Ethnic Hostility among Ethnic Majority and Minority Groups

More documents

Recommendations

Info

social conformity favour more tolerant attitudes. We expect that general social pressures make it less diffi cult for individuals to adopt attitudes that are in congruence with the dominant norms of society. In the case of prejudice towards ethnic outgroups, these happen to be more tolerant. In summary, we expect the ‘Tolerance dominance hypothesis’ to hold: Someone who moves to a social destination category of which the immobile members are in general less hostile towards ethnic minorities than the immobile members of the origin category will be more likely to adopt the attitudes of the destination class than someone who is mobile into a social category of which the immobile members express more hostile attitudes than the social origin category. 2.2.4 Losers of modernization The importance of social mobility for attitudes towards ethnic outgroups is also found in the ‘losers of modernization’ thesis (Scheuch & Klingemann, 1967). Downward mobility may determine that people lose connections with society and that problems accumulate among those who experience downward mobility (Bernhardt, 2001; Durkheim, 1987 [1897]). Downward mobility is likely to fuel feelings of subjective deprivation and economic competition. Since intergenerational progress is an important expectation in society, lack of mobility may lead to frustration. Feelings of subjective deprivation, perceptions of competition, and frustration may fi nd a release in hostile attitudes towards ethnic outgroups whom become scapegoats (Bettelheim & Janovitch, 1964). Consequently, the downward mobile may be especially likely to develop antipathy towards ethnic outgroups (Weller & Tabory, 1984). These theories suggest the ‘frustration hypothesis’: Intergenerational downward mobility induces hostile attitudes towards ethnic out-groups above and beyond social origin and destination effects on attitudes. We test our hypotheses on two different datasets, for two types of mobility (educational and class) and on three different indicators of ethnic hostility. We assume that the same mechanisms apply and our results should therefore be consistent. 2.3 DATA, MEASUREMENTS AND METHODS 2. Social Mobility and Ethnic Hostility | Data, measurements and methods 2.3.1 Data description and measurement of dependent and independent variables In this chapter we used the Dutch national Social and Cultural Developments in the Netherlands (SOCON) surveys, waves 1995, 2000, and 2005 and the Netherlands Kinship and Panel Study (NKPS) wave 2002. 2 Within the SOCON a random stratifi ed sampling method is followed: 81 municipalities were randomly selected according to their level of urbanization, followed by a random selection of residents aged 18-70. The response rate of these surveys is approximately 50 per cent. The NKPS is a random sample of individuals within private households in the Netherlands, with a minimum age of 18 and a maximum age of 79. To collect data from the main respondents, Computer Aided Personal Interviewing (CAPI), supplemented with self-completion questionnaires, was used. The overall response rate was 44.7 per cent. Response rates tend to be rather low in the Netherlands, and the response rates of the SOCON and the NKPS are not exceptionally low. The samples of the SOCON are to a large extent representative for the Dutch population. The distribution by sex, 35
urbanization, and matrimonial status in the NKPS sample signifi cantly differs from that in the comparison population. Results based on a weighted sample do not lead to different conclusions as those presented below. For further information with regard to the sampling procedure, response rates and the construction of the weight variable we refer to the respective codebooks (Dykstra et al., 2004; Eisinga et al., 2002; Eisinga, De Graaf, Levels, Need, & Scheepers, 2008; Eisinga, Felling, Konig, Peters, & Scheepers, 1999). For the present study we selected respondents with Dutch-born parents. With regard to the educational mobility analyses, we only included respondents older than 25 at which age most people fi nished their educational career. For the class mobility analyses we excluded all students. The sample sizes used in this chapter depend on the type of intergenerational mobility (educational or class) and the dependent variable in question (see Tables 2.2 and 2.3). Based on the SOCON data sets, we constructed an ethnic stereotype scale and an ethnic threat scale as dependent variables. 3 The ethnic stereotype scale score was based on the mean score of the following items: ‘With Moroccans you never know for certain whether they are going to be aggressive or not.’, ‘Most people from Surinam work quite slowly’, ‘Gypsies are never to be trusted.’, ‘Turks have so many children because they are slightly backward’, and ‘When you do business with Jews, you have to be extra careful.’ With answer categories: (4) agree entirely, (3) agree, (2) don’t agree/don’t disagree, (1) disagree, and (0) disagree entirely. The Cronbach’s alpha of the ethnic stereotype scale is 0.79. For the 1995, 2000, and 2005 waves this is 0.78, 0.83, and 0.76, respectively. If a respondent had one or two missing values on these ethnic stereotype items, we substituted these with the mean values based on the other stereotype items. Missing values were distributed more or less equally across these items (approximately 4 per cent). Results based on a sub-sample of respondents who had valid scores on all fi ve items do not lead to substantially different results. The ethnic threat scale was a mean score of the items ‘The day will come that Dutch people will be fi red to give jobs to ethnic minorities’ and ‘The coming of ethnic minorities to the Netherlands is a threat to our own culture’, both with answer categories: (4) agree entirely, (3) agree, (2) don’t agree/don’t disagree, (1) don’t agree, and (0) don’t agree at all. The inter-item Pearson correlation coeffi cient is 0.52. For the 1995, 2000, and 2005 waves this is 0.51, 0.62, and 0.48 respectively. Confi rmatory factor analysis showed that the stereotype and ethnic threat dimension are empirically distinguishable. Based on the NKPS data we constructed an opposition to ethnic intermarriage scale by adding the scores on three items on views related to ethnic intermarriage with specifi c ethnic groups. The question is: ‘Would it bother you if one of your children decided to marry someone of [Turkish/Moroccan/Surinamese] descent?’, with answer categories (4) ‘bother me a lot’, (3) ‘bother me a little’, (2) ‘neutral’, (1) ‘not bother me’, (0) ‘not bother me at all’. The Cronbach’s alpha of the opposition to ethnic intermarriage scale is 0.95. Social destination is measured either as respondent’s current social class or as respondent’s highest achieved educational degree. Social origin is either father’s social class when the respondent was 15 or father’s highest achieved educational degree. The social class of respondent’s current class position and father’s social class when the respondent was 15 were measured using a condensed version of the original eleven-category EGP classifi cation scheme 36
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 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 40 and 41: e more important than the infl uenc
Page 42 and 43: 2.4 RESULTS 2. Social Mobility and
Page 48: 2. Social Mobility and Ethnic Hosti
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 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:
4. The Local Living Environment and
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:
Page 142 and 143:
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 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Table 7.1 Summary of hypotheses Cor
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Table 7.2 continued Control variabl
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Table 7.3 continued 2nd gen. Turks
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Table 7.4 continued 2nd gen. Turks
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168:
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 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
local living environments (on ethni
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?