日本版総合的社会調査共同研究拠点 研究論文集[16] JGSS Research Series No.13

How Does the Presence of Migrants at Worksites Shape Japanese Attitudes toward
Migration?:
An Analysis Using JGSS-2015
Yusuke MAZUMIJGSS Research Center
Osaka University of Commerce

職場の外国人の存在は外国人受け入れ意識にどのような影響を与えるのか？
―JGSS-2015 を用いた分析―
眞住 優助
大阪商業大学 JGSS 研究センター
Against the background of a current and expected increase of migrants in Japanese society, thisstudy investigates whether and how the presence of migrant workers at worksites shapes Japanese
attitudes toward migration. An emerging and growing body of the Japanese literature on public
attitudes on migration has thus far failed to make a serious consideration of this issue. Using thelogistic regression analysis of JGSS-2015 data, the results find an overall positive effect of theworksite presence of migrants on native-born citizens’ attitudes toward migration, which provides asupport for the intergroup contact hypothesis. However, the results also indicate that the occupational
position of Japanese employees mediates this effect. More specifically, for those who are engaged inunskilled occupations, the presence of migrants at worksites actually leads to negative attitudes towardmigration, which in turn offers credence to the threat hypothesis. If the Japanese labor market
introduces a larger number of migrants in the future, it will be important to better specify the way inwhich the worksite presence of migrants leads to negative attitudes toward migration among theunskilled.
Key Words: Public Attitudes toward Migration, Intergroup Contact, JGSS-2015
日本社会において現在進行し、また将来的に予期される外国人労働者の増加を背景として、
本稿では、職場における外国人労働者の存在が日本人の外国人受け入れ意識に与える影響を分析する。日本の外国人受け入れ意識に関する研究調査は、近年増加しつつあるものの、本稿での課題を主眼とした分析はほとんどない。JGSS-2015 を用いてロジスティック回帰分析を行った結果、全般的には接触仮説の予測と一致して、外国人が職場にいる人ほど肯定的な受け入れ意識をもっていた。しかし、従業員の職業上の地位がその効果を媒介していることも明らかになった。具体的には、非熟練労働者の間では、脅威仮説の予測に従って、職場に外国人がいる人ほど否定的な受け入れ意識をもっていた。今後、日本の労働市場がより多くの外国人を導入するならば、職場の外国人の存在が、非熟練労働者の間でどのように否定的な受け入れ意識につながるのかについて、さらなる理解が必要だろう。
キーワード：外国人の受け入れ意識、集団間接触、JGSS-201517日本版総合的社会調査共同研究拠点 研究論文集[16] JGSS Research Series No.13

1. Introduction
During the last quarter century, Japan has witnessed a steady increase of the migrant
population. Having held a restrictive policy of migration for decades in the postwar era, this country
made important revisions in its migration policy around 1990 in the context of serious labor shortages.
While the economic boom that created such labor shortages ended shortly after these revisions, sincethen, migrants in Japan have shown an important increase, including, for instance, the third-generation
Japanese-origin overseas now able to settle and work as long-term residents, migrants recruited undera de facto temporary migrant worker program – the Foreign Technical Intern Program (hereafter,
FTIP) – as well as other types of migrants from lesser developed Asian countries. The rate of thisincrease is remarkable. In 1989, the population of registered foreigners counted less than 1 million in
Japan. However, in 2005, that population went over two million for the first time in postwar history.
Additionally, the most recent data (as of this writing) from the Japanese Ministry of Justice shows thatthe number of registered foreigners reached its historic high of more than 2.2 million in 2015 (JMJ2016), recovering from a decreasing trend after the economic recession in the late 2000s.(1) Certainly,
the magnitude of this increase should not be too exaggerated since the relative proportion of migrants
still remains small, constituting less than 2 percent of the total population. Nevertheless, the current
increase of migrants still represents an important social change in contemporary Japanese society.
Accompanying the increase of migrants over the last few decades are the emergence andgrowth of the sociological literature regarding public attitudes toward migrants and migration in Japan(e.g., Green and Kadoya 2015; Mazumi 2015; Nagayoshi 2009, 2012-2013; Nukaga 2006; Ohtsuki
2006). The increasing availability of nationally representative samples such as the Japanese GeneralSocial Surveys (hereafter, JGSS) also assisted the growth of this literature. While this line of literature
first developed in North American and Western Europe in the growing politicization of immigration
issues during the 1990s,(2) researchers working on migration in Japan have utilized – and often moved
beyond – theoretical insights garnered in previous research to shed light on the nature and character ofJapanese attitudes on migration. Existing works in the Japanese literature have examined a variety offactors that shape public attitudes toward migrants and migration, including, for instance, education(Nukaga 2006), contact with migrants (Ohtsuki 2006), (self-rated) English ability (Green and Kadoya2015), the degree of the local concentration of migrants (Nagayoshi 2009, 2012-2013), and the local
degree and pace of aging (Mazumi 2015).
Against this backdrop, this study seeks to investigate whether and how the presence of
migrants at worksites shapes native-born citizens’ attitudes toward migration in Japan. Despite therecent growth of the literature, little research has scrutinized this issue. Exploring this issue has
empirical importance nonetheless. First, as suggested above, the migrant population in Japan has been
on a steady increase, which has created a greater number of chances for Japanese workers to encounter
and work with their migrant counterparts. How then do such experiences influence the former’s
attitudes toward migration? Second, in the current context of the decline and aging of the native-born
population, the increase of migrants may be further accelerated in years to come. In the last few years,
the Japanese government has developed its interest in accepting a larger number of migrants inanticipation of future labor shortages. In March of 2015, for example, the cabinet approved a bill toextend the length of work for migrants introduced under the FTIP from three to five years, as well as
to establish a new resident status of nursing care. In addition, twice in the last year, the government
made an announcement to expand the FTIP by approving a wider range of occupations for technicalinterns, including such jobs as meatpacking, the production of prepared food, and the sewing of car
seats.(3) More recently, in April 2016, a special mission committee on the securement of labor force,18

