructive power (Charteris-Black, 2006; Cunningham-Parmeter, 2011), they are portrayed as animals (Ana, 1999) and objects (El Refaie, 2001) or as illegal aliens, invaders, criminals (Binotto, 2015; Cunningham-Parmeter, 2011), against whom the government must take action to defend national integrity. Hence, two are the main source domains employed in figurative language concerning immigration: natural catastrophes and armed conflicts, referring to the nation as fortress, whose borders have the function to protect from invasion (Charteris-Black, 2006), reinforcing personal sense of belonging and sense of
otherness when referring to migrants. Only occasionally, the metaphor of hospitality is evoked and immigrants are depicted as guests who benefit from the magnanimity of a host country (Castaño Castaño, Laso Martín & Verdaguer, 2017).
Hence, as far as figurative language is concerned, two are the main points of interest: presence of metaphorical language and type of metaphor used.
Initially, attention will be driven to the mere presence of metaphors in order to reassess the role of figurative language in fostering persuasion within the European immigration debate. In fact, as previously mentioned, the presence or the absence of metaphorical
language itself affects reader’s ability to be consistent over time and not change attitudes and behavioral intentions, proving them to be a relevant persuasive tool (Guthrie, 1972; Siltanen, 1981).
H2: Exposure to metaphorical language has a positive impact on respondents’ change in behavioral intentions, both in (a) their willingness to support military intervention policies and in (b) their willingness to support social and cultural inclusion policies.
The impact of cognitive and emotional predispositions
When it comes to the analysis of susceptibility to features in communication that influence attitude change, a large body of literature has focused on the personal characteristics that enhance or hinder psychological resistance to persuasiveness in political messages. Since also the effects of metaphorical language are highly dependent on personal features (Gibbs & Steen, 1999), some personal characteristics will be addressed in comprehending the
persuasive power of language use. More specifically, cognitive and emotional predispositions, as need-for-cognition and anxiety, are analyzed.
As far as cognitive predispositions are concerned, need-for-cognition is defined as the willingness to devote personal cognitive resources in thorough analysis and critical judgement of a messages received. The rationale at the basis of the decision to include this personal disposition is founded on two grounds. Firstly, previous literature has confirmed the role of need-for-cognition as a significant predictor in moderating resistance to persuasion by hindering attitude change (Haugtvedt & Petty, 1992; Cacioppo, Petty, & Morris, 1983) Secondly, analysis of need-for-cognition appears to be especially relevant when metaphorical language is included in the text: according to Guthrie (1972), changes in behavioral intentions are more likely to occur due to respondents’ consistent and disproportionate devolvement of cognitive resources in comprehension of metaphors.
In regard to emotions, consideration of emotional dispositions is particularly significant in presence of figurative language: emotions and metaphors are both cognitive processes of framing and, hence, mechanisms that can directly impact on personal attitudes (Ervas, Gola, & Rossi, 2017). In light of what is claimed by the affective intelligence theory, especially anxiety has a significant impact on attitude and behavioral intentions’ change given that “anxiety acts as an accelerator of openness to information” (Nai, Schemeil, & Marie, 2017, p.147), decreasing reliance on preformed attitudes and favoring openness toward new information and, in turn, susceptibility to manipulation (Brader, Valentino, & Suhay, 2008).
In the light of the above, the role of cognitive and emotional personal characteristics will be investigated in relation to exposure to metaphorical language.
H3: The interaction of exposure to metaphorical language, one’s level of need-for-cognition and one’s level of anxiety towards the phenomenon of immigration has a positive impact on respondents’ change behavioral intentions, both in (a) their willingness to support
military intervention policies and in (b) their willingness to support social and cultural inclusion policies.
As anticipated, a second level of analysis will be devoted to the impact different types of metaphors have on respondents’ behavioral intentions. In fact, according to Schön (1979) and Entman (1993), the way in which an issue is verbally described through figurative language often implicitly entails a suggested solution to the problem itself. Hence, attention is driven to the influence played by different figurative language on actions that electors are potentially willing to undertake to tackle a specific problem.
In this setting, metaphorical language using the source domain of armed conflicts to depict migrants as invaders might logically induce people to implement their support for military intervention policies. On the contrary, the use of figurative language portraying migrants as a natural catastrophe, that can not be completely prevented or controlled, might induce stronger acceptance of the phenomenon and, hence, favor support for policies aimed at social and cultural integration in an attempt to restrict the potential damages.
H4: (a) People exposed to the version depicting migrants as invaders are more inclined to support military policies in comparison to respondents exposed to the version using the natural catastrophe metaphor and, viceversa, (b) people exposed to the version using the natural catastrophe metaphor are more inclined to support social and cultural inclusion policies in comparison to respondents exposed to the version using the invader metaphor.
