Ethnic Hostility among Ethnic Majority and Minority Groups

More documents

Recommendations

Info

7. Educational Attainment and Ethnic Hostility | Expectations selective group. As a consequence of the homogenization process, among native populations, members of educational categories have thus become more distinct with respect to their skills. Likely as a consequence of this, the educational effect on ethnic hostility increased among native Dutch in the time period 1975-1998 (Jaspers, 2008), as well as over birth cohorts in the US (Quillian, 1996). Although we do not have longitudinal data to our availability, ethnicity-based educational inequality present in the Netherlands implies that homogenization of educational categories reached different stages across ethnic groups. Ethnic minorities – especially of fi rst generational status – are overrepresented at the bottom of the educational hierarchy (see Chapter 5). For fi rst generation migrants this is in part due to selective migration and to less favourable circumstances to start or continue one’s educational career in the country of origin. Second generation migrants in the Netherlands are less likely to continue their educational career after successfully having completed general secondary education (i.e. HAVO or VWO) (see Chapter 5). Second generation Turks, Moroccans, Surinamese and Antilleans who do enrol in higher education obtained, in general, lower grade point averages in secondary education than their native Dutch counterparts (see Chapter 6). Given these considerations, we assume that minorities – both of fi rst and second generational statuses – with relatively low educational degrees (below higher education) constitute a more heterogeneous group than their native Dutch counterparts with respect to their cognitive skills. Given the link between homogenization at the bottom of the educational hierarchy and the strength of the (negative) effect of education on ethnic hostility, we come to the same hypothesis as above, namely, that the negative effect of education on ethnic hostility (i.e. opposition to ethnically mixed relationships) is smaller for ethnic minority groups than for native Dutch. Note that Ethnic Competition Theory and considerations around the homogenization process of educational categories give two reasons why (differential) distributions of educational degrees across ethnic groups asserts an infl uence on the effect of education on ethnic hostility. First, because ethnic minorities have more often lower educational attainments than native populations, natives who are lower educated themselves are more directly in competition with ethnic outgroups than higher educated natives, perceive more ethnic threat, and are consequently expected to express more ethnic hostility. If ethnic minorities were predominantly higher educated, the negative effect of education on ethnic hostility among natives would be weaker. Similarly, since especially higher educated minorities have similar position as members of the native population, we expect the negative effect of education on ethnic hostility among ethnic minority groups to be weaker. According to this threat-mechanism, ethnic threat should interpret the (negative) effect of education on indicators of ethnic hostility. Secondly, the differential distribution of educational degrees across ethnic groups is refl ected in differences in homogeneity of cognitive skills of educational categories across ethnic groups. Lower educated minorities constitute presumably a less homogenous category with respect to cognitive skills than lower educated natives. Consequently, the negative effect of education on ethnic hostility is expected to be weaker across ethnic minority groups. 147