日本版総合的社会調査共同研究拠点 研究論文集[16] JGSS Research Series No.13

organized by the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, began to work on a tentative proposal to call for theadmission of migrants into industries such as nursing care, agriculture, and Japanese hotels (ryokan).
This proposal noted that “a system must be established that can handle issues even if the number of
migrant workers doubles from the current one of 908 thousand” (cited from Miyazaki 2016).
The current and expected increase of migrant workers in the Japanese society will generate
more frequent encounters and contacts with migrants for Japanese workers. However, we know little
about how such contacts may shape Japanese attitudes toward migration. This study fills this void in
the literature through an examination of JGSS-2015.

2. The Effect of the Presence of Migrants at Worksites: Two Competing Views
What effect might the worksite presence of migrants have on Japanese attitudes towardmigration? Will it contribute to more negative or positive attitudes? Different lines of literature offer
two competing – if not contradictory – scenarios in this regard.
2.1 Negative Effect through the Activation of ThreatFirst, it may be predicted that the worksite presence of migrants leads to negative attitudes
toward migration among native-born employees. An explanation for this prediction is that by having
migrant colleagues at their worksites, native-born employees will develop the sense of threat that theymight be displaced by migrants eventually or that their working conditions may deteriorate. In thecontext of Japan, where the relatively small proportion of migrants limits their frequent encounterswith Japanese citizens in their daily life, these types of threat may be perceived only after Japaneseemployees actually have migrants as their colleagues at their worksites. It is important to note thatthese kinds of threat are not warranted despite their occasional appearance in public discourse.
Previous qualitative studies find that migrants, including Japanese-origin South Americans (Kajita etal. 2006; Okubo 2005) and migrant technical interns (Kamibayashi 2015), play supplementary roles tonative-born workers in the Japanese labor market. Furthermore, existing quantitative research thatanalyzed the effect of migration on regional labor markets finds at best mixed support for the negative
effects of migration (Nakamura et al. 2009). Nevertheless, as far as the presence of migrants isperceived by native-born employees to be detrimental to their work conditions, it should lead them tohave negative attitudes toward migration.
To the extent that the worksite presence of migrants has a negative effect on attitudes toward
accepting migrants, another possible scenario is that this effect will not be observed among all persons
who have migrants at their workplaces but will be limited only to those who engage in low-skilledoccupations. Migrant workers in Japan – like in other migrant-receiving countries – tend toconcentrate in low-skilled and low-paid occupations.(4) This fact may augment the threat perception
especially for low-skilled native-born workers. At the other end of the skill spectrum, besides the
scarcer presence of migrants, the types of work that migrants do will further limit the threat perceptionof native-born workers, since they are not likely to place native-born workers in direct competition
with their migrant counterparts. For instance, due to their language, cultural background andknowledge, Chinese high-skilled migrants are assigned by Japanese employers to a bridging role,
where they take charge of communications and negotiations with Chinese companies to expand
business opportunities for their Japanese companies (Liu-Farrer 2011). Given the disparity in the
proportion and role of migrants in Japan’s labor market, the negative effect of the worksite presence of
migrants may be only observed among low-skilled native-born workers.

