Attitudes Toward Migrant Integration Policies Scale

1. Abstract

The Attitudes Toward Migrant Integration Policies (AMIP) Scale (Maratia, Bobba, & Crocetti, 2024) is a psychometrically validated assessment instrument engineered to quantify public attitudes toward institutional and structural policies designed to foster the social, civic, economic, and cultural integration of individuals with a migrant background. Rooted conceptually in the eight policy strands codified by the international Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX), the scale condenses macro-level policy benchmarking into a concise, psychometrically sound, eight-item self-report questionnaire. The instrument uses a 5-point Likert response scale ranging from 1 (Not at all important) to 5 (Absolutely important), assessing respondent endorsement of state-sponsored initiatives encompassing labor market mobility, family reunification, education, healthcare access, political participation, permanent residency, access to nationality, and anti-discrimination legislation.

The psychometric evaluation of the AMIP Scale was established on diverse, triadic generational cohorts in Italy, encompassing adolescents (aged 13–17), parents, and secondary school teachers. Exploratory factor analyses (EFA) demonstrated an unequivocal, parsimonious single-factor structure accounting for 62.10% of total variance in adolescent samples and 73.23% in adult cohorts. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) further substantiated the unidimensional model across generational groups, showing high factor loadings and robust structural validity, although root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) values suggested slight local item dependencies easily addressed through theoretically tenable error covariances. The scale demonstrates exceptional internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients spanning from .91 to .94 across demographic strata. Multi-group CFA verified full scalar measurement invariance across generational pairings (adolescent–teacher, teacher–parent) and partial scalar invariance across adolescent–parent dyads, confirming its utility for cross-sectional and longitudinal intergenerational comparisons. Convergent validity is confirmed by significant inverse correlations with cognitive and affective dimensions of intergroup prejudice. The AMIP Scale constitutes a standardized, reliable, and theoretically grounded metric for developmental, educational, social, and political psychology research exploring public attitudes toward immigration policy.

2. Keywords

Attitudes Toward Migrant Integration Policies, AMIP Scale, Migrant Integration Policy Index, Immigrant Integration, Intergenerational Differences, Adolescent Attitudes, Sociopolitical Attitudes, Intergroup Prejudice, Measurement Invariance, Psychometrics

3. Authors

The Attitudes Toward Migrant Integration Policies Scale was developed and validated by a research team affiliated with the Department of Psychology at the Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, Italy:

• Fabio Maratia, Ph.D. (ORCID: 0000-0001-7466-1803) — Department of Psychology, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. Corresponding author: [email protected].
• Beatrice Bobba, Ph.D. (ORCID: 0000-0003-3653-4197) — Department of Psychology, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
• Elisabetta Crocetti, Ph.D. (ORCID: 0000-0002-2681-5684) — Full Professor of Social and Developmental Psychology, Department of Psychology, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.

Correspondence concerning the scale should be addressed to Fabio Maratia, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, Department of Psychology, Viale Berti Pichat, 5, 40127 Bologna (BO), Italy, or via institutional email.

4. Purpose

The ongoing intensification of global migration movements has rendered the socio-structural integration of foreign-born individuals one of the defining social and political challenges of modern constitutional democracies. Although social scientists have spent decades analyzing the psychological determinants of individual-level prejudice, xenophobia, and symbolic threat, institutional and policy-oriented attitudes have frequently been measured through fragmented, single-item poll indicators or non-standardized ad hoc questionnaires. The Attitudes Toward Migrant Integration Policies (AMIP) Scale was constructed to remedy this operational deficiency by establishing an internationally standardized, psychometrically grounded instrument dedicated specifically to evaluating the degree to which domestic citizens endorse institutionalized integration measures.

From an applied perspective, the AMIP Scale bridges the divide between sociological policy frameworks and individual-level social-cognitive assessments. Rather than measuring generalized warmth or hostility toward immigrants in the abstract, the AMIP Scale presents respondents with explicit, structurally actionable policy areas derived directly from the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX; Solano & Huddleston, 2020). By measuring attitudes toward specific governmental provisions—such as labor market equity, language training, family unification, naturalization frameworks, and institutional anti-discrimination protections—the scale illuminates public backing for systemic, macro-level inclusion. This provides public administration scholars, sociologists, and policymakers with actionable empirical data regarding where legislative proposals might face strong public resistance or receive widespread societal support.

