(Dis)agreement with the Implementation of Humanitarian Policy Measures Towards Asylum Seekers in Israel: Does the Frame Matter?

  • Oshrat HochmanEmail author
  • Adi Hercowitz-Amir


This study investigates emerging public attitudes about the implementation of humanitarian policy measures towards asylum seekers among the Jewish population in Israel. It specifically asks whether the way asylum seekers in Israel are framed informs the process of attitude formation in the Jewish Israeli public. To answer this question, we measure the extent to which the frame “infiltrators” as opposed to the frame “asylum seekers” positively predicts the rejection of humanitarian policy measures toward asylum seekers. Following framing theory, we also propose that the framing effect depends on the respondents’ perceived levels of threat by asylum seekers, and on their political identification. In line with our hypothesis, the findings indicate that the effect of the framing on the rejection of humanitarian policy measures decreases with increasing levels of threat. Although the framing effect on the rejection of humanitarian policy measures towards asylum seekers is somewhat weaker among respondents with a right-wing political identification, the differences between these and other respondents are not significant.


Asylum seekers Israel Framing Perceived threat Humanitarian policy Attitudes 


  1. Afeef, K. F. (2009). A promised land for refugees? Asylum and migration in Israel. Geneva: UNHCR. New Issues in Refugee Research, Working Paper No. 183.Google Scholar
  2. Ariely, G. (2011). Spheres of citizenship: the role of distinct perceived threats in legitimizing allocation of political, welfare and cultural rights in Israel. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(2), 213–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ariely, G. (2016). Remembrance day influence on national sentiments and hostility towards out-groups: evidence from a panel study in Israel. Ethnic and Racial Studies.Google Scholar
  4. Augoustinos, M., & Quinn, C. (2003). Social categorization and attitudinal evaluations: illegal immigrants, refugees, or asylum seekers? The New Review of Social Psychology, 2(1), 29–37.Google Scholar
  5. Bereshkovsky, A. (2007). IDF reserve soldiers act on behalf of refugees. Ynet news.,7340,L-3414994,00.html. Accessed 19 Sep 2016.
  6. Berkowitz, L., & Lutterman, K. G. (1968). The traditional socially responsible personality. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 32(2), 169–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berman, Y. (2012). Introduction to the Israeli asylum system. Talk at the Israeli asylum system: contemporary challenges in comparative context. Ramat Gan: Conference held at The Academic Center for Law and Business.Google Scholar
  8. Blalock, H. M. (1967). Toward a theory of minority group relations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Blumer, H. (1958). Race, prejudice as a sense of group position. Pacific Sociological Review, 1(37), 3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bobo, L. (1991). Social responsibility, individualism, and redistributive policies. Sociological Forum, 6(1), 71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bobo, L., & Hutchings, V. L. (1996). Perceptions of racial group competition: extending Blumer’s theory of group position to a multiracial social context. American Sociological Review, 61(6), 951–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brewer, P. R. (2001). Value words and lizard brains: do citizens deliberate about appeals to their core values. Political Psychology, 22(1), 45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Canetti, D.M., Snider, K. L. G., Pedersen, A. and Hall, B. J. (2016). Threatened or threatening? How ideology shapes asylum seekers’ immigration policy attitudes in Israel and Australia. Journal of Refugee Studies. doi: 10.1093/jrs/few012.
  14. Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10(1), 103–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Crawley, H. (2005). Evidence on attitudes to asylum and immigration: what we know, don’t know and need to know. Working Paper No. 23. Centre on Migration, Policy and Society: University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  17. Dauvergne, C. (1999). Amorality and humanitarianism in immigration law. Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 37(3), 597–623.Google Scholar
  18. Dauvergne, C. (2000). The dilemma of rights discourses for refugees. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 23(3), 56–74.Google Scholar
  19. Dauvergne, C. (2005). Humanitarianism, identity and nation: migration laws of Australia and Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
  20. Duman, Y. H. (2015). Infiltrators go home! Explaining xenophobic mobilization against asylum seekers in Israel. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 16, 1–24. doi: 10.1007/s12134-014-0400-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Esses, V. M., Dovidio, J. F., Jackson, L. M., & Armstrong, T. L. (2001). The immigration dilemma: the role of perceived group competition, ethnic prejudice and national identity. Journal of Social Issues, 57(3), 389–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Every, D. (2008). A reasonable, practical and moderate humanitarianism: the co-option of humanitarianism in the Australian asylum seeker debates. Journal of Refugee Studies, 21(2), 210–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Feldman, S., & Steenbergen-Marco, R. (2001). The humanitarian foundation of public support for social welfare. American Journal of Political Science, 45(3), 658–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gamson, W. A. (1992). Talking politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Gibney, M. J. (2004). The ethics and politics of asylum: liberal democracy and the response to refugees. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goldstein, T. (2010). PM: infiltrators pull us towards Third World. Ynet News.,7340,L-3837667,00.html. Accessed 9 Feb 2016.