19

日本版総合的社会調査共同研究拠点 研究論文集[16] JGSS Research Series No.13

2.2 Positive Effect through the Facilitation of Understanding
In contrast to the prediction above, the presence of migrants at worksites may actuallyenhance positive attitudes toward migration. Intergroup contact theory posits that direct exposure tomigrants will facilitate greater understanding and acceptance of migrant individuals among
native-born citizens while at the same time dispelling unsubstantiated negative stereotypes and rumors
about migrants. To the extent that this is the case, exposure to migrants at worksites should also foster
the reduction of prejudice against migrants among Japanese workers, leading to their greater support
for increasing migration.
Early studies reject such a simplistic view. In a now-classic and influential work on theintergroup contact theory, for instance, Allport (1961) proposes four conditions that make contact
conducive to reduction in prejudice: equal status between groups, the pursuit of common goals,
intergroup cooperation, and the presence of institutional support. For him, the above conditions must
be marked for the contact to reduce prejudice. However, many subsequent studies that analyzed
attitudes toward a wide range of social groups find a positive effect of contact to be present even when
the above conditions are absent (Pettigrew 1998). In a series of research on public attitudes towardmigrants and migration, studies show that having migrant friends or acquaintances is associated withpositive views of migrants in the United States and Europe (e.g., O’neal and Tienda 2010; Schlueter
and Scheepers 2010). In the case of Japan, where the relative size of migrants is even smaller,
friendship with migrants may not even be needed for reducing anti-migrant attitudes. A study by
Ohtsuki (2006) finds that, in addition to having migrant friends, even more cursory and limited contact,such as seeing and greeting migrants in the area of residence, has a positive effect on respondents’attitudes toward migration. To the extent that contact cultivates positive attitudes, worksite contact
with migrants should also play the same role.
With the above two competing hypotheses in mind, this study analyzes what effect thepresence of migrants at worksites have on Japanese attitudes toward migration.

3. Data and Method
In order to investigate the effect of the presence of migrant workers at worksites on attitudes
toward migration, this study utilizes JGSS-2015 as its dataset. JGSS-2015 offers a nationally
representative sample of Japan. Its respondents include a total of 4,500 Japanese men and womenwhose age range from 20 to 89. The sample was selected by the two-stage stratified sampling method.
The response rate is 52.4 percent (2,079 cases). Excluding 173 cases that contain non-response invariables used in the analysis, this study focuses on 1,906 cases.
This study employs logistic regression analysis to examine the effect of the worksite
presence of migrant workers. JGSS-2015 contains a question that asks about respondents’ attitudes
toward migration (“Are you for or against the increase of migrants in your area of residence?”), withrespondents being given two answer choices (1=for, 2=against). I created a dummy variable from thisquestion (1=for, 0=against) in order to use it as a dependent variable. JGSS has continuously asked
this question since its first survey (JGSS-2000), and many previous studies that employ the JGSS
dataset make use of this question as a proxy for attitudes toward migrants or migration in Japan (e.g.,
Nagayoshi 2009, 2012-2013; Nukaga 2006; Ohtsuki 2006).
The independent variable of primary interest is the presence or absence of migrant workers at
respondents’ worksite. When respondents have a job, JGSS-2015 asks whether or not they haveperson(s) from abroad (gaikoku shusshin no hito) – i.e., migrant(s) – working at their worksites. I
produced a dummy variable from this question (1=Yes, 0=No). The analysis below focuses on whether

