Ethnic Hostility among Ethnic Majority and Minority Groups

9. The models presented in this chapter are estimated in MLwiN version 2.00. If one wishes to
estimate the within and between neighbourhood variance, one needs at least 2 respondents
per neighbourhood (Snijders & Bosker, 1999). Our data contains 1378 neighbourhoods with
2 or more respondents; therefore the observed absence of variance at the neighbourhood
level in the three-level model is not caused by the relatively small samples within each
neighbourhood. In a two-level empty hierarchical random intercept model which only
includes the neighbourhood level and the individual level, the variance component at the
neighbourhood level is signifi cant.
10. There was no problem with multicollinearity in estimating the models. We analysed this by the
“expert” macro for MLwiN 2.0 developed by Stijn Ruiter (http://stijnruiter.ruhosting.nl/).
11. We also included the variable change in percentage of ethnic minorities at the municipality
level since in model 5 the z-value of the estimated parameter was larger than 1. In a next
step we added the cross-level interaction between outgroup size at the neighbourhood level
and respondent’s educational level (p=-0.02, se=0.01).
12. These cities are: Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, Utrecht, Hoogezand-Sappermeer, Almere,
Enschede, Tiel, Alphen aan den Rijn, Delft, Dordrecht, Bergen op Zoom and Eindhoven. The
sub-sample contains 275 neighbourhoods.
13. An increase in relative outgroup sizes at the municipality level forms a stronger ethnic threat
when the outgroup is already relatively large. We also confi rmed this for our full sample
(N=6095). An increase in the outgroup size once the relative outgroup size is already above
the Dutch average increases opposition to ethnic intermarriage.
70