  27. Goot, M., & Sowerbutts, T. (2004). Dog whistles and death penalties: the ideological structuring of Australian attitudes to asylum seekers. Adelaide: University of Adelaide. The Australasian Political Studies Association Conference, 29 September – 1 October 2004.Google Scholar
  28. Grove, N. J., & Zwi, A. B. (2006). Our health and theirs: forced migration, othering, and public health. Social Science and Medicine, 62(8), 1931–1942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hatton, T. (2012). Asylum policy in the EU: the case for deeper integration. Discussion Paper No. 660. The Australian National University, Centre for Economic Policy Research.Google Scholar
  30. Herman, T., Atmor, N., Heler, E., & Lebel, Y. (2012). The Israeli democracy index 2012. Jerusalem: The Israel Democracy Institute.Google Scholar
  31. Herzog, B. (2009). Between nationalism and humanitarianism: the glocal discourse on refugees. Nations and Nationalism, 15(2), 185–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hochman, O. (2015). Infiltrators or asylum seekers? Framing and attitudes toward asylum seekers in Israel. Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Studies, 13(4), 358–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hogg, M. A., & Reid, S. A. (2006). Social identity, self-categorization, and the communication of group norms. Communication Theory, 16(1), 7–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Population and Immigration Authority (2016). Data regarding foreign nationals in Israel. Report No 2/2016. Population, Immigration and Border Authority, The Ministry of Interior [in Hebrew].Google Scholar
  35. Joppke, C. (1997). Asylum and state sovereignty: a comparison of the United States, Germany, and Britain. Comparative Political Studies, 30(3), 259–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kalir, B. (2014). The Jewish state of anxiety: between moral obligation and fearism in the treatment of African asylum seekers in Israel. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 41(4), 580–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kinder, D. R., & Sanders, L. M. (1990). Mimicking political debate with survey questions: the case of white opinion on affirmative action for blacks. Social Cognition, 8(1), 73–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Knoll, B. R., Redlawsk, D. P., & Sanborn, H. (2011). Framing labels and immigration policy attitudes in the Iowa caucuses: “Trying to out-Tancredo Tancredo”. Political Behavior, 33(3), 433–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kritzman-Amir, T. (2015). Introduction. Where Levinsky meets Asmara: social and legal aspects of Israeli asylum policy (pp. 9–40). Jerusalem: Van Leer Institute.Google Scholar
  40. Kritzman-Amir, T., & Shumacher, Y. (2012). Refugees and asylum seekers in the state of Israel. Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs, 6(3), 97–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. LeVine, R. A., & Campbell, D. T. (1972). Ethnocentrism: theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes, and group behavior. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
  42. McLaren, L., & Johnson, M. (2007). Resources, group conflict and symbols: explaining anti-immigration hostility in Britain. Political Studies, 55, 709–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Milfont, T. L., & Fischer, R. (2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups: applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 2011–2084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Murray, K. E., & Marx, D. M. (2013). Attitudes toward unauthorized immigrants authorized immigrants, and refugees. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 19(3), 332–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Natan, G. (2012). The policy towards infiltrators, asylum seekers and refugees in Israel and in Europe. Jerusalem: The Knesset – Research and Information Center [in Hebrew].Google Scholar
  46. Nussbaum, M. (1996). Compassion: the basic social emotion. Social Philosophy and Policy, 13, 27–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Oyamot, C. M., Fisher, E. L., Deason, G., & Borgida, E. (2012). Attitudes toward immigrants: the interactive role of the authoritarian predisposition, social norms, and humanitarian values. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 97–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pantoja, A. (2006). Against the tide? Core American values and attitudes toward US immigration policy in the mid-1990s. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 32(3), 515–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Paz, Y. (2011). Ordered disorder: African asylum seekers in Israel and discursive challenges to an emerging refugee regime (No. 205). UNHCR Research Papers.Google Scholar
  50. Pickering, S. (2001). Common sense and original deviancy: news discourses and asylum seekers in Australia. Journal of Refugee Studies, 14(2), 169–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Price, V., & Tewksbury, D. (1997). News values and public opinion: a theoretical account of media priming and framing. Progress in Communication Sciences, 13, 173–212.Google Scholar