20日本版総合的社会調査共同研究拠点 研究論文集[16] JGSS Research Series No.13

this variable has a positive or negative effect on the dependent variable above.
Other independent variables, which serve as controls in this analysis, relate to sex, age,education, household income, political orientation, occupation, and size of area of residence. The sex
variable is dichotomous, where 1 indicates male and 0 female. Education denotes the types of schoolthat respondents attended last, including: (1) junior high school, (2) junior college (including technicalcollege), and (3) university (reference=high school). Household income consists of dummy variables
that denote the range of amount of income. Respondents who stated that they did not know or did notwant to answer the household income constituted about 24 percent of the total valid respondents. I
chose to create dummies for income for the sake of keeping these cases in the analysis. Specifically,
income dummies involve: (1) less than 3.5 million yen, (2) more than 6.5 million yen, and (3) do notknow or do not want to answer (reference=more than 3.5 million and less than 6.5 million yen).(5)Party affiliation is used as a proxy for political orientation, which consists of categorical variables
including: (1) the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), (2) the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), and (3)other parties (Other) (reference=have no party affiliation or do not know). The occupation variableconsists of eight dummies, which involve: (1) Professional, (2) Management, (3) Sales, (4) Skilled, (5)Semiskilled, (6) Unskilled, (7) Agriculture, and (8) Do Not Work (reference=Clerical). Lastly, the sizeof area of residence has three dummy variables which respectively denotes the population size of themunicipalities in which respondents live: (1) large cities, (2) cities with more than 200 thousand, and(3) towns or villages (reference=cities with less than 200 thousand).
In the analysis that follows, I first look at whether the presence of migrants at worksites will
have an overall positive or negative effect on attitudes toward accepting migrants. Then, I move on tosee if that effect may vary depending on whether respondents have a low-skilled job, as suggested by
the second scenario of the threat hypothesis. Doing so enables the analysis to gain a detailed picturewith regard to the effect of the worksite presence of migrants in the Japanese labor market.
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of the dataset used in this analysis. It suggests that 43
percent of respondents support accepting migrants in their area of residence, which in other words
means that more than half of respondents oppose increasing migration – a result more or less similar toprevious JGSS series.(6) As for the proportion of those who have migrants at their worksites, Table 1
indicates that 14 percent of all respondents (including those who do not work) work where migrant
employees are present. Admittedly, this figure may appear relatively high given the proportion of
migrants in Japan, which is still lower than 2 percent of the total population. A possible reason may bethat respondents provided a positive answer to the question even when they had migrant(s) working inthe same building of their companies, not necessarily when they had migrant(s) working together inthe same department or room.
Even so, the percentage of respondents with migrants at their worksites shows importantdifferences by their occupational position. Figure 1, leaving aside respondents who do not work,
indicates the proportional distribution of respondents who have migrants at their worksites by
occupation. It suggests a somewhat polarized picture as to the presence of migrants at worksites.
Among eight occupations, the proportion is the highest in management (36 percent). In addition to thepresence of migrant colleagues in managerial positions, this result might have been driven by the factthat managers have a wider organizational conception as to what constitute their “worksite” because of
the character of their occupation, which is to manage and supervise corporate tasks within or evenacross divisions or departments. The second and third highest are “Professional” and “Unskilled” (28and 25 percent, respectively). These results may not be so surprising given the occupational
distribution of migrants that tends to cluster at the two ends of the skill spectrum. These results suggest

21

日本版総合的社会調査共同研究拠点 研究論文集[16] JGSS Research Series No.13

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics of the Analytic Sample
Item
Mean Value
S.D
For or Against Increasing Migration (For=1).43.50
Presence of Migrant(s) at Worksite (Yes=1).14.34Sex (Male=1)
.46
.50
Age
53.10 17.30
Eduation (Ref=High School)
Junior High School.12.32
Junior College.10.30
University.27.44
Household Income (Ref=More Than 3.5 Million and Less Than 6.5 Million Yen)
Less Than 3.5 Million Yen.23.42
More Than 6.5 Million Yen.25.43
Do Not Know or Do Not Want to Answer.24.43
Party Affliation (Ref=Have No Party Affiliation or Do Not Know)
LDP
.28
.45
DPJ
.07
.25
Other
.10
.30
Occupation (Ref=Clerical)
Professional.10.30Management
.03
.18
Sales
.09
.28
Skilled.09.29
Semiskilled.07.25
Unskilled.05.23
Agriculture.01.12
Do Not Work.38
.49
Size of Area of Residence (Ref=Cities with Less Than 200 Thousand)Large Cities.25.43
Cities with More Than 200 Thousand.24.42
Towns or Villages
.10
.30
N
1,906

40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%

35.9%
27.8%
20.6% 18.9% 18.9% 21.8%

25.2%

0.0%

Figure 1 Pecentage of Respondents Having MigrantWorkers at Worksites by Occupation

