Framing refugees: experimental evidence from the United States, Canada, and Australia

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 (<i>n</i> = 3656), Canada (<i>n</i> = 2604), and Australia (<i>n</i> = 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.