Evidence Hub

Which immigrants do citizens prefer? A meta-reanalysis of 100 conjoint experiments

Aviña M, Lee T, Malik M, Rasband R, Roman MF, Sethy P

Science advances, 2026

Abstract

In the past decade, an important literature in the social sciences has examined public attitudes toward immigrants in host societies. In it, a prominent experimental method-the conjoint design, where participants are tasked with rating or choosing between randomized profiles-has been used reliably to understand how immigrant characteristics shape admission preferences. We collate replication datasets from 100 individual studies spanning 1,475,403 immigrant profiles with 26 randomized attributes evaluated by 142,817 survey respondents from 36 countries. Meta-analyses reinforce well-established findings: Economic, cultural, humanitarian, and procedural factors all influence evaluations. Meta-reanalyses show that preferences are broadly similar across countries and demographic groups. However, they also reveal two additional patterns: Economic considerations have become more influential over time, and evaluations of individual immigrants differ sharply depending on where people stand on the broader immigration debate. These findings shed light on ongoing debates and point to fruitful areas for future research.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free