Abstract

Introduction: Attitudes toward immigration are often shaped by whether immigrants are perceived as a threat to one's racial, ethnic, or nativity group status. Yet recent research shows that such perceptions vary not only between different groups but also within them. Drawing on Moral Foundations Theory, our study investigates the moral intuitions that lead some individuals to view immigrants as threats and others to see them as deserving of care and support.

Methods: Using data from a national YouGov survey of 4000 US respondents, we examined the association between moral intuitions and attitudes toward immigration, including whether immigration should be a human right and support for higher levels of immigration.

Results: We find that people with strong individualizing intuitions—including those emphasizing care and fairness—are more likely to support immigration. In contrast, those with strong binding intuitions—especially those emphasizing a respect for authority and sanctity—are less supportive, likely reflecting concerns about maintaining the rule of law and apprehensions about outsiders.

Conclusion: These findings highlight the importance of moral frameworks in shaping public attitudes toward immigration. Differences in individualizing versus binding moral intuitions help explain why some individuals view immigrants primarily through a lens of care and fairness, while others emphasize social order and the importance of maintaining boundaries.