In recent years, the global discourse around immigration has become increasingly polarized, catalyzing intense debates, political movements, and social tensions. A groundbreaking international study published in Communications Psychology sheds new light on one of the less explored yet deeply concerning drivers behind opposition to immigration — the widespread belief in anti-immigration conspiracy theories. The research, conducted across 21 countries with diverse political, cultural, and economic contexts, reveals robust correlations between these conspiracy beliefs and the endorsement of both conventional and violent actions aimed at opposing immigration. Crucially, it also uncovers significant associations with broader attitudes toward democracy itself, indicating far-reaching implications beyond immigration policy.
At the crux of this study lies a critical psychological phenomenon: conspiracy thinking. While conspiracy theories have long thrived in the shadows of social discourse, their proliferation in the digital age has fueled more overt expressions of political and social resistance. Anti-immigration conspiracies, specifically, frame immigration not merely as a policy issue but as the result of deliberately orchestrated plots by shadowy elites or foreign actors purportedly threatening societal cohesion, economic stability, and national identity. These narratives tap into deep-seated fears and uncertainties, often amplifying socio-political divides.
The researchers employed a multimodal methodological approach, blending large-scale surveys with rigorous psychometric measurements, to quantify this conspiracy belief and its behavioral correlates. Surveys were administered to thousands of participants across nations that vary markedly in immigration rates, governance styles, and historical experiences with migration. This expansive sample allowed for both within- and cross-national comparisons, yielding a nuanced understanding of how context shapes conspiracy belief systems and consequent action tendencies.
Findings from the study demonstrate that individuals endorsing anti-immigration conspiracy theories are not passive observers but are more likely to actively support and engage in conventional protest behaviors—such as petition signing, peaceful demonstrations, and political campaigning—that oppose immigration policies. More alarmingly, these beliefs also correlate significantly with a readiness to endorse or participate in violent actions, ranging from property damage to hate crimes targeting immigrant communities. This gradient from conventional to violent opposition signals a troubling escalation path linked to conspiracy ideation.
The implications for democratic societies are profound. The study reveals that support for anti-immigration conspiracy theories is also intertwined with negative attitudes toward democratic institutions, norms, and processes. Consistent with theories of political alienation, those harboring such beliefs frequently express mistrust in government responsiveness, endorse undemocratic mechanisms to address social grievances, and display support for authoritarian measures purportedly needed to protect "native" interests against perceived external threats.
Psychologically, the findings align with models suggesting that conspiracy beliefs serve multiple functions: reducing feelings of uncertainty, providing a sense of control, and simplifying complex sociopolitical realities. However, the cognitive shortcuts offered by conspiratorial narratives come at a high societal cost, nurturing division, reinforcing misinformation, and legitimizing extreme opposition tactics. These consequences pose significant challenges to efforts aimed at social cohesion and inclusive policymaking.
Moreover, the study identifies variations in the prevalence and impact of these conspiracy beliefs according to demographic variables such as age, education, and political orientation. Younger respondents with lower levels of formal education and those aligned with right-wing political ideologies tend to exhibit greater endorsement of anti-immigration conspiracies. Nonetheless, the cross-national design stresses that while these patterns hold generally, local histories, media ecosystems, and political climates modulate the intensity and expression of conspiracy-driven opposition.
Perhaps one of the most revealing technical aspects of the research lies in its use of advanced structural equation modeling (SEM) to parse the complex web of relationships among variables. SEM enabled the authors to test hypothesized causal pathways, illuminating how conspiracy beliefs potentiate attitudes and behavioral intentions both directly and indirectly via mistrust and perceived threat. This methodological rigor lends robustness to the conclusions and sets a new standard for research in political psychology and intergroup relations.
The study also intersects with cutting-edge findings in communication science, particularly regarding the role of social media and online echo chambers in amplifying conspiracy content. The authors discuss how algorithmic curation can entrench conspiratorial worldviews, emboldening individuals to tolerate or even engage in aggressive acts against immigrants. This digital dimension highlights a critical frontier for intervention, where technological, educational, and regulatory strategies must converge to stem the tide of misinformation and hate.
Beyond academic value, the sociopolitical ramifications demand urgent attention. Policymakers, civil society leaders, and grassroots organizations must recognize the potent synergy of conspiracy beliefs and action endorsement as a factor threatening democratic resilience. Crafting effective responses will require multifaceted approaches including community dialogue fostering trust, targeted media literacy programs, and transparent governance practices to rebuild public confidence and counteract alienation.
Intriguingly, the research encourages a reevaluation of how immigration debates are framed in public discourse. Traditional discussions that foreground economic costs or cultural differences may inadvertently sideline the unspoken yet pervasive undercurrents of conspiratorial suspicion. Addressing these underlying cognitive and emotional drivers could shift conversations from polarized conflict toward empathetic understanding and cooperative problem-solving.
In terms of future research, the authors advocate for longitudinal designs to track how conspiracy beliefs evolve over time and in response to changing political events or societal shocks. This temporal perspective is essential for identifying causal directions and potential tipping points where intervention might be most effective. Equally vital is extending this line of inquiry to other polarizing issues such as climate change, public health, and technological governance.
This expansive study represents a significant leap in the interdisciplinary exploration of how conspiracy thinking not only reflects but actively shapes social and political landscapes. It offers a sobering reminder that combating misinformation and extremism is not merely a contest of facts but a complex psychological and societal endeavor requiring innovative, informed, and compassionate strategies.
As the world grapples with migration challenges exacerbated by conflicts, climate crises, and economic disparities, understanding the psychological underpinnings of populist resistance becomes paramount. Building inclusive, democratic societies capable of embracing diversity will depend on the collective will to address not only material inequalities but also the intangible yet powerful influence of fear, suspicion, and myth.
In conclusion, the study by Thomas et al. provides critical empirical evidence that anti-immigration conspiracy beliefs do more than skew perceptions—they catalyze a spectrum of oppositional actions, including violence, and undermine democratic values across diverse global contexts. These findings underscore a call to action for scholars, policymakers, and citizens alike to engage with these dynamics thoughtfully and proactively to foster resilient, inclusive communities.
Subject of Research: Psychological and sociopolitical impact of anti-immigration conspiracy beliefs across multiple countries, including their association with opposition behaviors and democratic attitudes.
Article Title: Anti-immigration conspiracy beliefs are associated with endorsement of conventional and violent actions opposing immigration and attitudes towards democracy across 21 countries.
Article References:
Thomas, E.F., Stothard, C., Besta, T. et al. Anti-immigration conspiracy beliefs are associated with endorsement of conventional and violent actions opposing immigration and attitudes towards democracy across 21 countries. Commun Psychol 3, 66 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-025-00246-1
Image Credits: AI Generated
