Research suggests Trump's 'Muslim ban' produced rare shift in public opinion

January 12, 2018 by Tess Eyrich, University of California - Riverside

President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 13769 on Jan. 27, 2017, effectively barring individuals from seven predominately Muslim countries from entering the United States for 90 days.

Within a day of his decree, thousands of protesters flooded airports around the country in opposition to what was quickly deemed a "Muslim ban," and by March 6, the order had been formally revoked.

According to a political scientist at the University of California, Riverside, and his colleagues, visible resistance to the order in the immediate aftermath of its signing may have produced a rare shift in public opinion that resulted in mass opposition to Trump's policy.

The shift was caused by "an influx of information portraying the ban as being at odds with egalitarian principles of American identity and religious liberty," said researchers Loren Collingwood, an assistant professor of political science at UCR; Nazita Lajevardi of Michigan State University; and Kassra A. R. Oskooii of the University of Delaware.

Their findings, published last week in the journal Political Behavior, suggest the bounty of information that surfaced after the order went into effect—information that painted the ban as deeply un-American and in fact "incompatible with American values"—contributed to a broad-based increase in opposition to it.

The researchers compared the results of two surveys of the same 311 people—one conducted just days before the order's announcement, and the other in the two weeks after. They found that among those respondents, more than 30 percent moved against the ban in the interim.

Those who shifted most radically, meanwhile, were "high American identifiers." Such respondents were shown to consider their status as Americans who belong to one nation to be a defining element of their identities.

Media coverage of anti-ban demonstrations, the researchers noted, often depicted protesters "shrouded in American flags," visually linking the concept of more inclusive immigration policies to American egalitarianism. The movement against the ban also benefited from the outspokenness of various news commentators and publications, many of whom were quick to criticize the order by characterizing it as antithetical to core American ideals.

To test their results, the researchers also looked at attitudes toward two other hot-button issues linked to executive orders that were signed just days before No. 13769: the Keystone Pipeline and the U.S.-Mexico border wall. They found that although attitudes toward both did shift slightly, the differences were not statistically significant.

The profound response to the ban, the researchers wrote, represents "one instance in which the priming of American identity shifted citizens' opinions toward more inclusive, rather than restrictive, immigration-related policy stances."

Overall, their findings suggest that American identity can be "primed" to produce shifts in public opinion. It also demonstrates that may be more malleable than previously thought, especially as certain policy issues cycle in and out of the news.

Explore further: Americans' attitudes about science in 2017: High confidence, low visibility

More information: Loren Collingwood et al, A Change of Heart? Why Individual-Level Public Opinion Shifted Against Trump's "Muslim Ban", Political Behavior (2018). DOI: 10.1007/s11109-017-9439-z

Related Stories

Apple, Google, Uber join fight against Trump travel ban

February 6, 2017

Dozens of tech companies, including behemoths like Apple, Google, and Facebook, are siding with Washington state and Minnesota as they fight President Donald Trump's ban on refugees and travelers from seven predominantly ...

Recommended for you

Study sheds new light on ancient human-turkey relationship

January 17, 2018

For the first time, research has uncovered the origins of the earliest domestic turkeys in ancient Mexico. The study also suggests turkeys weren't only prized for their meat—with demand for the birds soaring with the Mayans ...

18 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

mackita
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 12, 2018
This study is as naive as the liberal study could be. I presume, that Americans who voted for Trump (so massively) expected him to do EXACTLY what he did, particularly because his proclamations were pronouncedly anti-muslim well before elections. Anti-immigration was simply one of points of his program. The protesters weren't indeed expected to agree with it - but these people did vote for Trump neither. So where the OPINION SHIFT should be?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 12, 2018
The shift was caused by "an influx of information portraying the ban as being at odds with egalitarian principles of American identity and religious liberty,"
Read 'mis-information'. One factoid need only be considered to show that the phrase itself is a lie;

"Eighty-seven percent of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims are not affected by President Donald Trump's Friday decision to temporarily withhold visas from citizens of seven Middle Eastern countries."

-Another fact to consider is in the first paragraph of the article; temporary for 90 days. It wasnt a ban it was a suspension. The phrase itself is a lie.

The idea that it shifted public opinion is also a lie. A bunch of anti-feh idiots burning cars and smashing windows, many of whom are now languishing in jail, does not indicate a shift in public opinion.

We have to conclude that studies like the above are propaganda - lies - and we must accept that we need to reject everything that comes from the left.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 12, 2018
BTW the countries that Trump was allegedly talking about yesterday (he denies it) ARE shitholes, as he so candidly put it. That's why the people in them are so desperate to leave. The question he was addressing, quotas, is something many presidents have enacted in the past.