22

日本版総合的社会調査共同研究拠点 研究論文集[16] JGSS Research Series No.13

that the professional and the unskilled are the ones that have more encounters and contacts with
migrants at worksites in Japan.(7)4. Results
Tables 2 shows the results of the logistic regression analysis of attitudes toward migration.
Model 1 of the table focuses on the overall effect of the presence of migrant workers at workplaces. It
illustrates that five factors have a significant effect on attitudes toward accepting migrants. First andforemost, the presence of migrants at worksites shows a significantly positive effect. This means thatthose who have migrant employees at their worksites are more likely to welcome the local increase of
migrants than others (including both those who do not have migrant employees and who do not work).
This result corresponds to an expectation of intergroup contact theory. Having migrant workers atworksites will make it almost inevitable for Japanese employees to have some sort of interaction
and/or communication with migrants. Such workplace contact leads to greater knowledge andunderstanding of migrants, helping Japanese employees to reduce unwarranted images and stereotypes
about migrants that they might have had beforehand. The result of Model 1 signals that such contact
also leads the Japanese to develop more favorable attitudes toward migration.(8)Other independent variables that indicate a significant effect involve sex, age, education, andthe size of area of residence. Sex has a negatively significant effect, which means that men are more
likely to oppose the increase of migrants. The reason is not clear here, but this outcome is different
from a previous study that investigated attitudes toward accepting migrant workers using JGSS-2008(Mazumi 2015). Age also matters, since higher age is associated with more negative attitudes,
corroborating the connection between higher age and conservatism. Among education variables, those
who did not go to high school are more likely to oppose increasing migration. This suggests thepossible fear that these respondents have about labor market competition with migrants. An alternativeinterpretation is that more education cultivates tolerance toward different cultures. It should be noted,
however, that the attitudes do not significantly differ between those whose last school of attendance ishigh school and those whose one is either junior college or university. Lastly, respondents living incities with more than 200 thousand are more receptive to increasing migration.
On the other hand, no variable in household income, political orientation, and occupation
indicates a significant effect. The labor market competition theory posits that lower income and lesser
skilled jobs are associated with greater opposition toward increasing migration since the labor market
positions of those respondents are more likely to put them in direct competition with migrants. Despite
the intuitive appeal of this theory, this paper, as well as other previous works (see Hainmueller andHopkins 2014), fail to find a significant effect of related variables. Political orientation does not show
a significant effect either, though it should be mentioned that the affiliation with DPJ is significant atleast at the level of 0.1 percent (p=0.055).
The result of Model 1 lent credence to the intergroup contact theory, showing that those whohave migrants at their worksites are more likely to favor increasing migration. Before reaching thisconclusion, however, an important issue still remains. It concerns the mediating role of occupational
position in shaping the relationship between the worksite presence of migrants and attitudes towardmigration. To put differently, does the positive effect of the migrant presence hold true for any
occupational group including the low skilled, who are presumably more vulnerable to competition
with migrants at worksite?
Model 2 of Table 1 delved into this issue by adding the interactions between the worksite
presence of migrants and two occupation variables – semiskilled and unskilled. It provides a partial yet

23日本版総合的社会調査共同研究拠点 研究論文集[16] JGSS Research Series No.13

Table 2 Logistic Regression of Attitudes toward Migration on Key Predictors
Model 2Model 1
B
S.E
B
S.E
Intercept.407 .232.375 .233.307 .145 *.437 .163 **Presence of Migrant(s) at Worksite (Yes=1)
Sex (Male=1)-.265 .109 *-.255 .109 *Age-.013 .003 ***-.013 .003 ***Eduation (Ref=High School)
Junior High School-.349 .170 *-.348 .170 *Junior College.047 .164.069 .165
University-.026 .125-.034 .125
Household Income (Ref=More Than 3.5 Million and Less Than 6.5 Million Yen)
Less Than 3.5 Million Yen.167 .138.174 .139
More Than 6.5 Million Yen-.045 .135-.044 .135
Do Not Know or Do Not Want to Answer-.102 .133-.097 .134
Party Affliation (Ref=Have No Party Affiliation or Do Not Know)
LDP-.144 .113-.135 .113
DPJ
.373 .195.392 .195
Other.151 .164.159 .165
Occupation (Ref=Clerical)
Professional.131 .189.123 .190
Management.248 .292.229 .293
Sales-.124 .199-.123 .199
Skilled-.074 .202-.077 .203
Semiskilled.284 .217.271 .239
Unskilled-.135 .239
.217 .265
Agriculture.502 .422.479 .422
Do Not Work.116 .155.143 .156
Size of Area of Residence (Ref=Cities with Less Than 200 Thousand)Large Cities-.048 .121-.044 .122
Cities with More Than 200 Thousand.258 .122 *.257 .122 *Towns or Villages-.106 .170-.113 .170
Interaction Variables
Presence of Migrants at Worksite*Semiskilled.042 .463
Presence of Migrants at Worksite*Unskilled-1.513 .549 **N
1,906

intriguing support for the idea that the occupational position mediates the effect of the worksite
presence of migrants on attitudes toward migration. According to Model 2, the interaction with thesemiskilled occupation variable does not have a significant effect. However, the one with the unskilledoccupation variable does, and the vector of direction is negative. This suggests that the positive effectof the presence of migrants significantly diminishes among the unskilled. Additionally, with thisinteraction term inserted, the effect of the worksite presence of migrants has now become even morepositive, showing a statistical significance at 0.01 level. This result supports the argument that theoccupational position plays a mediating role in shaping the effect of the presence of migrant workers.
Model 2 still leaves a question, however. That is, does the presence of migrants only have an
insignificant effect on attitudes toward migration for the unskilled, or does it even have a significantly
negative effect? If the threat hypothesis holds true, the effect of the worksite presence of migrants
should be significantly negative for the unskilled. Table 3 investigated this question, doing the logistic24