Rhetorics and semantics: joint effects
As a final step, given the exiguity of previous research on the topic, explorative analyses of the effects of the interaction between semantics and rhetorics in the immigration debate will
be conducted, in order to understand whether semantic connotations and figurative language interact in influencing public opinion.
RQ1: Does the interaction between semantic and rhetorical features have an impact on (a) attitudes towards immigration and on respondent’s behavioral intentions, both on (b) their willingness to support military intervention policies and on (c) their willingness to support social and cultural inclusion policies?
Method Section
Design
The design is a survey-embedded experiment. An online survey was constructed and further on shared online - especially on social network platforms (e.g. Facebook and LinkedIn) - in order to reach as many respondents as possible. The study uses a 2 (immigrants VS refugees) x 2 (migrants as aliens invaders VS migrants as a natural catastrophe) between-subjects factorial design experiment with random assignment of participants to the four distinct treatment conditions. Additionally to these four conditions, a control condition has also been included: it is characterized by the absence of metaphors within the text and immigrants/ refugees have been referred to as “people leaving/fleeing their own country”, with a periphrasis rather than a specific lexical item.
Sample
A self-selected sample of 201 adults responded to the survey administered through the online platform Qualtrics. In order to enhance the number of respondents, the possibility of winning three 15 euro bonus cards on Amazon.com was offered to participants. The only exclusion criterion was age: minors were excluded form the survey. All respondents were between the
ages of 18 and 74 (M = 27.16, SD = 10.43). As far as gender is concerned, a female predominance characterized the sample (62%): only 38% of respondents were male. Information concerning country of origin and educational background were also gathered: respondents declared to live in 37 different countries and the majority came from Italy (54.2%), the Netherlands (7.5%) and Germany (5%). As concerns the educational
background, the majority of respondents (50.7%) has achieved a Bachelor degree and, in regard to their employment status, students constituted the largest group (65.2%). Given that the survey analyzed the linguistic dimension of verbal communication, also data on
respondents’ level of proficiency with the English language have been collected: the majority of respondents (85.6%) declared not to be a native English speaker.
Description of manipulation
For the stimulus materials, a fictive letter was created. It has been idealized as part of a strategic communication plan designed by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and it has been written as a call-to-action for European citizens and primarily addressed to the editors of the most important English and international newspapers.
Given the aim of the research, the equivalence frame was adopted in producing the stimulus materials. Hence, the five different letters presented to the respondents as stimuli are equal in content, length and presence and disposal of text and images. All the information provided by the letters have been ad-hoc invented, except for the data provided by the infographics: they have been taken from the World Disaster Report 2012 infographics by the Irish Red Cross and integrated with the letter in order to provide the readers with a faithful rendering of a letter/press release by the ICRC.
features of the message. The four different treatment versions differ according to the specific terminology used to address migrants (immigrants VS refugees) and the metaphorical
language used to present the phenomenon of immigration (migrants as aliens invaders VS migrants as a natural catastrophe), as graphically shown in Table 1. Special mention should be given to the use of the metaphorical language: not only migrants have been directly addressed as either alines invading Western countries or natural catastrophes (e.g. avalanche, tsunami, flood), but also the selection of adjectives and verbs has been adapted throughout the whole text to enhance the figurative power of the message. As previously mentioned, in the control condition, migrants have been referred to with a periphrasis, as “people feeling their native country”, and this experimental condition lacks of metaphorical language describing the situation these people are facing.
Table 1
Notes. Graphic representation of the design of the experiment, with the four treatment conditions
respondents have been exposed to. A fifth condition, the control condition, has also been added to control for the effects of two dimensions analyzed.
Aliens invading Western countries
Natural catastrophes damaging Europe
Immigrants
In this experimental condition, respondents have been exposed to a version of the letter repeatedly addressing migrants as hordes of immigrants,
invading Western countries.
In this experimental condition, respondents read a version of the letter always referring at people fleeing their native countries as
immigrant and depicting them as a
tsunami, avalanche or any other destructive natural catastrophe.
Refugees
In this experimental condition, respondents read a version of the letter addressing people forced to leave their countries as hordes of refugees, invading
Western countries.
In this experimental condition, respondents have been exposed to a version of the letter referring at migrants as refugees and depicting them as a tsunami, avalanche or any other destructive natural
Furthermore, the fictional letter presents four strategic components.
In the first instance, the letter is supposedly written by Charlotte Lindsey-Curtet, Director of Communication and Information Management of the ICRC. The rationale at the basis of this selection is that the aim was to create a nonpartisan letter, dealing with the phenomenon of immigration with the most neutral and unbiased tone. In this sense, the ICRC represents an international organization operating outside the nationalistic logics of politics and merely focusing on internationally guaranteeing respect for basic and inalienable humans rights.
Secondly, the letter has been written as a call-to-action to sensitize European citizens. Given that the aim of the research is also to test the impact of semantics and rhetorics also on respondents’ behavioral intentions, participants have been expressly induced to to reflect on the actions they would take. However, in order to preserve the neutral tone of the letter and merely focus on the persuasive power of the linguistic features, respondents were not invited to take up any specific action to help migrants: rather, they were suggested to gather
information concerning the immigration crisis Europe is currently facing that might enable them to form a clearer personal opinion on the topic, that, in turn, might facilitate them to make clearer decisions on the actions they personally would like to undertake.
Additionally, the verbal content of the message has been paired with photographic content: material by the photojournalist Massimo Sestini as well as infographics from official press statements by the ICRC have been added to enhance the credibility of the letter.
Lastly, the letter has been put into context. A fictional scenario has been invented in order to make the request to carefully read the letter more meaningful to the respondents. Participants have been told that the letter was sent by the Director of Communication and Information Management of the ICRC to a far-right newspaper as part of a strategic campaign
aimed at sensitizing European citizen about the currently ongoing migration crisis. The news-paper director - who asked for anonymity - is supposedly deciding whether to publish the call-to-action.
Further specifications and graphical representations of the stimuli are provided in Appendix A.
Procedure
After initial acceptance of the ethical consent form for data treatment, respondents have firstly been exposed to questions regarding their level of political sophistication, their personal attitudes towards the issue of immigration and their behavioral intentions. Subsequently, data concerning personal level of need-for-cognition and emotional dispositions towards the issue have been addressed. With a more general perspective on the structure of the questionnaire, given the absence of a pre-test, moderator variables have been tested prior exposure to the stimulus material. After exposure to the stimulus, participants have been presented with questions checking that manipulation material had been correctly perceived by participants. Additionally, to support the fictive scenario in which the letter has been inserted, respondents have been exposed to a distractor question asking to imagine what they would have done with the letter if they were the far-right newspaper editor in order to confound them about the scope of the research. After repeated collection of data concerning attitudes and behavioral intentions towards the topic, respondents answered a battery of questions regarding
Measures
Dependent variables
The two dependent variables considered - Attitudes towards immigration and Behavioral intentions - have been measured both prior and post exposure to the stimulus material in order to analyze changes in these two aspects depending respondents’ sensibility to semantic and rhetorical selections in the verbal communication.
Attitudes towards immigration have been tested through an adaptation of the scale proposed by Veer et al. (2008), the Attitude toward Unauthorized Migration Scale, in combination with the scale employed by Schweitzer et al. (2005), in their attempt to test attitudes toward refugees in Australia. Additional information concerning the measurements scale can be found in Appendix B.
Principal axis factoring analysis was conducted to test the validity of scale composed by the six items considered (KMO = .86, Bartlett’s test of sphericity: χ2 (15) = 449.76,
p = .001) and all the items loaded on one factor and the scale proved to be reliable (α = .84, M = 2.53, SD = .84).
Behavioral intentions have been tested as a latent construct with a measurement scale designed in order to cover two different strategies the might be adopted to address the
problem of immigration by respondents: favorableness toward actions concerning military intervention and national defense and actions pointing toward social, cultural and economic inclusion of migrants. Description of all the items employed to measure this construct can be found in Appendix B.
After factorability of the six items composing this scale items was examined
analysis was conducted to test the validity of the scale. As expected, the items loaded on two factors: Support for military intervention policies (α = .81, M = 3.87, SD = .64) and Support for social and cultural activities (α = .64, M = 2.78, SD = .61) and the scales created proved to be valid and reliable.
Independent variables
As previously mentioned, the independent variables are the semantical and rhetorical selections made in order to create the stimulus materials, hence, lexicon (immigrants VS refugees) and metaphorical language (aliens invading Western countries VS natural catastrophe). The effectiveness of the manipulation material created to operationalize the independent variables has been thoroughly tested through a pilot test, in which quantitative and qualitative analyses have enabled final improvements. Additional information can be found in Appendix C. Furthermore, analyses of association have been conducted in order to control whether the improved version of the stimuli was effective. Further information about the manipulation checks can be found in Appendix D.
Moderators
In this research, need-for-cognition and emotional dispositions have been included as moderator variables.
Need-for-cognition has been measured as a latent construct through an adaptation of the NC 18-items scale by Cacioppo, Petty and Feng Kao (1984). Only four items have been included from the selected scale in order to avoid reducing attentiveness of the respondents due to the length of the questionnaire. The list of the selected items can be found in
Appendix B.