"Barack Obama imposed immigration restrictions 19 times including 4 times on Muslim countries.
The liberal media and Democrats said nothing"
http://www.thegat...sidents/

-Again you cannot trust ANYTHING you hear from liberals.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 12, 2018
regardless of all the political brehaha, Muslims need to remove the label of "Infidel" for non-muslims to gain wider acceptance in the immigration game...
aksdad
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 12, 2018
@TheGhostofOtto1923, one more to add to your excellent list of debunks: the "thousands of protesters" who flooded airports weren't part of a spontaneous protest. It was planned in advance by several liberal organizations. Once the ban was signed, they notified their network of protesters to show up at the airports.

https://www.theda...protests
MR166
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 12, 2018
I am willing to bet that 75% of the left wing protests are bought and paid for by George Soros.

This research just highlights the problems with ALL of academia including climate science.
The truth is always made subservient to the agenda!!!
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2018
@TheGhostofOtto1923, one more to add to your excellent list of debunks: the "thousands of protesters" who flooded airports weren't part of a spontaneous protest. It was planned in advance by several liberal organizations. Once the ban was signed, they notified their network of protesters to show up at the airports
And where is anti-feh today? Strangely quiet. They're not all in jail.

Perhaps the trauma was just too much to endure.
https://youtu.be/btm46UnGFic
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Jan 13, 2018
The publisher has made the appendices containing the data showing the opinion shift available in the article along with the abstract, though the full article is not available.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 13, 2018
We definitely do not need any of the sub-human refuse from shithole countries emigrating anywhere other than to other shithole countries. Let then assimilate with the other sub-human POS countries that believe women are dogs and agree with their rape/incest/pedophilia culture/religion.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2018


It's already been pointed out, but the notion of a "muslim ban" is an outright and deliberate mischaracterization by the left, as well as the deliberate lie that it is "racist" to call patently obvious shitholes, by that phraseology. The ban was from countries with infrastructures not capable of preventing travel by potential terrorists.

If the "study" used such phraseology as "predominately Muslim countries", they should also point out where most terrorists are recruited from and what their motivation originates from. But no one has accused liberals from being objective or honest.

julianpenrod
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 13, 2018
It can be said to be suspiciously coincidental that the "researchers" chose before hand to examine reactions to a policy move that had such a significant response. It can be said to sound like they chose to depict this issue as experiencing a major change, then claiming they actually saw such a shift. People can ask if they saw such changes among those around them. Note that, often, many among the public display a sense of uncertainty when they change their minds. It is not obvious if such a sense of uncertainty followed the claimed change of attitudes.
To whatever extent this was authentic, it can be pointed out that what may only have been an orchestrated show of sentiment by the "news" overrode the sentiments many people had at the beginning, indicating how easily so many can be manipulated.\
julianpenrod
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 13, 2018
Worse than that, though, Trump's ban extended to only one third of all mostly Muslim nations. It was far from a universal ban as the reaction to the ban suggested if not openly said. And it was only for 90 days, but the depictions that changed many people's minds suggested or said it was an eternal ban. Many people, then, are suggested by this article to be easily led by lies.
Also note the two other moves, with respect to the Keystone Pipeline and the border wall, showed no real change in people's attitudes. And the border wall was in exactly the same vein as the travel ban! Indeed, the border wall would be forever, as opposed to the travel; ban which was only suggested to be forever. This can also be said to be a suspicious result.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 13, 2018
I am not surprised how Trump has signaled to all the poor character in the nation to crawl out from under their rocks. I am disappointed by their number.

I thought we were better than that.
rockart
5 / 5 (1) Jan 13, 2018
Land of the Free
Home of the Brave
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jan 14, 2018
Wow... a 5 from Bart A... I'm humbled...
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jan 14, 2018


It's already been pointed out, but the notion of a "muslim ban" is an outright and deliberate mischaracterization by the left,
After what Frump said during the campaign? Pull the other leg, that one's getting tired. I won't bother with the rest of your apologistic post. Two courts have already found that to be a matter of fact, not "librul mischaracterization." If you're going to make stuff up, try to at least make it credible.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2018


It's already been pointed out, but the notion of a "muslim ban" is an outright and deliberate mischaracterization by the left,
After what Frump said during the campaign? Pull the other leg, that one's getting tired. I won't bother with the rest of your apologistic post. Two courts have already found that to be a matter of fact, not "librul mischaracterization." If you're going to make stuff up, try to at least make it credible.
What makes you think your opinions mean anything when you aren't even aware that

"The Supreme Court has decided that President Donald Trump's most recent travel ban that targets six Muslim-majority countries can go into full effect, handing a victory to the President even as legal challenges remain in lower courts. The court ruled to lift two injunctions..."

-That's the trouble with people who rely on cool slogans and posers for their info.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) Jan 15, 2018
It's already been pointed out, but the notion of a "muslim ban" is an outright and deliberate mischaracterization by the left,

After what Frump said during the campaign?


What Trump said or what liberal bed wetters said he said? There is a distinct difference.

As pointed out by GhostOfOtto, the temporary ban does not effect the vast majority of Muslims,... therefore it was never a "Muslim ban". It targeted only Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen,.... unstable places or sponsors of terrorism. The left's complaints over this is absurd and feigned.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.