In developmental and social psychological research, the AMIP Scale serves as an analytical instrument for tracing sociopolitical socialization and intergenerational transmission dynamics. Adolescence constitutes a critical formative period during which ideological worldviews, political values, and civic orientations coalesce (Crocetti et al., 2021). By administering the AMIP Scale across matched triads of adolescents, parents, and secondary school educators, researchers can dissect the relative predictive influence of primary socialization agents (parents) versus secondary institutional mentors (teachers) in fostering egalitarian and inclusive sociopolitical attitudes. The scale facilitates experimental investigations examining how exposure to civic education curricula, peer group discussions, or cross-group contact alters developmental trajectories regarding human rights and migrant welfare.

Furthermore, the instrument exhibits utility in longitudinal intervention studies and institutional audits. Educational institutions, non-governmental organizations, and municipal authorities can employ the scale to benchmark the baseline attitudes of secondary and tertiary students, educators, or civic personnel prior to executing diversity interventions, service-learning programs, or human rights seminars. Subsequent administrations allow researchers to evaluate the precise impact of targeted socio-educational programs on structural integration attitudes, moving beyond basic sentiment analysis toward an understanding of support for substantive civil rights.

5. Psychological Construct

The construct assessed by the AMIP Scale is attitudes toward migrant integration policies, defined as an individual’s cognitive evaluation and normative endorsement of governmental, legal, and socio-structural measures aimed at guaranteeing equal rights, opportunities, and security for foreign-born residents within the receiving society. Integration, within modern social-psychological and sociological nomenclature, is operationalized as a bidirectional process requiring mutual adaptation: immigrants adapt to the core institutional frameworks of the host nation, while host communities construct inclusive legal, economic, and socio-cultural structures that accommodate diversity and dismantle structural marginalization.

Rather than treating policy endorsement as a fragmented collection of unrelated opinions, the AMIP Scale conceptualizes it as an overarching, unidimensional latent construct reflecting an integrated structural inclusion ideology. This broad latent factor subsumes eight distinct institutional policy domains:

• Labor Market Mobility: Represents the endorsement of structural equity in economic participation. This includes facilitating immediate access to host-country employment, providing vocational training courses, and establishing formal mechanisms for the rapid institutional recognition of foreign professional and academic credentials. It addresses socioeconomic stratification and occupational downgrading.
• Family Reunion: Measures support for legal mechanisms that allow foreign residents to bring immediate family members (spouses, dependent minor children) into the receiving nation. It encompasses governmental assistance regarding adequate housing eligibility, residency length thresholds, and human-rights protections centering on family integrity.
• Education: Assesses endorsement of institutional measures ensuring migrant children and youths receive equitable access to all educational tiers, tailored pedagogical guidance, mother-tongue and second-language acquisition resources, and specialized intercultural learning environments.
• Healthcare Access: Evaluates endorsement of unconditional health entitlements for migrant populations, parity in public health coverage, culturally competent medical communication, and transparent dissemination of public health information irrespective of formal legal status.
• Political Participation: Evaluates public backing for democratic inclusion, focusing on granting foreign residents local voting rights, active participation in municipal consultative bodies, and the legal right to form or join political parties and civic associations.
• Permanent Residency: Assesses attitudes toward providing stable, secure, long-term legal residence pathways based on clear economic requirements, renewable permits, and structural protection against arbitrary expulsion or deportation.
• Access to Nationality: Captures normative support for civic naturalization and birthright citizenship provisions. This includes granting citizenship to immigrant offspring born in the host country (jus soli or modified birthright principles), tolerating dual or multiple nationalities, and establishing accessible, non-exclusionary legal criteria for naturalization.
• Anti-Discrimination Protection: Measures endorsement of institutional, legal, and judicial frameworks designed to sanction and eradicate systemic and interpersonal discrimination across employment, housing, education, and public accommodations on the grounds of race, ethnicity, nationality, or religious affiliation.