After having tested the the factorability of the four items composing the scale (KMO = .60, Bartlett’s test of sphericity: χ2 (6) = 32.95, p = .002), a principal axis factoring
analysis was conducted. All the items loaded on one factor. As far as the reliability of the scale is concerned, the unsatisfactory level of reliability (α = .43, M = 2.48, SD = .72) is
compensated by the fact that all the items have been selected from an already validated scale. Emotional dispositions (anxiety) has been measured using an adapted scale by Watson, Clark and Tellegen (1988). Respondents were asked to expressed how anxious hey felt when thinking about the issue of immigration, as in Appendix B.
Principal axis factoring analysis was conducted to test the validity of the scale composed by the six items considered (KMO = .73, Bartlett’s test of sphericity: χ2 (6) =
305.57, p =.003) and all the items loaded on one factor and the scale proved to be reliable (α = .81, M = 2.08, SD = .83).
Results
Immigrants, refugees, asylum-seekers: many terms, one concept?
In order to test H1, a regression analysis was conducted to examine whether the semantic selections made within the immigration debate have a significant effect on respondents’ attitude change towards people forced to leave their countries.
The semantic dimension is not a significant predictor of attitude change, B = -.65, SE = .07, β = -.07, p = .376, as reported in Appendix E (Table 1). Hence, no variance in attitude change is explained by referring to migrants as “immigrants” or “refugees”.
Aliens, tsunamis, toxic wastes, guests: the imagery around immigration
In H2 the interest is in understanding whether people exposed to the version containing
metaphorical language displayed behavioral intention change both in their (a) support for military intervention and in their (b) support for activities aiming at social and cultural inclusion of migrants in comparison to people exposed to the version lacking in metaphorical
language.
In regard to H2a, the presence of figurative language is not a significant predictor of the respondent’s change in willingness to support military intervention, B = .06, SE = .15, β = .03, p = .718, as shown in Appendix E (Table 2).
Additionally, the use of metaphorical language does not influence either the readers’ willingness or reluctancy to support activities and policies aiming at better inclusion of migrants in our society (H2b), B = .14, SE = .13, β = .08, p = .284, as reported in Appendix E (Table 3).
Hence, the presence of metaphorical language overall does not influence respondents’ change in behavioral intentions.
In H3, two variables that are expected to influence the impact of metaphorical language of behavioral intentions are added to the previous model: emotional dispositions and need-for-cognition. A linear regression analysis was conducted to test H3 and assess the role of cognitive and emotional dispositions on the relation between exposure to metaphorical language and change in behavioral intentions: both (a) in supporting military intervention policies and (b) in supporting inclusion policies.
In the case of H3a, despite emotional dispositions proved to be a significant predictor by negatively affecting one’s change in willingness to support military intervention, B = -.46, SE= .07, β = -.45, p = .000, the interaction between the three indicators considered was a non significant indicator of variance in respondents’ change in behavioral intentions, B = .05, SE= .23, β = .21, p = .816.
As reported in Appendix E (Table 2), it is possible to assume that there is a spurious relationship between emotional dispositions and change in support for military intervention,
since, when the interaction with need-for-cognition and exposure to metaphorical language are included, the indicator is not significant anymore, B = -.68, SE= .62, β= -.67, p =. 279.
Similarly, in the case of H3b, the level of anxiety of respondents proved to be the only significant predictor, negatively affecting their change of support of inclusion policies, B = -. 27, SE= .06,
β = -.32, p = .000, as reported in Appendix E (Table 3). Therefore, variance in respondent’s change in their willingness to support inclusion activities and policies for migrants is not explained by the interaction of exposure to metaphorical language, need-for-cognition and emotional dispositions, B = .04, SE= .21, β= .18, p =.847. Also in this case special mention should be given to the spurious relationship between change in support for inclusion policies and anxiety, whose significance is hindered by the interaction with exposure to metaphorical language and need-for-cognition, B = .70, SE= .55, β = -.81, p =.210.
After having tested the effect of figurative language on respondent’s behavioral intentions, the focus is driven towards the impact of the two different typologies of figurative language on the behavioral intentions of the participants. In H4, expectations are that (a) respondents exposed to the version of the letter in which the representative of the Red Cross was
addressing migrants with the metaphor depicting them as aliens invading Europe are more prone to support military intervention compared to the participants exposed to the version containing the natural catastrophe metaphor; vice versa, (b) respondents exposed to the version of the letter portraying migrants as tsunamis, floods and avalanches are more inclined to support inclusive social and cultural activities compared to the participants exposed to the version containing the previous metaphor.
make respondents more inclined to support military intervention in comparison to the
figurative language addressing migrants as natural catastrophes, B = -.08, SE= .14, β = -.05, p =.575. In Appendix E (Table 5), B, SE, β and p values are provided.