日本版総合的社会調査共同研究拠点 研究論文集[16] JGSS Research Series No.13

Table 3 Logistic Regression of Attitudes toward Migration on Key Predictors(Respondents Having Unskilled Occupations Only)
B
S.E
Intercept
1.435 1.040
Presence of Migrant(s) at Worksite (Yes=1)-1.642 .667 *Sex (Male=1)-.331 .507
Age-.047 .019 *Eduation (Ref=High School)
Junior High School-.362 .940
Junior College.295 1.538
University
1.028 .664
Household Income (Ref=More Than 3.5 Million and Less Than 6.5 Million Yen)
Less Than 3.5 Million Yen
1.548 .687 *More Than 6.5 Million Yen
2.696 .961 **Do Not Know or Do Not Want to Answer
1.030 .612
Party Affliation (Ref=Have No Party Affiliation or Do Not Know)
LDP.071 .601
DPJ-.377 1.476
Other.167 .711
Size of Area of Residence (Ref=Cities with Less Than 200 Thousand)Large Cities-.548 .590
Cities with More Than 200 Thousand.239 .663
Towns or Villages-.087 .822
N103
regression analysis by focusing on respondents who have unskilled occupations with the same set ofindependent variables as Table 2 (except for the occupational variables that are excluded here). The
result of Table 3 reveals that the presence of migrants has a significantly negative effect among
unskilled respondents. This means that, contrary to the overall tendency depicted above, the worksite
presence of migrants leads to more negative attitudes toward migration for the unskilled.
The result of Table 3 also helps resolve the problem of causality. As observed in Table 2, theoverall effect of the presence of migrants at worksites is positive. However, this outcome per se is notable to tell whether the presence of migrants is a cause or result of positive attitudes toward migration.
One way to figure out which is more plausible is to see whether the positive effect of the worksite
presence of migrants can be observed for any occupational group. If the positive attitudes towardmigration that native-born workers have mean that they tolerate the presence of migrants at worksites,
a positive correlation between these two factors should be seen for any occupational group. As
observed in Table 3, that is not the case. Among the unskilled, the worksite presence of migrants is
associated with more negative attitudes toward migration. This result will allow this study to conclude
that, with regard to the causal relation between the presence of migrants at worksites and attitudes
toward migration, the former represents a cause and the latter a result – not vice versa.
To summarize, the analysis presented above offers support for both the contact and threat
hypotheses. The former gains credence for the overall positive effect of the presence of migrants on
Japanese attitudes toward migration. On the other hand, the latter also holds true, albeit with limited
applicability, because of the negative effect of migrant presence at worksites on native-born unskilled25

日本版総合的社会調査共同研究拠点 研究論文集[16] JGSS Research Series No.13

workers. These results demonstrate the intricate nature of the effect of migrants at worksites on theformation of Japanese attitudes toward migration, as the worksite presence of migrants leads to nurture
two contrasting attitudes depending on the position in the occupational hierarchy.

