Decision-Making Mistakes in Asylum Policy: A Comparative Study of Public Opinion

Asylum policies present decision-makers with a difficult trade-off between falsely rejecting deserving applicants (false negatives) and falsely accepting undeserving ones (false positives). How does the public view this dilemma? Using original survey data from 26 countries ( n = 27,429), this study provides novel evidence on public attitudes regarding these two types of errors. Our analysis reveals a complex landscape of public opinion: the largest single group of respondents (nearly 40%) considers both mistakes to be equally serious, declining to prioritize one over the other. Among those who do choose, there is a significant preference for avoiding false negatives. We find that these distinct positions are not random. Attitudes on this issue are strongly associated with overall asylum policy preferences, and key predictors such as welfare chauvinism, nativism, and political ideology systematically distinguish those who prioritize false negatives, those who prioritize false positives, and those who view both errors as equally grave. These findings highlight that public support for the international refugee regime is shaped by at least three distinct viewpoints on administrative fairness, providing crucial insights for policymaking on asylum and immigration.