Also in the case of H4b, the metaphorical language used to refer to people forced to leave their countries is not a significant predictor of variance in change to support activities and policies aimed at integration of migrants in our society, B = -.14, SE= .12 β= -.10, p =.215, as reported in Appendix E (Table 6).
Rhetorics and semantics: joint effects
As far as the effects of the interaction between semantic and rhetoric selections are concerned, explorative analyses have been conducted.
More in detail, a linear regression analysis was conducted to test the effects of the interaction of the semantic and rhetorical selections considered on (a) attitudes towards immigration. Despite the type of figurative language used to refer to migrants has proven to significantly predict the variance in attitude change, B = .16, SE= .07, β= .17, p = .030, the interaction between semantical and rhetorical features is not a significant predictor of the change in attitudes, B = -.22, SE = .14, β = -.21, p = .123, as reported in Appendix E (Table 4).
Additionally, an explorative linear regression analysis has been conducted also to assess the potential effects of the interaction of the semantics and rhetorics on
respondents’ (b) willingness to support military intervention and on (c) willingness to support social and cultural inclusive activities. Neither the semantic or the rhetoric dimension, nor the interaction of the selected semantic and rhetoric feature, B = -.11, SE = .27, β = -.06, p = .681, have a significant influence on (b) willingness to support military intervention, as reported in
Appendix E (Table 5). Similar results have also been found as far as (c) support social and cultural activities and policies aiming at better integration of migrants: neither the semantic or the rhetoric dimension, nor the interaction of the semantic and rhetoric features in the
message, B = -.07, SE =.23 β = -.04, p = .751, are significant predictors. In Appendix E (Table 6) , B, SE, β and p values are provided.
Discussion
The aim of this research project was to assess the effect of semantics and rhetorics in influencing public opinion and behavioral intentions towards the current European
immigration crisis, in the light of the role personal characteristics play in susceptibility to the persuasive power of linguistic features.
Results revealed that respondents’ attitudes are not affected by the different
terminology used to refer to people fleeing their countries. This might be due to the fact that the inappropriate use of these terms by the media has manipulated the immigration discourse to the point that the public opinion is not able to distinguish anymore the difference between the two underlying concepts (Wodak, 2006): the concepts have wrongly been assimilated as synonyms to the point that respondents are nowadays incapable to even distinguish the exact term used in the public discourse.
In regard to metaphorical language, neither the presence of figurative language nor the type of metaphorical language employed seem to effect respondents’ behavioral intentions. However, metaphors had a significant effect on attitudes: when migrants are depicted as aliens invading Europe, respondents’ attitudes become more negative. The degree of harshness of the dehumanizing metaphorical language, hence, has an impact on the professed attitudes, even though no significant impact on behavioral intentions was found. Hence, despite
potential effects on attitudes, different strategical selections might be needed in the
immigration discourse to induce a significant shift in public opinion that might, in turn, effect also the actions respondents’ might want to undertake.
Additionally, special mention needs to be given to the role of need-for-cogntion and emotional dispositions. Contrastingly with the findings by Nai et al. (2017) and Brader et al. (2008), anxiety doesn’t not act as an accelerator of openness to information. It negatively affects willingness to undertake both military actions and social and cultural activities, hindering active participation of citizens and proving also the supremacy of the emotive dimension over cognitive characteristics in influencing public opinion’s behavioral intentions. Need-for-cognition, does not per se have a significant impact, even though, when these two dimensions are considered together, devolution of cognitive resources in understanding a message hinders the persuasive power of emotional predispositions, implying that critical reading and analytical comprehension of the text override the power of emotional
predispositions towards the topic.
In regard to joint effects of semantical and rhetorical selections, results revealed that the interaction these linguistic features does not influence change in attitudes or behavioral intentions.
As far as the limitations are concerned, the research project conducted is not free from potential flaws. Two are the major points that leave room for improvement and might inspire further research in the field.
Not only the exiguity of the sample might have hindered potential significant findings, but the selected sample presents also clear biases to begin with. In fact, it is a non-random sample, characterized by a significant percentage of Italian female respondents, currently
studying. This homogeneity might represent a limitation to the findings of this research, especially if considered the plausible significant role played by personal characteristics on the impact that the linguistic features considered might have had on the the participants. In fact, according to Bosman (1987), when analyzing language use in persuasion gender might play a significant role: sensitivity to language is often attributed more to women than men and, hence, the effects of metaphors are more likely to be pronounced for female respondents then for male respondents. Additionally, the sample was particularly homogeneous also as far as language proficiency is concerned: the majority of respondents were non-native speakers and differences between native and non-native speakers could be expected in the light of the findings provided by Castaño Castaño, Laso Martín and Verdaguer (2017). In fact, learners are not always conscious of the connotations that metaphors may convey. Hence, rhetorical strategies in persuasive messages might generate different implications for learners. While the homogeneity of these two aspects might have represented a limitation to the study, future research analyzing the role of personal characteristics in sensibility to persuasive language could consider the role these personal characteristics play in reception and acceptance of persuasive political messages.
