-
Julian Michel and Margaret E. Peters. 2026. “When ‘Voice’ Gets the Opportunity to ‘Exit’: Evidence from Hong Kong.”Under review.
Abstract:Does having a better outside option of emigration affect individuals' propensity to protest? The exit option may reduce a person's willingness to protest, as she has a lower stake in the home country. On the other hand, it could increase her likelihood of protesting because she has less to lose, since she can leave. Using UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson's announcement that Hong Kongers who applied for British National (Overseas) status prior to Hong Kong's handover to China would be given special access to move to Great Britain, we examine whether the increased ability to migrate made it more or less likely that young adults who were born just before the handover, and thus eligible to migrate to the UK, would protest more than those who were born just after it. Using a regression discontinuity design and an embedded survey experiment, we found that the announcement had little effect on the stated likelihood of protest or individuals' perceptions of protest efficacy.
Draft available upon request. -
Jieun Park, Soonhong Cho, and Margaret E. Peters. 2026. “When Help Seems Optional: Institutional Projection Bias and Climate Refugee Disadvantage.”Under review.
Abstract:Why do climate refugees receive less public support than war refugees, especially in the developed countries best positioned to assist them? We argue this reflects a cognitive mechanism we term the \textit{institutional projection bias}. Those whose climate risk is buffered by robust disaster management infrastructure use their own experience as a benchmark, reading climate displacement as economically motivated rather than genuinely forced. Three studies test this argument. Cross-national survey evidence shows that the climate refugee disadvantage is concentrated among respondents suspicious of refugee motives, and specifically in countries with strong disaster management capacity. Two original U.S. experiments locate the mechanism in cognitive judgments of displacement legitimacy rather than affective prejudice, with displacement cause, not refugees’ origin, driving evaluations. The institutional projection bias identifies a general pattern in which effective governance inadvertently narrows public support for those who lack equivalent institutions.
Draft available upon request. -
Yang-Yang Zhou, Daniel Rojas, Margaret E. Peters, and Cybele Kappos. 2024. “The Price of Dignity: Measuring Migrants’ Metaperceptions using Behavioral Games.”Under review.
Abstract: How do migrants perceive the stereotypes host citizens hold about them, and can these metaperceptions shape behavior? We argue that migrants may act in ways that contradict their economic self-interest in order to counter negative group-based stereotypes. We test this theory through behavioral lab games with 600 Colombian citizens and Venezuelan migrants, by randomizing partners and varying information about their nationalities. To counter the stereotype of being opportunistic welfare-scroungers, Venezuelans played more generously in both Dictator and Public Goods games toward Colombians -- especially when their own nationality was revealed -- compared to when nationality was concealed or when playing with other Venezuelans. They were also more likely to police and punish other Venezuelans. These behaviors did not extend to the Trust Game, suggesting the effects are stereotype-specific rather than general prosociality. Qualitative essays further reveal concerns about stigma and dignity, highlighting the mechanisms underpinning counter-stereotypical behavior.
Draft available upon request. -
Margaret E. Peters, Thania Sanchez, Cybele Kappos, and Yang-Yang Zhou. 2023. “Who’s Deserving? How People Experiencing Displacement View Migrant Identity and Asylum Policy.”Working Paper.
Abstract: Do people who migrate due to crises identify with other refugees and migrant groups? In this paper, we examine whether the process of migration leads to a shared identity as a ``migrant'' or ``refugee,'' or whether individuals still identify mostly in terms of their home country or ethnicity. We argue that how individuals identify matters for their views on migration policy. If individuals see themselves as part of a larger migrant group, they may be more likely to support policies benefiting all migrants. However, if they do not, they are more likely to support policies that only benefit their group. We interviewed Syrians (N=695) living in Turkey and Jordan, as well as Venezuelans (N=1612) living in Colombia. We also conducted six focus groups (N=36) and community leader interviews (N=8) with Syrians living in Istanbul, Turkey. Our study is unique in that we are able to make multiple comparisons: across displacement contexts, and between those who are legally categorized by the international community as ``refugees'' (Syrians) and those who do not fall under this legal category (Venezuelans). Using both observational questions and a conjoint experiment, we find that for most individuals the process of migration does not lead to greater identification with other migrants. This has downstream consequences: individuals who do not identify as migrants favor their co-nationals and people who are experiencing similar crises for priority entrance and do not favor more open borders.
Draft available upon request. -
Margaret E. Peters, Thania Sanchez, Cybele Kappos, and Yang-Yang Zhou. 2023. “The Dignity of Humanitarian Migrants: Explaining Migrants’ Destination Preferences.”Working Paper.
Abstract: How do migrants fleeing violence choose where to go? Prior studies argue that asylum seekers select destinations based on a country's wealth and access to welfare benefits. We argue instead that forced migrants prioritize dignitarian concerns, preferring places where they can provide for themselves and avoiding countries that grant generous welfare benefits but limit their ability to work. Using the concept of dignity, we explain forced migrants' preferences over destinations in Europe with an original survey and embedded conjoint experiment of over 1400 Syrian and Iraqi forced migrants and focus groups with Syrians living in Istanbul. We show that forced migrants prioritize work opportunities over other common concerns like welfare benefits, anti-immigrant sentiment, and ease of asylum, and that they tie work to their own sense of dignity.
Draft available upon request. -
Margaret E. Peters and Alexander Tahk. 2019. “Are Policymakers Out of Step with their Constituency when it comes to Immigration?”Working paper.
Abstract: Surveys on immigration in the US and European have, at least until recently, revealed that a majority of citizens favor greater restrictions on immigration. Scholars and some policymakers have taken these results as a sign that immigration policy is out of step with what the mass public wants. Yet as other scholars have shown, citizens tend to overestimate the level of immigration, which may bias responses towards restrictions. Thus, policy may be responsive but citizens may have underestimated its responsiveness. Using a new dataset of immigration polls in the US and Canada over the last 30 years, data on immigration policies, and voting behavior in the US Senate, we examine how well public opinion correlates with policy using a continuous-time latent variable approach to model the dynamics of public opinion and immigration policy. We find that the public has a good sense of immigration policy and that opinion reacts to changes in policy. Opinion has less effect on policy, however, except when immigration is highly salient.