2025/06/26 by Isabel Williams Skinner, Timothy B. Gravelle · 1 voice
Social Sciences · Psychology · #Migration, Refugees, and Integration #Migration, Health and Trauma #Migration and Labor Dynamics
paper · doi:10.1080/17457289.2025.2514201
openalex publication_date 2025/06/26 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/23
The acceptance and resettlement of humanitarian migrants is a politically charged issue in many western democracies. Still, research focusing specifically on attitudes toward humanitarian migrants is limited. Political elites have sought to frame would-be refugees in different ways, with some emphasizing the need for a humanitarian response, and others portraying migrants as a threat to national security. Our research examines the extent to which the framing of would-be refugees shapes public attitudes toward refugee policy. We present results from an online survey-based experiment conducted in parallel in the United States (n = 3656), Canada (n = 2604), and Australia (n = 3608). Across these three country contexts, we show that framing refugees as potential terrorists – and therefore a threat – increases support for more restrictive refugee policies. By contrast, a sympathetic frame describing refugees as including families fleeing violence decreases support for more restrictive policies. At the same time, the efficacy of such frames varies across countries.