Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-skzmx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-05T15:15:17.968Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The evolution of human trafficking messaging in the United States and its effect on public opinion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 April 2018

Tabitha Bonilla
Affiliation:
Institute of Policy Research, Northwestern University, USA E-mail: tabitha.bonilla@northwestern.edu
Cecilia Hyunjung Mo
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley, USA E-mail: cecilia.h.mo@berkeley.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite a near unanimous agreement that human trafficking is a morally reprehensible practice, there is confusion around what qualifies as human trafficking in the United States. Adopting a mixed-method strategy, we examine how human trafficking is defined by the public; how contemporary (mis)understanding of human trafficking developed; and the public opinion consequence of this (mis)understanding. The definition of human trafficking has evolved over time to become nearly synonymous with slavery; however, we demonstrate that media and anti-trafficking organisations have been focussing their attention on the sexual exploitation of foreign women. We show that general public opinion reflects this skewed attention; the average citizen equates human trafficking with the smuggling of women for sexual slavery. Using a survey experiment, we find that shining light on other facets of human trafficking – the fact that human trafficking is a security problem and a domestic issue – can increase public response to the issue.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press, 2018 
Figure 0

Figure 1 Nongovernmental human trafficking organisations.

Figure 1

Figure 2 Nongovernmental human trafficking organisations.

Figure 2

Figure 3 Correct responses to human trafficking quiz. Note: The bar graph depicts the percentage of respondents who correctly answered each question. The line graph denotes the cumulative percentage of respondents who answered each number of questions correctly.

Figure 3

Figure 4 Categorising victims by industry. Note: The bar graph depicts the percentage of respondents who identified the victim population as illegal immigrants, legal migrants, or victims of traffickers by each of the three treatment conditions.

Figure 4

Figure 5 Number of articles on human trafficking in United States (US) print media. Note: The dashed lines reflect when the first US legislation on human trafficking, Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, was passed (2000), and when this legislation was reauthorised – 2003, 2005, 2008 and 2013.

Figure 5

Table 1 Topics

Figure 6

Figure 6 Average number of articles per year by topic.

Figure 7

Table 2 Experimental treatments

Figure 8

Table 3 Messaging experiment results

Supplementary material: PDF

Bonilla and Mo supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Bonilla and Mo supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 135 KB