On a final note, generalization of the results found in this study is hindered by the specific semantical and rhetorical selections made: just two of the in numerous terms and metaphors used to refer to people migrating have been analyzed in this study. The possibility that different selection might highlight significant impact of these linguistic features on attitudes and behavioral intentions should not be discarded.
Conclusion
The picture obtained helps to affirm that rhetorics still plays a significant role in persuasion through verbal communication and, as far as semantics are concerned, that the abuse by politicians and media practitioners of terms originally referring to specific concepts has blurred the meaning of the underlying concepts to the point that the public opinion is no longer able to distinguish the terminology use and, in turn, its implications.
Future research could focus on the failure of news-media and European institutions in adopting a correct linguistic categorization of the actors part of the immigration crisis and on strategies to re-educate the media and the public opinion on the importance of the use of language specifically in the immigration debate. Additional attention could also be devoted to the role of English as lingua franca and the political implications that the use of a non-native language by many European citizens or of translations might have for the conceptualization of the problems characterizing the international political arena and for assimilation of
information and decision-making processes.
Additionally, understanding how to mitigate the significant impact of powerful emotions paralyzing the public opinion in favor of a more rational realization of the immigration crisis in Europe might enable the implementation of effective communication strategies by governments, as well as NGOs, favoring the potential resolution of the current crisis.
References
Ana, O. S. (1999). Like an Animal I Was Treated': Anti-immigrant Metaphor in US Public Discourse. Discourse & society, 10(2), 191-224. doi: 10.1177/0957926599010002004 Aristotle, U. (2004). Rhetoric. Kessinger Publishing.
Barker, D. C., & Hansen, S. B. (2005). All Things Considered: Systematic Cognitive Processing and Electoral Decision making. Journal of Politics, 67(2), 319-344. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2508.2005.00319.x
Binotto, M. (2015). Invaders, Aliens and Criminals: Metaphors and Spaces in the Media Definition of Migration and Security Policies. In Bond, E., Bonsaver, G., & Faloppa, F. (Eds.), Destination Italy: Representing Migration in Contemporary Media and
Narrative (pp. 31-58). Oxford: Peter Lang.
Brader, T., Valentino, N. A., & Suhay, E. (2008). What Triggers Public Opposition to Immigration? Anxiety, Group Cues, and Immigration Threat. American Journal of Political Science, 52(4), 959-978. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00353.x
Bosman, J. (1987). Persuasive effects of political metaphors. Metaphor and Symbol, 2(2), 97-113. doi: 10.1207/s15327868ms0202_2
Burgers, C., Konijn, E. A., & Steen, G. J. (2016). Figurative framing: Shaping Public Discourse Through Metaphor, Hyperbole, and Irony. Communication Theory, 26(4), 410-430. doi: 10.1111/comt.12096
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Morris, K. J. (1983). Effects of Need for Cognition on Message Evaluation, Recall, and Persuasion. Journal of personality and social psychology, 45(4), 805-818. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.805
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Feng Kao, C. (1984). The Efficient Assessment of Need for Cognition. Journal of personality assessment, 48(3), 306-307. doi: 10.1207/
s15327752jpa4803_13
Carnaghi, A., Maass, A., Gresta, S., Bianchi, M., Cadinu, M., & Arcuri, L. (2008). Nomina Sunt Omina: On the Inductive Potential of Nouns and Adjectives in Person Perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 839-859.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.94.5.839
Carney, D. R., Jost, J. T., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008). The Secret Lives of Liberals and Conservatives: Personality Profiles, Interaction Styles, and the Things They Leave Behind. Political Psychology, 29(6), 807-840. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00668.x Castaño Castaño, E., Laso Martín, N. J., & Verdaguer, I. (2018). Immigration metaphors in a
corpus of legal English: An exploratory study of EAL learners’ metaphorical production and awareness. Quaderns De Filologia - Estudis Lingüístics, 22(22), 245-272.
doi: 10.7203/qf.22.11310
Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212-252). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Charteris-Black, J. (2006). Britain as a container: Immigration metaphors in the 2005 election campaign. Discourse & Society, 17(5), 563-581. doi: 10.1177/0957926506066345 Cichocka, A., Bilewicz, M., Jost, J. T., Marrouch, N., & Witkowska, M. (2016). On the
grammar of politics - Or why conservatives prefer nouns. Political Psychology, 37(6), 799-815. doi: 10.1111/pops.12327
Cunningham-Parmeter, K. (2011). Alien language: Immigration Metaphors and the Jurisprudence of Otherness. Immigr. & Nat'lity L. Rev., 32, 613.
