Migration intentions: The interactive role of emotional polarization and dyadic political attitudes.

The 2019 Anti-Extradition Bill (Anti-ELAB) movement sparked a dramatic change in Hong Kong’s political landscape. In 2020, China’s central government enacted a national security law tightening its control over Hong Kong, reforming the electoral system and tightening candidate qualifications.

Subsequently, pro-democracy groups, media outlets, and political parties were subject to severe repression, and political leaders and opponents were arrested on a large scale.

These changes led to a rapid increase in immigration from Hong Kong. For example, from January 2021 to March 2023, the UK received more than 172,500 applications for UK domestic (overseas) immigration from Hong Kong residents, approximately 2% of Hong Kong’s population. This wave of migration is similar to the pattern observed before and after Hong Kong’s handover to China in 1997, and previous research has examined how families react to political uncertainty. .

Understanding the characteristics and motivations of immigrants will help analyze the impact of this wave of immigration on both Hong Kong and destination countries. Existing studies often focus on sociopolitical factors, but rely primarily on individual-level data, asking how spouses’ political characteristics influence individuals’ migration intentions. little thought has been given to that.

Furthermore, little research has focused on how emotional polarization, or hatred toward political opponents, shapes migration intentions. This study uses dyadic relationship data from 1,003 heterosexual couples in Hong Kong to examine how individual and spouse political attitudes and emotional polarization jointly influence migration intentions. is being investigated.

The findings are published in the journal Population, Space and Place.

Political attitudes, emotional polarization, and immigration intentions

Previous studies have often used variables such as political party affiliation and participation in protests to explain political migration in Hong Kong. However, this study focuses on two political factors: attitudes toward democracy (political attitudes) and hatred toward political opponents (political emotions). Although they are partially related, they work independently. Some research suggests that individuals who value democratic principles are more likely to emigrate when faced with authoritarianism, and this also applies to Hong Kong.

However, pro-democracy attitudes alone cannot fully explain immigration intentions. Emotional polarization plays an important role. Research shows that political polarization exacerbates hostilities between opposing camps, and that emotional hatred is a key driver of migration.

Since the 2014 Umbrella Movement and the 2019 anti-ELAB protests, Hong Kong’s political divisions have deepened, with hostile sentiment permeating the media, public spaces, and everyday conversations. These hostile sentiments have led to the perception of Hong Kong as an “uninhabitable” place, increasing immigration intentions. Similar emotional factors have been observed in migration studies related to the Venezuelan crisis and other authoritarian contexts.

The interaction between emotional polarization and democratic attitudes further elucidates the diversity of migration intentions.

The role of spousal politics

Migration often requires consideration at the family level, rather than being a purely individual decision. Research on economic migration shows that individuals’ migration intentions can be influenced by their spouse’s attitudes and overall family well-being. Similarly, political migration must take into account family needs and emotional states.

This study hypothesizes that spouses’ political attitudes and emotional polarization significantly shape individuals’ migration intentions. For example, even if individuals do not support migration, they may choose to migrate if their spouse experiences psychological stress due to the political environment.

Additionally, this study investigates how spouses’ political attitudes and emotions interact. Couples who are politically aligned may be more likely to migrate, especially if each partner supports democratic values ​​and harbors strong animosity toward political opponents. Conversely, politically divided couples may choose to migrate to avoid conflict. Political disagreements within the family can increase daily tensions, strain marital relationships, and encourage migration as a way to reduce conflict.

Discussion and policy implications

This study provides new insights into the relationship between political divisions, emotional polarization, and migration intentions. The results of this study show that emotional polarization, not just political attitudes, is an important factor influencing migration intentions. Even if both partners share a pro-democracy position, they will not necessarily choose to move when democracy is under threat.

Furthermore, the political dynamics of spouses play an important role in migration decisions. Couples who disagree politically may move to avoid conflict. Political divisions not only affect migration intentions but can also affect post-migration settlement experiences and family well-being.

However, this study has limitations, including a focus on migration intentions rather than actual behavior, an inability to track changes in migration behavior over time, and an omission of non-political factors. Future research could use longitudinal data to investigate the link between long-term changes in migration intentions and settlement experience.

From a policy perspective, measures to reduce political depopulation should foster social dialogue and inclusion while supporting couples with different political views. For destination countries, understanding migrants’ political motivations and family relationships can help nongovernmental organizations provide targeted assistance, including improving newcomers’ adjustment processes and family relationships.

Such efforts have the potential to increase social stability and the overall well-being of immigrants.