Ethnic Hostility among Ethnic Majority and Minority Groups

More documents

Recommendations

Info

8. Conclusion | Theoretical implications for Ethnic Competition Theory and Contact Theory: new questions This is of course not to say that there will always be a trend towards more ethnic hostility within society; there are other factors infl uencing such hostility (e.g. educational attainment, religiosity). Moreover, I just discussed results showing that acculturation to less hostile attitudes is easier than acculturation to more hostile attitudes, as long as the dominant social norm is one of social tolerance. Thus, in societies with a culture of tolerance there may very well be two counteracting self-strengthening mechanisms. Theoretical implications from Chapters 3 and 4 There was an important inconsistency between the results of Chapters 3 and 4, which I have not mentioned before explicitly. In Chapter 3, I found that for native Dutch with an educational degree below average, the size of the outgroup in the neighbourhood was positively related to opposition to ethnic intermarriage, in line with Ethnic Competition Theory. For the relatively higher educated this relationship was reversed, as could be expected given selective residential mobility. In sharp contrast, in Chapter 4 I found that for native Dutch the size of the outgroup is negatively related to rejection of neighbours from a different race, as would be expected on the basis of Contact Theory, but this negative relationship was weaker (not stronger) for the relative rich. 7 The two datasets used in Chapters 3 and 4 were collected after different sample selection procedures. The dataset used in Chapter 4, CV04, contained an oversampling of ‘bad neighbourhoods’, and compared to the dataset of Chapter 3, NKPS02, has far more respondents living in neighbourhoods with a substantial proportion of ethnic minorities. Hence, within the CV04, the actual relationship between outgroup size and ethnic hostility within neighbourhoods with relatively high proportions of ethnic minorities has more infl uence on the estimated effect of outgroup size on indicators of ethnic hostility than within the NKPS02. I now expect the following hypotheses to hold: 1a. When outgroup sizes start to increase (beginning with zero per cent), outgroup sizes within neighbourhoods will decrease levels of ethnic hostility for the rich and higher educated. 1b. After a certain threshold, outgroup sizes will start to reinforce ethnic hostility for the rich and higher educated. 2a. When outgroup sizes start to increase (beginning with zero per cent), outgroup sizes within neighbourhoods will increase levels of ethnic hostility for the poor and lower educated. 2b. After a certain threshold, outgroup sizes will start to diminish ethnic hostility for the poor and low educated. Of course, these hypotheses have been induced from my results and not been theoretically deduced. This is because the relevant theories, Ethnic Competition Theory and Contact Theory, are simplifi cations of reality and do not take into account possible relevant conditional nonlinear relationships. A possible reason for this omission is that to theoretically deduce hypotheses – which I strongly adhere to – without formalised theoretical models is far more diffi cult with (conditional) nonlinear relationships. We thus need to formalise our theoretical frameworks. A nice example of a 189
formal sociological model is the Breen-Goldthorpe model, which I applied in Chapter 6. At what outgroup size this ‘certain threshold’, or tipping point, occurs ideally follows from this formalised model. It is however more likely that it has to be determined by empirical investigation. For example, Gijsberts and Dagevos (2007) showed that the more ethnic minorities there are in one’s neighbourhood the more contact native Dutch have with ethnic minorities, at least as long as the proportion of ethnic minorities remains below 50 per cent. After this tipping point contact decreases again. But note that these authors do not take into account a possible conditional curvilinear relationship. Moreover, their sample of respondents from ‘concentration neighbourhoods’ is relatively small. Consequently, their predicted relationship between the presence of ethnic minorities in a neighbourhood and contact of native Dutch with members of ethnic minority groups is likely to refl ect more closely the actual relationship among the rich and higher educated than among the poor and lower educated. Contact with members of ethnic outgroups and selective residential mobility may explain a negative relationship between outgroup sizes within neighbourhoods and ethnic hostility, perceptions of ethnic threat may explain a positive relationship. Consequently, if the above propositions meet corroborative empirical evidence, these explanatory mechanisms operate differently for the rich and higher educated than for the poor and lower educated (see Figure 8.1). I expect that residential mobility is sooner a viable option for the rich than for the poor. The poor need a stronger push factor. I would also argue that the higher educated and rich will have relatively more positive contact experiences when outgroup sizes are small within the locality, compared to the lower educated and poor. The reason being that they are not in direct competition with members of ethnic outgroups and are as a consequence more likely to meet (or select) members of ethnic outgroups under favourable circumstances (shops, sportclubs, etc.). In contrast, the low educated and poor will start to experience competitive threat and negative contact experiences immediately with rising outgroup sizes. Once outgroup sizes reach a specifi c threshold, the poor with negative views towards ethnic outgroups will start to leave their neighbourhoods as well. But the ones who remain may start to experience some positive contact experiences as well, which deteriorate their prior existing ethnic stereotypes. In contrast, with larger ethnic outgroup sizes, positive contact experiences will not become more likely for the rich and high educated, negative contact experiences will be harder to avoid, and as a consequence the threat mechanism may start to dominate the selective residential mobility and positive contact mechanism. A possible situation in agreement with this rationale is depicted in Figure 8.1. 190
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:
Page 102 and 103:
the worsening economic conditions o
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Table 5.3 continued Male (Female=re
Page 112 and 113:
Table 5.4 continued Male (Female= r
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
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 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Table 6.1 continued Pre-university
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Table 6.2 continued Lower general t
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Model 4 includes both the ability m
Page 140 and 141: 6. Explanations for Ethnic Educatio
Page 142 and 143: 6. Explanations for Ethnic Educatio
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 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 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?