Edgerton, F., & Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 53(3), 295-297. doi: 10.2307/594409
El Refaie, E. (2001). Metaphors We Discriminate by: Naturalised Themes in Austrian Newspaper Articles about Asylum seekers. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 5(3), 352-371. doi: 10.1111/1467-9481.00154
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of communication, 43(4), 51-58. doi: 0.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
Ervas F., Gola, E. & Rossi M. G. (2017). Metaphor in Communication, Science and Education. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Evans, J. S. (1984). Heuristic and analytic processes in reasoning. British Journal of Psychology, 75(4), 451-468. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1984.tb01915.x
Evans, J. S. (2014). Two minds rationality. Thinking & Reasoning, 20(2), 129-146, doi: 10.1080/13546783.2013.845605
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Gibbs, R. W., & Steen, G. J. (1999). Metaphor in cognitive linguistics: Selected Papers from the 5th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Amsterdam, 1997. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Guthrie, M. (1972). Effects of credibility, metaphor, and intensity on comprehension, credibility, and attitude change. Unpublished master’s thesis, Illinois State University.
Haugtvedt, C. P., & Petty, R. E. (1992). Personality and persuasion: Need for Cognition Moderates the Persistence and Resistance of Attitude Changes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(2), 308–319. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.63.2.308
Hilgartner, S., & Bosk, C. L. (1988). The Rise and Fall of Social Problems: A Public Arenas Model. American Journal of Sociology, 94(1), 53-78. doi: 10.1086/228951
Huddy, L., & Terkildsen, N. (1993). Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37(1), 119-147.
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. (2003). Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375.
doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decisions under Risk. Econometrica, 47(1), 263–291. doi: 10.2307/1914185
Klofstad, C.A. (2016). Candidate voice pitch influences election outcomes. Political Psychology, 37(5), 725-738. doi: 10.1111/pops.12280
Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied cognitive psychology, 5(3), 213-236. doi: 10.1002/acp. 2350050305
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2001). Advantages and Disadvantages of Cognitive Heuristics in Political Decision Making. American Journal of Political Science, 951- 971.
Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2006). How Voters Decide Information Processing in Election Campaigns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Laustsen, L., & Petersen, M. B. (2016). Winning Faces Vary by Ideology: How Nonverbal Source Cues Influence Election and Communication Success in Politics. Political Communication, 33(2), 188-211. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2015.1050565
Lippmann, W. (2017). Public Opinion. New York, NY: Routledge.
Menegatti, M., & Rubini, M. (2013). Convincing similar and dissimilar others: The power of language abstraction in political communication. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(5), 596–607. doi: 10.1177/0146167213479404
Miller, B. J., & Lundgren, J.D. (2010). An Experimental Study of the Role of Weight Bias in Candidate Evaluation. Obesity, 18(4), 712-718. doi: 10.1038/oby.2009.492
Nai, A., Schemeil, Y., & Marie, J. L. (2017). Anxiety, Sophistication, and Resistance to Persuasion: Evidence from a Quasi-Experimental Survey on Global Climate Change. Political Psychology, 38(1), 137-156. doi: 10.1111/pops.12331
Oversteegen, L., & van Wijk, C. (2003). Lexical alternation versus word repetition: The effects of synonyms on reading time, text appreciation, and persuasiveness. Document Design, 4(2), 150-167. doi: 10.1038/oby.2009.492
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). Source Factors and the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. In Thomas C. Kinnear (Ed.), NA - Advances in Consumer Research (pp. 668-672). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Rheindorf, M., & Wodak, R. (2018). Borders, Fences, and Limits - Protecting Austria from refugees: Metadiscursive Negotiation of Meaning in the Current Refugee Crisis.
Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 16(1-2), 15-38. doi: 10.1080/15562948.2017.1302032
Schön, D. A. (1979). Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem-setting in social policy. In Anthony Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (pp. 137-163). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Schweitzer, R., Perkoulidis, S., Krome, S., Ludlow, C., & Ryan, M. (2005). Attitudes Towards Refugees: The Dark Side of Prejudice in Australia. Australian Journal of Psychology, 57(3), 170-179. doi: 10.1080/00049530500125199
Siltanen, S. A. (1981). The Persuasiveness of Metaphor: A Replication and Extension. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 47(1), 67-83.
doi: 10.1080/10417948109372515
Slatcher, R. B., Chung, C. K., Pennebaker, J. W., & Stone, L. D. (2007). Winning Words: Individual Differences in Linguistic Style among US Presidential and Vice Presidential Candidates. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(1), 63– 75.
doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2006.01.006
Thorbjørnsrud, K. (2015). Framing Irregular Immigration in Western Media. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(7), 771-782. doi: 10.1177/0002764215573255
United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Status of Refugees and Stateless Persons, 1951 Geneva. (1951). Final Act and Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. New York: United Nations.