7.2.3 Media usage, perceptions of group discrimination and involvement with the host country One of the explanations of an integration paradox is located in differences between educational categories in media usage (Gijsberts & Vervoort, 2009). Better educated migrants have better language profi ciency and hence are more likely to take notice of the news supply from the host country (Peeters & D’Haenens, 2005). Media coverage studies have often reported that ethnic minorities in the media are associated with problems and criminality (Lubbers, Scheepers, & Vergeer, 2000) or were otherwise portrayed stereotypically (Shadid, 2006). Minorities themselves report that they do not recognise themselves in the host country media (Bonfadelli, Bucher, & Piga, 2007). For many Moroccans adolescents in the Netherlands, the media are a symbol of the Islam phobia of the host country (Buijs et al., 2006, p. 238). Gerbner’s cultivation hypothesis describes that people’s reality is affected by media messages, and more so when one consumes those messages more (Gerbner, 1969). It is thus to be expected that native Dutch who consume more (Dutch) media hold more hostile attitudes towards minorities. Compared to migrants using ethnic media, migrants who use national media more often think that the majority holds negative views on minorities, and perceive higher levels of group discrimination (Gijsberts & Vervoort, 2009). Assuming a positive relationship between the negative meta-views on the one hand, and ethnic hostility and identifi cation with the Netherlands on the other hand, we expect that: Ethnic minorities who make use of Dutch media are more likely to be opposed to ethnically mixed relationships, just as native Dutch, and similarly, ethnic minorities who make use of Dutch media are more likely to identify with their country of origin (Hypothesis 4a). In order to be able to consume Dutch media, one should have at least some grip of the Dutch language. To assess the net effect of media, we will therefore investigate the impact of profi ciency in Dutch as well. Due to language constraints, lower educated ethnic minorities are less exposed to negative images on them from the Dutch media. As a consequence, lower educated ethnic minorities will have less hostile attitudes to the group producing these images. Following this line of reasoning, we expect that: A negative relation between education and hostility among minority groups may be suppressed by media usage and perceptions of group discrimination (Hypothesis 5a). However, media effects on ethnic hostility among members of dominant ethnic groups in survey research have turned out to be rather weak and often disappear after controlling for educational attainment. This implies that media preferences are strongly affected by structural characteristics and that opposes our formulated expectation from Cultivation theory. Instead of being a feeding source of ethnic hostility, the use of Dutch media by minority groups may indicate an expression of ‘national preferences’ and an involvement with the host country (Abu- Rayya, 2007; Peeters & D’Haenens, 2005). Involvement with the host country has been shown to be related to identifi cation with the host country for migrants in France (Abu-Rayya, 2007). We therefore pose the more likely hypotheses that: Dutch media usage is negatively related to both opposition to ethnically mixed relationships and to identifi cation with the country of origin among ethnic minorities (but not for native Dutch) (Hypothesis 4b); The presumed negative relation between education and these two attitudinal indicators of cultural integration among minority groups is interpreted by Dutch media usage (Hypothesis 5b). 148
Page 1 and 2:
ETHNIC HOSTILITY AMONG ETHNIC MAJOR
Page 3:
Promotores: prof. dr. N. D. de Graa
Page 6 and 7:
Science is so much more fun when yo
Page 8 and 9:
3.4.1 Opposition to ethnic intermar
Page 10:
8.3.1 Theoretical implications for
Page 14 and 15:
1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 NEW QUESTIONS 1
Page 16 and 17:
1. Introduction | New questions ski
Page 18 and 19:
1. Introduction | The setting of th
Page 20 and 21:
1. Introduction | Research question
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Table 1.1 Outline of empirical chap
Page 28:
1. Introduction | Notes 27
Page 32 and 33:
2. SOCIAL MOBILITY AND ETHNIC HOSTI
Page 34 and 35:
2. Social Mobility and Ethnic Hosti
Page 36 and 37:
social conformity favour more toler
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
e more important than the infl uenc
Page 42 and 43:
2.4 RESULTS 2. Social Mobility and
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48:
Page 51 and 52:
1987). Assessment of the importance
Page 53 and 54:
The actual ethnic competition withi
Page 55 and 56:
(Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Wagner e
Page 57 and 58:
seven categories: no-religion, Roma
Page 59 and 60:
the lower the opposition to ethnic
Page 61 and 62:
Table 3.1 Hierarchical linear inter
Page 63 and 64:
Table 3.2 Hierarchical linear inter
Page 65 and 66:
In model 8 we focus on the characte
Page 67 and 68:
Table 3.3 Comparison of explanatory
Page 69 and 70:
3.5 CONCLUSIONS We observed a weak
Page 71 and 72:
9. The models presented in this cha
Page 74 and 75:
4. THE LOCAL LIVING ENVIRONMENT AND
Page 76 and 77:
unit such as states or countries, w
Page 78 and 79:
4. The Local Living Environment and
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
4.4 RESULTS 4. The Local Living Env
Page 86 and 87:
Table 4.2 continued Household compo
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92:
Page 96 and 97:
5. TRENDS IN ETHNIC EDUCATIONAL INE
Page 98 and 99: 5. Trends in Ethnic Educational Ine
Page 102 and 103: the worsening economic conditions o
Page 110 and 111: Table 5.3 continued Male (Female=re
Page 112 and 113: Table 5.4 continued Male (Female= r
Page 118 and 119: 6. EXPLANATIONS FOR ETHNIC EDUCATIO
Page 120 and 121: To answer our research questions, w
Page 122 and 123: 6. Explanations for Ethnic Educatio
Page 126 and 127: Table 6.1 continued Pre-university
Page 130 and 131: Table 6.2 continued Lower general t
Page 138 and 139: Model 4 includes both the ability m
Page 144 and 145: 7. EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT AND ETHNI
Page 146 and 147: among four ethnic minority groups i
Page 150 and 151: 7. Educational Attainment and Ethni
Page 152 and 153: Table 7.1 Summary of hypotheses Cor
Page 156 and 157: Table 7.2 continued Control variabl
Page 160 and 161: Table 7.3 continued 2nd gen. Turks
Page 164 and 165: Table 7.4 continued 2nd gen. Turks
Page 168: 7. Educational Attainment and Ethni
Page 172 and 173: 8. CONCLUSION 8.1 INTRODUCTION 8. C
Page 174 and 175: 8.2 QUESTIONS, RESULTS AND CONCLUSI
Page 176 and 177: 8. Conclusion | Questions, results
Page 182 and 183: local living environments (on ethni
Page 190 and 191: 8. Conclusion | Theoretical implica
Page 192 and 193: ethnic hosting threat contact / res
Page 194 and 195: 8. Conclusion | Retrospect and pros
Page 196 and 197: 8. Conclusion | Notes 195
Page 198 and 199:
APPENDIX Appendix 197
Page 200 and 201:
APPENDIX 2.2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
Page 202 and 203:
Appendix 2.3 continued Mobility typ
Page 204 and 205:
APPENDIX 2.4 TUTORIAL DIAGONAL MOBI
Page 206 and 207:
*********MEANS and OLS***********.
Page 208 and 209:
impact on depY. *The relative impac
Page 210 and 211:
Appendix *The impact of the destina
Page 212 and 213:
vector d = d1 to d6. vector p = p1
Page 214 and 215:
*and with constraints our model wou
Page 216 and 217:
Appendix 215
Page 218 and 219:
Appendix 3.1 continued father’s s
Page 220 and 221:
APPENDIX 3.3 OPPOSITION TO ETHNIC I
Page 222 and 223:
Appendix Appendix 4.1 continued Eco
Page 224 and 225:
Appendix APPENDIX 4.3 VARIANCE COMP
Page 226 and 227:
Appendix 5.1 continued Ethnicity N
Page 228 and 229:
APPENDIX 5.3 ROBUSTNESS OF ES ASSOC
Page 230 and 231:
Appendix APPENDIX 5.5 MULTI-NOMINAL
Page 232 and 233:
Appendix 7.1 continued 2nd gen. 2nd
Page 234 and 235:
Appendix 233
Page 236 and 237:
BIBLIOGRAPHY Bibliography Abu-Rayya
Page 238 and 239:
Bibliography Buijs, F. J., Demant,
Page 240 and 241:
Bibliography (pp. 345-383). Oxford:
Page 242 and 243:
Bibliography euthanasia, homosexual
Page 244 and 245:
Bibliography Onderzoek (ISEO). Mart
Page 246 and 247:
Bibliography Politics, 58(1), 41-72
Page 248 and 249:
Bibliography Worchel (Eds.), The so
Page 250 and 251:
Bibliography 249
Page 252 and 253:
Summary in Dutch / Nederlandstalige
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
CURRICULUM VITAE Curriculum Vitae J
Page 266 and 267:
ICS DISSERTATION SERIES ICS dissert
Page 268 and 269:
ICS dissertation series 37) Andreas
Page 270 and 271:
ICS dissertation series 76) Inge Si
Page 272 and 273:
ICS dissertation series 115) Martin
Page 274:
Why do some individuals express mor
show all

Ethnic Hostility among Ethnic Majority and Minority Groups

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?