Abstract

How does othering political rhetoric aimed at immigrants influence domestic populations’ approval of providing government assistance to immigrants? Utilizing an experimental research design this study examines how three forms of othering political rhetoric (criminalization, massification, dehumanization) impact individuals' approval of immigrants receiving government assistance. Grounded in framing theory and political psychology scholarship on emotions and information processing, this study argues that threat-based frames would increase feelings of anxiety and fear and thus reduce approval levels. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups and asked to read a news excerpt that was either the control article or that contained one of the forms of othering rhetoric before completing a survey.

The findings do not support the hypothesized direct relationship between exposure to othering rhetoric and respondents’ policy preferences. Nor do they demonstrate that othering rhetoric significantly increased respondents’ feelings of anxiety or fear. However, higher levels of anxiety and fear were significantly associated with lower levels of approval for immigrants receiving government assistance and lower levels of approval for immigration admission and citizenship policies. This suggests that previously held emotions play a significant role in shaping attitudes toward immigrants’ deservingness of government support. This study contributes to the literature, by identifying limits to short-term exposure effects in experimental research and highlighting the role of emotions in shaping public opinion.

Advisor

Leiby, Michele

Department

Political Science

Publication Date

2026

Degree Granted

Bachelor of Arts

Document Type

Senior Independent Study Thesis

Download

Share

COinS
 

© Copyright 2026 Kameryn Nelson