Although these eight domains address divergent areas of public policy, psychometric evidence underscores that respondents synthesize these elements into a single coherent latent continuum of institutional inclusiveness. Individuals scoring high on this construct view migrant integration as an overarching state responsibility grounded in human rights, social equity, and structural parity. Conversely, low scores signify assimilationist or exclusionary orientations that oppose state-sponsored accommodations and place the burden of adaptation entirely on the migrant, often perceiving policy supports as unearned advantages or threats to national cohesion.

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual framework underpinning the AMIP Scale integrates macro-sociological policy models with contemporary social-psychological theories of intergroup relations, social justice, and adolescent sociopolitical development.

The MIPEX Institutional Framework

At the macro-sociological level, the scale draws directly on the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) developed by Solano and Huddleston (2020). MIPEX evaluates migration policies across more than 50 democratic nations across eight distinct institutional strands. By translating these objective legal and institutional benchmarks into subjective attitudinal items, Maratia, Bobba, and Crocetti (2024) bridged the gap between institutional policy configurations and subjective public endorsement. This approach ensures high ecological validity, as respondents rate established, concrete legislative and administrative interventions rather than abstract social ideals.

Intergroup Threat Theory

At the micro- and meso-psychological levels, attitudes toward institutional integration policies are shaped by mechanisms outlined in Intergroup Threat Theory (Stephan, Ybarra, & Rios, 2016). This framework differentiates between realistic threats (perceptions of competition over scarce material resources, employment opportunities, and welfare system solvency) and symbolic threats (perceived subversion of native cultural values, national identity, language, and normative belief systems). The eight domains of the AMIP Scale directly tap into institutional areas where these threats materialize: labor market and healthcare policies relate to realistic economic anxieties, whereas nationality, language, and voting rights activate symbolic concerns regarding national sovereignty. Unfavorable attitudes toward integration policies frequently operate as psychological defenses designed to shield the ingroup’s material and symbolic hegemony.

Social Dominance Theory and System Justification

The AMIP construct also aligns with Social Dominance Theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) and System Justification Theory (Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004). Social Dominance Theory posits that societies maintain hierarchical group dominance through hierarchy-enhancing ideologies. Integration policies such as anti-discrimination protections and voting rights act as hierarchy-attenuating mechanisms designed to level structural inequities. Individuals with elevated Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) consistently oppose institutional policies that distribute rights to outgroups. Simultaneously, system-justifying tendencies motivate native citizens to defend existing sociopolitical hierarchies, viewing institutional concessions to migrants as disruptions to societal order.

Developmental and Socialization Perspectives

From a developmental perspective, the scale is grounded in contemporary models of civic development and political socialization (Crocetti et al., 2021). During middle to late adolescence, individuals refine their sociopolitical cognitive schemas and form values regarding human rights, diversity, and social justice. These views are co-constructed through continuous interactions within microsystems: the family environment (parental socialization) and the educational setting (teacher modeling, formal civic instruction, and peer dynamics). The AMIP Scale enables researchers to track whether generational cohorts differ in their baseline acceptance of diversity, assessing the degree to which contemporary youths, socialized in multicultural settings, demonstrate more progressive integration views than prior generations.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the AMIP Scale has been documented through rigorous empirical testing across diverse demographic groups, providing solid evidence of construct, convergent, and discriminant validity (Maratia, Bobba, & Crocetti, 2024).

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity was established via systematic exploratory factor analyses (EFA) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) conducted across independent subsamples of Italian adolescents, parents, and secondary school teachers. As detailed in the source documentation, EFA unequivocally supported a unidimensional factor structure, with a single dominant factor explaining 62.10% of total variance in the adolescent cohort and 73.23% in the adult cohort. CFA confirmed that all eight items loaded significantly onto this unified latent factor. Standardized factor loadings across items were consistently strong (predominantly ranging from .65 to .88), indicating that each MIPEX-derived item captures substantial variance from the common underlying construct of institutional integration endorsement.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity was evaluated by correlating AMIP scores with established metrics of intergroup prejudice, specifically examining both affective and cognitive components:

• Affective Prejudice: Assessed using feelings thermometer scales evaluating immediate emotional warmth versus coldness, empathy, and hostility toward immigrant groups. AMIP scores exhibited strong, statistically significant negative correlations with affective prejudice across the aggregate sample and within each demographic subgroup (adolescents, parents, and teachers). Higher endorsement of integration policies correlated with lower intergroup antipathy.
• Cognitive Prejudice: Measured via validated subscales tapping negative stereotyping, perceived deceitfulness, and symbolic threat attributions. As anticipated theoretically, cognitive prejudice demonstrated moderate-to-strong inverse associations with AMIP scores across all generational cohorts, confirming that individuals with negative cognitive schemas toward migrants reject institutional policies that promote their social inclusion.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was verified by evaluating latent correlations between integration policy support and related sociopolitical constructs, such as generic civic participation, interpersonal trust, and institutional trust in national governance. Although AMIP scores positively tracked democratic values and generalized institutional confidence, the magnitude of these correlations remained within moderate ranges (typically r = .25 to .42), demonstrating that the AMIP Scale does not merely reflect generalized civic engagement, political goodwill, or prosociality, but uniquely captures attitudes directed specifically toward structural policies for immigrant integration.

8. Reliability

The AMIP Scale exhibits high internal consistency reliability across varied age cohorts and administrative environments.

Internal Consistency

Across the standard validation investigations conducted by Maratia, Bobba, and Crocetti (2024), the eight-item instrument yielded high reliability indices across generational samples:

• Adolescent Sample (aged 13–17): Cronbach’s alpha (α) = .91; McDonald’s omega (ω) = .91.
• Teacher Sample: Cronbach’s alpha (α) = .93; McDonald’s omega (ω) = .93.
• Parent Sample: Cronbach’s alpha (α) = .94; McDonald’s omega (ω) = .94.
• Combined Aggregate Sample: Cronbach’s alpha (α) = .93.

These values fall well above the conventional .80 threshold recommended for research instruments and meet the stringent .90 benchmark required for high-stakes individual assessment. Item-total correlations across all eight items exceeded .60, and iterative item-deletion analyses indicated that the elimination of any single item failed to improve internal consistency, demonstrating that each item contributes to scale reliability.

Measurement Precision and Error

The standard error of measurement (SEM) was modest across all subsamples, confirming strong measurement precision across the latent trait distribution. The higher internal consistency observed among adults (α = .93–.94) compared to adolescents (α = .91) aligns with developmental psychometrics, reflecting greater crystallization of sociopolitical and ideological attitudes among adult respondents. Nonetheless, the .91 coefficient obtained within the adolescent cohort confirms the instrument’s reliability for youth populations.

9. Factor Analysis

The dimensional architecture and structural invariance of the AMIP Scale were assessed using a two-stage analytic strategy featuring Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), single-group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), and multi-group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MG-CFA).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Separate EFAs employing principal axis factoring with promax rotation were conducted on split-half calibration samples for adolescents and adults. The sample data satisfied all preliminary diagnostic tests for factorability (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure > .92; Bartlett’s test of sphericity p < .001). For both cohorts, examination of scree plots, parallel analysis, and Kaiser’s eigenvalue-greater-than-one criterion unequivocally indicated an unrotated single-factor solution. No secondary factors yielded eigenvalues exceeding 0.70. The unidimensional model accounted for 62.10% of the total variance in the adolescent calibration sample and 73.23% of the variance in the adult calibration sample, confirming the structural coherence of the construct across age groups.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Single-group CFAs using robust maximum likelihood (MLR) estimation were subsequently estimated to confirm the unidimensional baseline model across all three target groups (Adolescents, Parents, Teachers). Across all groups, the one-factor model yielded satisfactory comparative and incremental fit indices:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .94 to .97
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .92 to .96
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .032 to .045

Consistent with findings in psychological literature for short, highly saturated scales, the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) initially hovered above the standard .08 cutoff across models (ranging from .088 to .105). Inspection of modification indices revealed localized strain stemming from correlated residuals between two conceptually linked item pairs: Item 1 (Labor Market Mobility) with Item 6 (Permanent Residency), and Item 6 (Permanent Residency) with Item 7 (Access to Italian Nationality). These residual covariances reflect shared legal requirements (e.g., economic self-sufficiency, residency permits) that connect employment, permanent status, and citizenship. Allowing these two residual errors to covary brought RMSEA values into the accepted range (≤ .065) across all groups without altering the primary latent factor structure.