5. Conclusion
This study explored whether and how the presence of migrant workers at worksites shapes
public attitudes toward migration in Japan. Not only has the number of migrants shown a steady gainin the last twenty years, it is also expected to further increase in the future in the context of theaccelerating decline and aging of the native-born population. Despite these demographic dynamics,
little research on public attitudes on migrants and migration examined the effect that the worksite
presence of migrants might have on these attitudes. Making use of JGSS-2015, this study analyzed
whether the presence of migrants at worksite would lead to positive or negative attitudes towardmigration among the Japanese.
The results of the analysis revealed that, while apparently competing, the two hypotheses thatguided this study were not contradictory. First, the analysis provided overall support for the intergroupcontact hypothesis, showing the positive effect of the presence of migrants on Japanese attitudes
toward increasing migration. Nevertheless, second, it also demonstrated that this effect was mediatedby occupational position. Hence, among the unskilled, the worksite presence of migrants actually led
to more negative attitudes toward migration. This second finding follows what the threat hypothesis
predicts. According to this view, a larger proportion of migrants who do low-skilled work, as well as
the nature of jobs that can be performed with limited training and experience, place native-born
low-skilled workers in more direct competition with their migrant counterparts. This activates the fearof the job displacement or the deterioration of work conditions among these workers, leading them tooppose increasing migration.
To what extent, however, does the proportion of migrants really matter? In order to offer anadequate answer to this question, future research should address at least the following issues. First,
while the limitation of the dataset of this study makes it unable to directly address the issue here,research will be needed that delves into the relationship between the worksite proportion of migrants
and attitudes toward migration. As long as the migrant proportion matters, it may have a curvilinear
relationship with attitudes toward migration. Specifically, in that case, a large proportion of migrants
should facilitate negative attitudes while a small one should lead to positive views because, following
an insight obtained from this study, the greater understanding of migrants, rather the perception of
threat, may be generated in workplaces where a relative proportion of migrant employees is small.
Second, factors other than the proportion of migrants should also be analyzed. It is possible that
migrant workers have systematic differences in their social characteristics, such as national origin orlegal status, depending on which segment of the labor market they work at. Future studies should
analyze how these differences may also be related with the formation of Japanese workers’ attitudes
toward migration.
At any rate, the fact that the worksite presence of migrants is associated with the opposition
toward increasing migration among unskilled workers poses a concern since future labor shortages,
and thus demand for migrant workers, will first become salient in the segment of labor market inwhich these workers work. If, in the context of the population decline and aging, the Japanese labormarket introduces a larger number of migrant workers in the future, it will be important to better
specify the way in which the worksite presence of migrants leads to negative attitudes towardmigration among the unskilled. Doing so would contribute to the fuller understanding of the26

日本版総合的社会調査共同研究拠点 研究論文集[16] JGSS Research Series No.13

multiethnic Japan of today and future.
[Acknowledgement]
The Japanese General Social Surveys (JGSS) are designed and carried out by the JGSS
Research Center at Osaka University of Commerce (Joint Usage / Research Center for Japanese
General Social Surveys accredited by Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology),
in collaboration with the Institute of Social Science at the University of Tokyo.
JGSS-2015 is supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 26245060 (PI: Noriko Iwai), theInstitute of Amusement Industry Studies at Osaka University of Commerce (PI: Ichiro Tanioka), Japan
Center for Economic Research (PI: Noriko Iwai), Research Grant on Labor Issues (PI: Hachiro Iwai),
JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 24243057 (PI: Masayoshi Kato), and Osaka University of Commerce.
[Notes](1) Note that the number of registered foreigners provided by the Japanese Ministry of Justice includes
Japanese-born “foreigners” as well, namely, those who were born under foreign parents and are
not naturalized. The Japanese citizenship is based on jus sanguinis.
(2) For a review, see Ceobanu and Escandell (2010) and Hainmueller and Hopkins (2014).
(3) http://www.jitco.or.jp/press/index.html?fy_eq=2015. As of April, 2016, the total of 74 occupations
and 133 tasks are approved for the introduction of technical interns.
(4) On the other hand, the size of high-skilled migrants remains small. According to author’s
calculation from an annual report by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare(JMHLW 2016), among approximately 908 thousand migrants who the Ministry confirmed tohave a job in Japan in 2015, those who do so with a professional or technical work visa made up
18 percent of the total.
(5) Initially, I categorized those whose household income are less than 3.5 million into two groups
according to whether or not they depend on pension as a main source of income, since myprevious work using JGSS-2008 (Mazumi 2015) demonstrated that attitudes toward labor
migration varied between these two groups. That analysis showed that, with age controlled, only
those whose income source is not pension (which implies that they are in their productive years)
oppose labor migration. However, no significant difference was observed in this current analysis.
For the sake of simplicity, I put these two groups together here and show a unified result.
(6) For the results of previous surveys, see the following link: http://jgss.daishodai.ac.jp/surveys/table/
QFNRINCR.html(7) While no migrants are present for agricultural occupations, this may be in part due to the small sizeof respondents in this category (n=26).
(8) The issue of causality may well be brought up at this point, since the result might simply mean thatthe favorable attitudes toward migrants are the reason why native-born employees tolerate
working with migrants at the same worksite. I will get back to this issue later in this section.
[References]
Allport, Gordon W., 1961, The Nature of Prejudice, Cambridge: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company,
Inc.
Ceobanu, Alin M., and Escandell, Xavier, 2010, “Comparative Analyses of Public Attitudes toward
Immigrants and Immigration Using Multinational Survey Data: A Review of Theories andResearch,” Annual Review of Sociology 36: 309-328.

