Re-examining public opinion preferences for migrant categorizations: “Refugees” are evaluated more negatively than “migrants” and “foreigners” related to participants’ direct, extended, and mass-mediated intergroup contact experiences

Abstract Although migrant categorizations (e.g. “migrants”, “refugees”) are often conflated in political and academic discourse, they may be ascribed to different people and inspire different preferences in public opinion. Previous research in Western Europe has identified more positive attitudes toward “refugees” than toward “migrants” due to the legitimate need for international protection of “real refugees” compared to the perceived illegitimate claims by “economic migrants”. However, little evidence suggests that the same preference also exists in Eastern European countries that have historically received smaller numbers of refugees and had fewer frequent experiences with migrants and foreigners compared to West European countries. Moreover, the term “refugee” was intensively recategorized as “bogus” and de-legitimized in East European political discourse. To provide new evidence, we conducted a pre-registered comparative survey-based study with a sample of young Slovak adults (N = 873) to compare evaluations of three commonly used migrant categorizations in Slovakia -- “refugees”, “migrants”, and “foreigners” -- on multiple attitudinal and behavioural measures. In addition, we also tested the intergroup contact hypothesis about the relationship between participants’ evaluations and their experiences of direct, extended, and mass-mediated contact with these target groups. We found that “refugees” invoked less favourable feelings, attitudes, trust, and greater social distance compared to “migrants” and “foreigners”. These evaluations related to the valence (and less to the quantity) of participants’ experience of intergroup contact. These results challenge previous findings about public opinion preferences for “refugees” over “migrants”, support the intergroup contact hypothesis, and make a case for a more contextualized research.