Uncovering Mutual Understanding on Immigration with Open-Ended Survey Questions

Bibliographic Data

ID19213616
AuthorsSoran Hajo Dahl (0009-0005-4791-8366, University of Bergen, corresponding author)
Year2026
Volume56
Publication date2026-01-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueBritish Journal of Political Science (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0007-1234 • E-ISSN: 1469-2112
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/s0007123426101483
OpenAlexW7160638949
LanguageEN
References cited69

The immigration debate is a major source of political conflict, yet little is known about how citizens themselves perceive it. This paper uses a survey experiment with open-ended questions to examine which arguments respondents attribute to their opponents, which they consider the strongest for the opposing side, and how both compare to the arguments opponents actually use. The study is conducted in Norway, a low-polarization, consensus-oriented context where relatively accurate and charitable interpretations of opponents’ reasoning might be expected. Still, the findings show that while many recognize legitimate arguments on the other side, they attribute considerably weaker arguments to their opponents. Text analysis reveals that their preferred counterarguments resemble opponents’ own more closely than those they attribute to them. This suggests that mutual understanding in the immigration debate is obstructed less by a failure to appreciate opponents’ arguments than a systematic misrepresentation of them

Context (archaeology) · Immigration · Misrepresentation · Motivated reasoning · Politics · Survey data collection · Electoral Systems and Political Participation · Social and Intergroup Psychology · Social Media and Politics

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access