27

日本版総合的社会調査共同研究拠点 研究論文集[16] JGSS Research Series No.13

Green, David, and Kadoya, Yoshitaka, 2015, “Contact and Threat: Factors Affecting Views on
Increasing Immigration in Japan,” Politics and Policy 43(1): 59-93.
Hainmueller, Jens, and Hopkins, Daniel J., 2014, “Public Attitudes toward Immigration,” Annual
Review of Political Science 17: 225-249.
Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (JMHLW), 2016, “Gaikokujin Koyo Jokyo no
Todokede Jokyo (October, 2015)” (http://www.mhlw.go.jp/file/04-Houdouhappyou-11655000Shokugyouanteikyokuhakenyukiroudoutaisakubu-Gaikokujinkoyoutaisakuka/0000110234.pdf).
Japanese Ministry of Justice (JMJ), 2016, “Zairyu Gaikokujin Tokei (December, 2015)” (http://www.
e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?lid=000001150236).
Kajita, Takamichi, Tanno, Kiyoto, and Higuchi, Naoto, 2005, Kao no Mienai Teijuka: Nikkei
Burajirujin to Kokka, Shijo, Imin Nettowaaku (Invisible Residents: Japanese Brazilians vis-à-vis
the State, the Market and the Immigrant Network), Nagoya: Nagoya Daigaku Shuppankai.
Kamibayashi, Chieko, 2015, Gaikokujin Rodosha Ukeire to Nihon Shakai: Gino Jisshu Seido no
Tenkai to Jirenma (Accepting Foreign Workers in Japanese Society: The Dilemmna of a
Temporary Immigrants Program), Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai.
Liu-Farrer, Gracia, 2011, “Making Careers in the Occupational Niche: Chinese students in Corporate
Japan’s Transnational Business,” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 37(5): 785-803.
Mazumi, Yusuke, 2015, “Shoshi Koreika Jidai no Nihon ni okeru Gaikokujin Rodosha no Ukeire
Ishiki o Kitei suru Yoin: JGSS-2008 o Mochiita Bunseki (What Shapes Public Opinion toward
Foreign Workers in the Era of the Aging of Population in Japan? An Analysis Using JGSS-2008),”
JGSS Research Series 12: 51-61.
Miyazaki, Ami, 2016, “Jimin Tokumeii Gaikokujin Rodosha no Ukeire Teigen e Baizo ni Taio mo,”Reuters, April 26, 2016 (http://jp.reuters.com/article/ldp-idJPKCN0XN0O5).
Nagayoshi, Kikuko, 2012-2013, “Nihonjin no Haigai Ishiki ni taisuru Bundan Rodo Shijo no Eikyo:
JGSS-2006 no Bunseki kara (Effects of the Split Labor Market on Xenophobia in Japan: An
Analysis of JGSS-2006),” Shakaigaku Hyoron 63(1): 19-35.
----------, 2009, “Whose Size Count? Multilevel Analysis of Japanese Anti-Immigrant Attitudes Basedon JGSS-2006,” JGSS Research Series 6: 157-174.
Nakamura, Jiro, Naito, Hisahiro, Kanbayashi, Ryu, Kawaguchi, Daiji, and Michikita, Tomohiro, 2009,
Nihon no Gaikokujin Rodoryoku: Keizaigaku kara no Kensho, Tokyo: Nihon Keizai Shinbun
Shuppansha.
Nukaga, Misako, 2006, “Xenophobia and the Effects of Education: Determinants of Japanese Attitudes
toward Accepting Foreigners,” JGSS Research Series 2: 191-202.
Ohtsuki, Shigemi, 2006, “Gaikokujin Sesshoku to Gaikokujin Ishiki: JGSS-2003 Deeta ni yoru
Sesshoku Kasetsu no Saikento (Contact with Foreigners and Attitude toward Them: Rethinking ofContact Theory from JGSS-2003 Data),” JGSS Research Series 2: 149-159.
Okubo, Takeshi, 2005, Nikkeijin no Rodo Shijo to Esunishitii: Chiho Kogyo Toshi ni Shuro suru Nikkei
Burajirujin (Labor Market and Ethnicity of Nikkeijin: Employment of Japanese-Brazilians in
Local Industrial Cities), Tokyo: Ochanomizu Shobo.
O’neal, Kevin, and Tienda, Marta, 2010, “A Tale of Two Counties: Natives’ Opinions toward
Immigration in North Carolina,” International Migration Review 44(3): 728-761.
Pettigrew, Thomas F., 1998, “Intergroup Contact Theory,” Annual Review of Psychology 49:65-85.
Schlueter, Elmar, and Scheepers, Peer, 2010, “The Relationshiop Between Outgroup Size andAnti-Outgroup Attitudes: A Theoretical Synthesis and Empirical Test of Group-Threat andIntergroup Contact Theory,” Social Science Research 39(2): 285-295.

28