Ethnic Hostility among Ethnic Majority and Minority Groups

predicted direction (negative) but only reach signifi cance with respect to ethnic intermarriage
(t=-0.66, SE=0.24).
From table 2.3 models 2, one’s own educational achievements are more important
compared to father’s educational position for the explanation of stereotypical attitudes and
feelings of ethnic threat. This holds for both intergenerational mobile respondents who obtained
a higher degree – and in this case inherently a more tolerant position – than their father and
for respondents who did not succeed in obtaining a degree as high as their father. This supports
the educational destination hypotheses. The educational destination hypothesis is also supported
among the tolerant-destination mobile with respect to opposition to ethnic intermarriage (p + t
= 0.73 – 0.66 < 0.5, Table 2.3, model 3). Although the impact of the origin category on attitudes
related to ethnic intermarriage is negligible for the mobile who reach a more tolerant educational
position than their father, the impact of the origin category is even larger than the impact of
the destination for the mobile who do not reach a more tolerant educational level (p=0.73,
SE=0.18).
2.5 CONCLUSIONS
Intergenerational mobility has a notable impact on ethnic hostility. People adapt to the attitudes
of the destination category, but the extent of this attitudinal adjustment depends on the specifi c
origin and destination combination. We view social strata as having core or typical attitudes
which are expressed by the members who have not experienced intergenerational social mobility.
If someone is socially mobile and enters a new social position of which these core members are
in general more tolerant towards ethnic minorities than the core members of the origin position,
acculturation is easier and the impact of the origin is negligible. This holds for both types of
intergenerational social mobility we investigated – intergenerational class and educational mobility
– and for all three types of negative attitudes we consider: stereotypical attitudes, feelings of
ethnic threat, and opposition to ethnic intermarriage. On the other hand, when the origin position
is more tolerant than the destination position, the relative impact of the origin is substantial and
sometimes exceeds the impact of the destination.
We interpreted origin effects as resulting from socialization processes taking place early
in life. Destination effects could be both due to re-socialization later in life and due to shared
experiences of ethnic threat (instrumental effects). With regard to educational mobility it is likely
that the destination affects ethnic hostility due to both instrumental and socialization effects
since schools are important socializing agents. This may explain why the destination is more
infl uential with respect to educational mobility than with respect to class mobility.
In the Netherlands, mobility affects ethnic hostility by origin and destination dependent
acculturation. Acculturation to tolerant attitudes is easier than acculturation to intolerant attitudes.
This fi nding supports what we have called the tolerance dominance hypotheses: acculturation to
the level of ethnic hostility of the achieved social position will be stronger when these attitudes
are more in congruence with the dominant culture of tolerance within society.
44