Ethnic Hostility among Ethnic Majority and Minority Groups

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 7.1 Summary of hypotheses Corresponding path Hypothesis Corresponding ethnic group(s) of Figure 7.1 1 Educational attainment is negatively related to indicators of ethnic hostility c = - native Dutch / ethnic minorities 2 Educational attainment is stronger negatively related to opposition to ethnically mixed relationships for native Dutch than for ethnic minorities 3 Perceptions of group threat interpret the negative effect of education a1*b1 = - ethnic minorities 4a Dutch media consumption is positively related to indicators of ethnic hostility b2 = + native Dutch / ethnic minorities 5a Dutch media consumption suppresses the negative effect of education a2*b2 = + ethnic minorities 4b Dutch media consumption is negatively related to indicators of ethnic hostility b2 = - ethnic minorities 5b Dutch media consumption interprets the negative effect of education a2*b2 = - ethnic minorities 6 Origin country media consumption is positively related to indicators of ethnic hostility b3 = + ethnic minorities 7 Positive contact is negatively related to indicators of ethnic hostility b4 = - native Dutch / ethnic minorities 8 Positive contact interprets the negative effect of education a4*b4 = - native Dutch / ethnic minorities 9 Negative contact is positively related to indicators of ethnic hostility b5 = + ethnic minorities 10 Negative contact interprets the negative effect of education a5*b5 = - ethnic minorities
7.3 DATA, MEASUREMENTS AND METHODS In this study we use data from the Survey Integration of Minorities 2006 (SIM 2006). These data were collected among minority groups in the Netherlands by the Netherlands Institute for Social Research (SCP) in 2006. A two-stage sample was drawn from the population registers of all communities in the Netherlands (for more information, see Dagevos, Gijsberts, Kappelhof, & Vervoort, 2007). The survey covers random samples from the four largest ethnic minority groups – Turkish, Moroccan, Surinamese and Antilleans – and a native Dutch comparison group. First generation migrants are born in the respective country of origin, second generation migrants are born in the Netherlands and have at least one parent born outside the Netherlands. For each ethnic group around 1000 participants aged fi fteen years and older were interviewed face-to-face (computer-assisted personal interviewing). Only those participants who were expected not to be fl uent in Dutch (those who were foreign born and arrived in the Netherlands after the age of 15) were interviewed in their native languages by bilingual interviewers. Response rates varied between 46% among the Surinamese and 60% among the Turkish (55% among the native Dutch). These response rates are higher than comparable research among ethnic minority groups in the Netherlands, such as the Social Position, and Use of Welfare Facilities by Immigrants Surveys (see Chapter 5). The dependent variable opposition to ethnically mixed relationships was measured with the following survey item: ‘Would it bother you if one of your children chooses a (native Dutch / non-native Dutch) as his/her partner?’, with answer categories (4) Yes, it would bother me a lot, (3) Yes, it would bother me, (2) Neutral, (1) No, it would not bother me, and (0) No, it would not bother me at all. The ethnic identifi cation question, which we use as our second dependent variable, reads: “Do you feel more (ethnicity of origin country) or Dutch?’, with answer categories: (4) I feel completely (ethnicity of origin country), (3) I feel more (ethnicity of origin country) than Dutch, (2) I feel just as much (ethnicity of origin country) as Dutch, (1) I feel more Dutch than (ethnicity of origin country), and (0) I feel completely Dutch. 1 Higher values thus correspond to lower levels of attitudinal cultural integration. The dependent variables correlated positively and signifi cantly with each other (r=0.42). Our main independent variable is educational attainment and was measured in years: 4, no education; 6, primary education only; 8, lower vocational education; 10, lower general education; 10.5, medium vocational education; 11.5, medium general education or higher general education; 15, higher vocational education; and 16, university. Students currently in school were treated as if successfully having completed their current level. Our dataset offers information on perceptions of ethnic group discrimination, which we assume will be closely related to perceptions of group threat and thus to be positively related to opposition to ethnically mixed relationships and ethnic identifi cation. The variable we label group threat is measured by the item ‘Some people say that non-natives are being discriminated against by native Dutch. How often does this happen?’, (1) never, (2) almost never, (3) once in a while, (4) often, (5) very often. Dutch media usage and origin country media usage are the means score of ‘How many times a week do you read Dutch/origin country newspapers’?, and ‘How many times a week do you watch Dutch/origin country TV channels?’, with answer categories: (1) never, (2) 152
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 100 and 101:
5. Trends in Ethnic Educational Ine
Page 102 and 103: the worsening economic conditions o
Page 104 and 105: 5. Trends in Ethnic Educational Ine
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 148 and 149: 7. Educational Attainment and Ethni
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?