Measurement Invariance

To determine whether the AMIP Scale assesses the same psychological construct across generational cohorts, hierarchical multi-group CFAs tested for configural, metric, and scalar invariance:

• Configural Invariance: Successfully established across all three cohorts (ΔCFI ≤ .010, ΔRMSEA ≤ .015), confirming that the single-factor configuration holds equivalent across adolescents, parents, and educators.
• Metric (Weak) Invariance: Constraining factor loadings to equality across groups caused no significant decrement in model fit, confirming that the scale items manifest identical psychological meaning and metric scaling across youth and adult respondents.
• Scalar (Strong) Invariance: Testing for intercept equality yielded interesting intergenerational patterns: Full scalar invariance was established between adolescents and teachers, as well as between teachers and parents. When comparing adolescents directly to parents, full scalar invariance was marginally violated; relaxing the intercept equality constraints for Item 4 (Health), Item 6 (Permanent Residency), and Item 7 (Access to Nationality) achieved partial scalar invariance. Ultimately, when all three groups were modeled simultaneously within a comprehensive framework, partial scalar invariance was fully satisfied, justifying direct comparisons of latent means across generational cohorts.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Attitudes Toward Migrant Integration Policies Scale (AMIP Scale)
• Original Authors: Fabio Maratia, Beatrice Bobba, & Elisabetta Crocetti (Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna)
• Publication Year: 2023 (online first) / 2024 (print)
• Construct Assessed: Individual attitudes and endorsement levels regarding governmental and socio-structural integration policies across eight MIPEX domains (Labor Market Mobility, Family Reunion, Education, Health, Political Participation, Permanent Residency, Access to Nationality, Anti-discrimination).
• Test Type: Standardized self-report psychometric rating scale.
• Target Population: Adolescents (aged 13–17 years) and adults (aged 18 years and older, including parents, educators, and the general public).
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil or digital self-administered questionnaire; individual or group testing formats.
• Total Item Count: 8 items.
• Administration Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes.
• Introductory Prompt: “You will be presented with several policies for the integration of people with a migrant background. Please, rate how important it is that Italian national programs support policies to foster…” (or contextualized for the relevant nation).
• Response Scale (5-Point Likert):
  • 1 = Not at all important (Per niente importante)
  • 2 = A little important (Poco importante)
  • 3 = Quite important (Abbastanza importante)
  • 4 = Very important (Molto importante)
  • 5 = Absolutely important (Del tutto importante)
• Scoring Procedures:
  • All 8 items are scored directly (1 to 5). There are no reverse-coded items.
  • A composite total score can be calculated by summing all individual item scores (ranging from 8 to 40), or by computing an unweighted arithmetic mean across the 8 items (ranging from 1.00 to 5.00).
  • Higher mean scores indicate more positive, inclusive attitudes toward migrant integration policies and institutional state support for immigrant populations.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Attitudes Toward Migrant Integration Policies (AMIP) Scale was introduced and empirically validated in 2023, with formal journal publication in 2024 (Maratia, Bobba, & Crocetti, 2024). The scale is an open-access psychometric instrument available free of charge for non-commercial academic, scientific research, and educational purposes.

No formal licensing fees or individualized commercial permissions are required for university researchers, educational practitioners, or non-profit organizations using the instrument for non-commercial research. Users should cite the original peer-reviewed publication in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General in resulting publications. Adaptation of the prompt to nations other than Italy (e.g., substituting “national programs” for “Italian national programs”) is permissible, provided authors explicitly describe the localized adaptation in their methodology.

12. References

• Crocetti, E., Albarello, F., Prati, F., & Rubini, M. (2021). Development of prejudice against immigrants and ethnic minorities in adolescence: A systematic review. Child Development Perspectives, 15(4), 211–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12328
• Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881–919. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x
• Maratia, F., Bobba, B., & Crocetti, E. (2024). A near-mint view toward integration: Are adolescents more inclusive than adults? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 153(11), 2729–2741. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001472
• Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139175043
• Solano, G., & Huddleston, T. (2020). Migrant Integration Policy Index 2020. CIDOB and MPG. https://www.mipex.eu/
• Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Rios, K. (2016). Intergroup threat theory. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (2nd ed., pp. 255–278). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033604

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)