Veer, K. V., Ommundsen, R., Krumov, K., Le, H. V., & Larsen, K. S. (2008). Scale
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49(4), 357-363. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2008.00641.x
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and Validation of Brief
Measures of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales. American Psychological Association, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070.
Wodak, R. (2006). Mediation between discourse and society: Assessing cognitive approaches in CDA. Discourse Studies, 8(1), 179-190. doi: 10.1177/1461445606059566
Zipf, G. K. (1972). Human behaviour and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology. New York, NY: Hafner Publishing.
Appendix A Stimulus materials
Experimental group 1 - People fleeing their native countries have been referred to as immigrants and depicted as aliens invading Western countries.
Experimental group 2 - People forced to leave their native countries have been referred to as immigrants and depicted as a natural catastrophe.
Experimental group 3 - People leaving their native countries have been referred to as refugees and depicted as aliens invading Western countries.
Experimental group 4 - People forced to leave their native countries have been referred to as refugees and depicted as a natural catastrophe.
Appendix B Survey
Dependent variables
The scales employed to measure these two constructs - Attitudes towards immigration and Behavioral intentions - present 6 items on a 5-point Likert scale. However, two filler items - different in the pre and post measurements - have been added to both scales in order to confound the respondent about the scope of the research and hinder recognition of the repetition of the same measurement scales. For the same reason, the display of the items has been randomized and a selection of items has been negatively rephrased in the post-exposure measurements.
Attitudes towards immigration
Please, express to what extent you agree - on a scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree - with these statements:
- It is not justifiable to move to other countries in order to find better living conditions. - The rich nations in the world should not keep their borders open for illegal immigrants. - Immigrants are displacing jobs.
- I believe that refugees benefit more from subsidies in comparison to people living below poverty in my country.
- Refugees should learn to conform to the rules and norms of the hosting country as soon as possible after they arrive.
Filler items in the measurement scale prior exposure to the stimulus - Terroristic attacks are the consequences of uncontrolled immigration.
- The European Union should promote policies to military counter the flows of immigrants entering Europe.
Filler items in the measurement scale post exposure to the stimulus - All immigrants should be accepted, no matter theirs country of origin.
- I believe that the intake of immigrants has increased the crime rate in my country.
Behavioral intentions
Please, indicate - on a scale from extremely unlikely to extremely likely - how likely it is that the situations described by the following statements could occur to you:
- I would support policies promoting hard borders.
- I would support military intervention to prevent people from fleeing their country. - I would support rejection of all illegal immigrants.
- I would not support activities aiming at fostering cultural and social integration of migrants. - I would support resettlement schemes to fairly relocate migrants in Europe.
- I would support help requests to other neighboring countries and international organizations to deal with the considerable flow of immigrants entering Europe.
Filler items in the measurement scale prior exposure to the stimulus
- I would support parties favoring the exclusion of immigrants from our local community. - I would personally organize committees to welcome refugees.
Filler items in the measurement scale post exposure to the stimulus - I would take part in activities organized by the Red Cross to help immigrants. - I would never support cultural integration between locals and refugees.
Moderator variables
Need-for-cognition has been measured with 4 items on a 5-point Likert scale.
Please, indicate - on a scale from extremely uncharacteristic to extremely characteristic - the extent to which these statements represent you:
- I prefer to think about small, daily projects to long-term ones.
- I try to anticipate and avoid situations where there is likely chance I will have to think in depth about something.
- I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new solutions to problems.
- I feel relief rather than satisfaction after completing a task that required a lot of mental effort.
Emotional dispositions have been measured with 4 items on a 5-point Likert scale. Please, indicate to what extent these adjectives represent your emotional status when thinking about immigration:
When I think about the current immigration flow in my country, I feel … - afraid
- worried - anxious - nervous
Manipulation check
a. In the text you have just read, the exact word to refer to people leaving their native country is:
- Asylum-seekers - Immigrants
- Refugees
- No specific terminology, just as people fleeing/leaving their native countries - I don’t remember
b. In the text you have just read, migrants have been metaphorically depicted as: - Aliens invading Western countries
- A natural catastrophe (e.g. flood, tsunami, avalanche) - No metaphorical language has been used
- Other
- I don’t remember
Distractor question
Try to identify yourself with the newspaper's editor. What would you do?
- I would not publish the letter, even if it is from an authoritative voice of the international scenario: it is in strong disagreement with the ideology supported by the newspaper. - Besides my personal political orientation, I would publish this letter. It's a strong call-to-action for the most important social and economical problem Europe is currently facing. - I would use this letter as an inspiration and dedicate an entire special edition to the phenomenon of immigration in Europe.
