Priming Legality: Perceptions of Latino and Undocumented Latino Immigrants

• Author: Hannah Walker,Yalidy Matos,Katherine T. McCabe
• DOI: 10.1177/1532673X20959600
• Published date: 01 January 2021
• Date: 01 January 2021
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X20959600

American Politics Research

2021, Vol. 49(1) 106 –113

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1532673X20959600

journals.sagepub.com/home/apr

Article

Public opinion about immigration depends at least in part on

what citizens read or hear in the news and from political

elites (Brader et al., 2008; Gamson & Modigliani, 1989;

Iyengar & Kinder, 1987; Iyengar & Simon, 1993; Mccombs,

2004; Zaller, 1992). In recent years, and especially since

September 11, 2001, anti-illegal immigration has been the

primary way political elites and the media convey the immi-

gration debates, particularly as it relates to Latino immi-

grants. Given this over usage of legal status in discussions of

immigration in media, we examine how the inclusion of a

legal modifier in the conversation about immigrants shapes

perceptions about Latino immigrants as a whole.

We draw on the racial priming literature and examine the

potential impact on immigration attitudes of discussions of

Latino immigrants that reference documentation status. We

argue that introducing references to undocumented immi-

grants can influence opinions toward Latino immigrants as a

larger group by cuing negative considerations members of the

public hold about undocumented immigrants, in particular.

Existing research related to Latino racial priming has focused

on examining the effects of different legal modifiers (e.g.,

illegal vs. undocumented; Merolla et al., 2013) or cuing dif-

ferent immigrant groups (e.g., Latino immigrants vs. white

ethnic immigrants; Brader et al., 2008). There is a gap in the

scholarship on this topic that this short paper wishes to

address: Does adding a legal modifier, such as “undocu-

mented” status, prime more negative perceptions of Latino

immigrants as a whole relative to discussing Latino immi-

grants without reference to documentation status?

To address this puzzle, we apply research suggesting the

order of questions in a survey primes which considerations

are most salient when respondents proffer an opinion (Iyengar

& Kinder, 1987; Schuman, 1981; Sigelman, 1981; Zaller &

Feldman, 1992). Specifically, we conduct an experiment on a

nationally representative survey of adults in the United States

that altered the order in which respondents answered ques-

tions about their perceptions of Latino immigrants and

“undocumented” Latino immigrants. We find evidence that

the opinions respondents express toward Latino immigrants

are influenced by which description they see first. Respondents

hold significantly more positive perceptions about “Latino

immigrants” relative to “undocumented Latino immigrants.”

This gap is more pronounced if respondents are asked about

Latino immigrants prior to expressing their opinions toward

undocumented Latino immigrants, and more muted when this

order is reversed. This is ostensibly because Americans are

generally more favorable toward Latinos when they do not

explicitly make a connection with illegality.

Our findings have practical as well as policy implications.

Practically, media mentions of “Latino/Hispanic” and “undoc-

umented or illegal” are frequently discussed in tandem rather

959600APRXXX10.1177/1532673X20959600American Politics ResearchMcCabe et al.

research-article2020

1Rutgers The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA

2Rutgers University School of Arts and Sciences, New Brunswick, NJ, USA

Corresponding Author:

Katherine T. McCabe, Rutgers The State University of New Jersey, 89

George Street, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA.

Email: k.mccabe@rutgers.edu

Priming Legality: Perceptions of Latino

and Undocumented Latino Immigrants

Katherine T. McCabe1, Yalidy Matos2,

and Hannah Walker1

Abstract

Previous work has shown public opinion toward immigrants is malleable based on how immigrants are described in media and

elite rhetoric. In a survey experiment on a nationally representative sample of American adults, we extend this research to test

for possible priming effects that occur based on how salient documentation status is when respondents proffer opinions on

Latino immigrants. Our findings show that when subjects are first asked about “undocumented Latino immigrants,” their attitudes

toward “Latino immigrants,” appear more negative, relative to when they are first asked about “Latino immigrants” without

invoking the legal modifier. Respondents channel their negative associations with “illegal” or “undocumented” immigration into

their opinions of Latino immigrants writ large. The results have implications for political communication, media reporting on

immigration, and policy debates, which frequently discuss both “legal” and “undocumented” immigration in the same context.

Keywords

public opinion, priming, immigration, Latino politics