Value conflict is central to opposition to multiculturalism in Europe, but it is unclear which kinds of value clashes drive anti-immigrant bias. This study introduces a simple, low-cost, and scalable experimental approach to test how natives respond when immigrants are perceived as violating either welfare-state norms or gender-equity norms—two norm types prominent in European immigration debates.

🧪 How the experiment tested value conflict

• A scalable experimental design measured how anti-immigrant bias changes in response to perceptions of immigrants' adherence to or violation of two targeted norms: welfare-state norms and gender-equity norms.
• New survey data were collected from native respondents in three European countries to capture (a) beliefs about immigrants as likely violators of these norms and (b) the salience of each norm within native societies.

🔎 Key findings

• Natives do not uniformly punish immigrants more for norm violations; sanctions are not automatic.
• Reactions vary by norm salience: where a norm is highly salient and adherence to it is itself a societal expectation, natives’ responses follow a logic of “updating” — revising assessments rather than simply increasing punishment.
• Both welfare and gender norms matter for public debates about immigration, but their effects on bias depend on the social context and prevailing expectations in each country.

🛠 Why it matters

These results refine understanding of value-based opposition to multiculturalism by showing that anti-immigrant bias is conditional on which norms are salient and whether adherence to those norms is already normative. The cost-effective, scalable experimental design offers a practical tool for future cross-national research and for policymakers seeking to anticipate when value conflicts are likely to inflame or dampen anti-immigrant sentiment.