Ethnic Hostility among Ethnic Majority and Minority Groups

7.4 RESULTS
7.4.1 Bivariate relationships
In Table 7.2 we see that Turks and Moroccans are more opposed to mixed relationships than
native Dutch and Surinamese and Antilleans less. Second generation migrants are less opposed to
mixed relationships than fi rst generation migrants. More or less the same ethnic and generational
differences are found with respect to identifi cation with the country of origin. Turks identify
most with their country of origin, followed by Moroccans, Antilleans and Surinamese. Once again,
second generation migrants identify less with the country of origin than the fi rst generation.
7.4.2 Multiple mediator models
In Table 7.3 and Table 7.4, we summarised the estimates of the multiple mediator models. The
estimate of the total effect of education (after controlling for age, sex, social class, language
profi ciency, and religiosity) is shown on the fi rst row (corresponding to arrow ‘c’, Figure 7.1). Below
the total effect of education, we see the parameter estimates of the direct effect of education
and the mediator variables on the dependent variable (arrow ‘c’’ and arrows ‘b’). In the bottom
rows we see the bootstrapping results for the total indirect effect of education and the partial
indirect effect of education through the proposed mediators (paths ‘a*b’) and the 90 per cent bias
corrected confi dence interval of the respective boot strap point estimate. In Appendices 7.1 and
7.2 we summarised the direct effect of education on the mediator variables (arrows ‘a’) and the
direct effects of the control variables.
Opposition to ethnically mixed relationships
For native Dutch, we see the expected signifi cant negative relationship between (the total effect
of) education and opposition to ethnically mixed relationships (b=-0.06, se=0.01), as well as for
fi rst generation Turks (b=-0.06, se=0.02), fi rst generation Moroccans (b=-0.10, se=0.02) and fi rst
generation Antilleans (b=-0.02, se=0.01, Table 7.3). For fi rst generation Antilleans the negative
impact of education on opposition to ethnically mixed relationships is weaker than for native
Dutch (signifi cance tests not shown), in accordance with our expectation of weaker relationships
between education and ethnic hostility among minorities (hypothesis 2). For fi rst generation
Surinamese and all immigrants of second generational status, education is not signifi cantly related
to opposition to mixed relationships at all. This may be considered as an integration paradox.
Perceived group threat only increases ethnic hostility among fi rst generation Antilleans.
Among ethnic minorities, perceived group threat is thus not a determinant of personal feelings
of ethnic hostility, this is contrary to what we expected on the basis of ECT. Since perceptions
of group threat do not infl uence ethnic hostility, they did not interpret the education effect
(contrary to hypothesis 3). Perhaps, perceptions of group discrimination – our measure of group
threat – are not a good indicator of perceptions of ethnic threat.
Dutch media usage and positive contact experiences are both (fairly) consistently
negatively related to opposition to mixed relationships among minorities of fi rst generational
status, as well as positive contact for minorities of second generational status (Table 7.3). Note
156