Experiments in Germany suggest that anti-Muslim rhetoric from mainstream parties may affect attitudes toward other out-groups too.
The article examines how mainstream political parties’ use of prejudiced rhetoric affects social norms. Researchers combined an analysis of parliamentary speeches in six European countries from 1994 to 2022 with two preregistered survey experiments in Germany and Denmark.
The speech analysis found rising anti-Muslim rhetoric from mainstream parties, associated with weaker norms against holding far-right views. In Germany, the experiments found that prejudiced rhetoric weakened anti-prejudice norms when it came from mainstream parties rather than far-right parties. The same effect was not found in Denmark, where the researchers say decades of mainstream accommodation may already have normalized such rhetoric.
What the experiments found
Across six European countries, mainstream parties used more anti-Muslim rhetoric over the period studied, and this was associated with weaker norms against holding far-right views. The observational evidence does not by itself show that the rhetoric caused the change.
The two preregistered experiments provided causal evidence for a context-dependent effect. In Germany, exposure to prejudiced rhetoric weakened anti-prejudice norms when the speaker was a mainstream party, but not when the speaker was a far-right party. In Denmark, comparable effects were absent. The experiments also found that rhetoric targeting Muslims weakened anti-prejudice norms toward out-groups more broadly, suggesting that the effects can spill beyond the group being targeted.
Why mainstream voices matter
Mainstream parties have more political legitimacy and normative credibility than far-right parties. The findings suggest that when they adopt far-right anti-Muslim rhetoric, they may influence not only electoral politics but also broader expectations about which prejudices are socially acceptable.
The reported spillover effect matters because rhetoric aimed at one group may weaken opposition to prejudice toward other out-groups as well. The difference between Germany and Denmark also indicates that the effects depend partly on the political and social context in which the rhetoric appears.
Evidence and caveats
The study combines observational analysis of parliamentary speeches in six European countries from 1994 to 2022 with two preregistered survey experiments in Germany and Denmark. The cross-national analysis identifies an association between rising mainstream anti-Muslim rhetoric and weaker anti-prejudice norms, while the experiments support a causal effect in Germany under the tested conditions.
The experimental findings were not the same in both countries: comparable effects were absent in Denmark. The abstract does not provide the experiments’ sample sizes or further details about the participants and survey designs. As a result, the findings should not be assumed to apply equally across all countries, political settings or forms of rhetoric.
// Source
Political Behavior · 2026 · DOI: 10.1007/s11109-026-10201-3
Authors: Ali Karcic
Institutions: Aarhus University