  52. Quillian, L. (1995). Prejudice as a response to perceived group threat: population composition and anti-immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe. American Sociological Review, 60(4), 586–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Raijman, R., & Semyonov, M. (2004). Perceived threat and exclusionary attitudes towards foreign workers in Israel. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 27(5), 780–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Raijman, R., Davidov, E., Schmidt, P., & Hochman, O. (2008). What does a nation owe non-citizens? National attachments, perception of threat and attitudes towards granting citizenship rights in a comparative perspective. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 49(2–3), 195–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Savelkoul, M., Scheepers, P., Tolsma, J., & Hagendoorn, L. (2010). Anti-Muslim attitudes in the Netherlands: tests of contradictory hypotheses derived from ethnic competition theory and intergroup contact theory. European Sociological Review, 27(6), 741–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Scheepers, P., Gijsberts, M., & Coenders, M. (2002). Ethnic exclusionism in European countries: public opposition to civil rights for legal migrants as a response to perceived ethnic threat. European Sociological Review, 18(1), 17–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schuck, A. R. T. (2006). Between risk and opportunity: news framing and its effects on public support for EU enlargement. European Journal of Communication, 21(1), 5–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schwartz, S. H. (2007). Universalism values and the inclusiveness of our moral universe”. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(6), 711–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Semyonov, M., Raijman, R., & Gorodzeisky, A. (2006). The rise of anti-foreigner sentiment in European societies, 1988-2000. American Sociological Review, 71(3), 426–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Statham, P. (2003). Understanding anti-asylum rhetoric: restrictive politics or racist publics? The Political Quarterly, 74, 163–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Staub, E. (1989). Individual and societal (group) values in motivational perpective and their role in benevolence and harmdoing. In N. Eisenberg, J. Reykowski, & E. Staub (Eds.), Social and moral values: individual and societal perspective (pp. 45–61). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  62. Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 23–45). Mahwah: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  63. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson Hall Publisher.Google Scholar
  64. Taylor, S. (2001). The importance of human rights talk in asylum seeker advocacy: a response to Catherine Dauvergne. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 24(1), 191–199.Google Scholar
  65. Tsurkov, E. (2012). “Cancer in our body”: On racial incitement towards African asylum seekers in Israel, discrimination and hate crimes against them. Tel-Aviv: The Hotline for Migrant Workers.Google Scholar
  66. UNHCR. (2014). UNHCR global trends 2013 - war’s human cost. Geneva: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.Google Scholar
  67. UNHCR. (2016). UNHCR global trends - forced displacement in 2015. Geneva: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.Google Scholar
  68. Verkuyten, M. (2004). Emotional reactions to and support for immigrant policies: attributed responsibilities to categories of asylum seekers. Social Justice Research, 17(3), 294–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wolfsfeld, G., Avraham, E., & Aburaiya, I. (2000). When prophesy always fails: Israeli press coverage of the Arab minority’s Land Day protests. Political Communication, 17(2), 115–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Yaron, H., Hashimshony-Yaffe, N., & Campbell, J. (2013). “Infiltrators” or refugees? An analysis of Israel’s policy towards African asylum-seekers. International Migration, 51(4), 144–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Yoo, E., & Koo, J. W. (2014). Love thy neighbor: explaining asylum seeking and hosting, 1982–2008. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 55(1), 45–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zaller, J. C. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zimmermann, S. E. (2011). Reconsidering the problem of ‘bogus’ refugees with ‘socio-economic motivations’ for seeking asylum. Mobilities, 6(3), 335–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ruppin Academic CenterRuppinIsrael
  2. 2.GESIS Leibniz Institute for the Social SciencesMannheimGermany
  3. 3.Department of Sociology and AnthropologyUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations