Previous studies have not examined whether (personal) political ideology influences how trusters perceive of immigrants and refugees as a threat. Our contribution to the literature builds on theories of motivated reasoning and hypothesizes that political ideology weakens the ability of social trust to reduce perceived (ethnic) outgroup threat. Indeed, analyses show that the relationship between social trust and perceived outgroup threat is considerably weaker among rightists than among leftists. Although social trust does relate negatively to perceived outgroup threat across the ideological divide, political ideology has a constraining influence that cannot be ignored. Social trust is also a political phenomenon. We apply a fixed-effects regression, and analyses are based on the 2014-European Social Survey, including 21 countries and 32,175 individuals. In the concluding section, we discuss the full implications of our findings for theories of social trust in an era of increasing flows of immigrants and refugees that go beyond the usual gateway nations.
AbstractThis paper introduces a dynamic perspective on how (personal) political ideology shapes reactions to immigration policies at the mass level. Greater ethnic diversity and growing calls for multiculturalism represent a disproportionately greater challenge to rightists because they value conformity, tradition, and stability more than leftists. Consequently, we hypothesize that the impact of political ideology on opposition to immigration has become stronger over time. Analyses show that: (a) leftists were less opposed to immigration than rightists in both 2002 and 2014, and (b) rightists have become more opposed to immigration in the time between 2002 and 2014, whereas leftists' reactions remained stable across this period. We tested our motivated reasoning hypothesis in a repeated cross-sectional (fixed effects regression) analysis of individual-level data from 18 countries (N = 55,367). The individual-level data on political ideology and immigration policy preferences is from the European Social Survey data sets fielded in 2002 and 2014.
This article adds to the existing research in intergroup contact among ethnic minority members by hypothesizing that national political debate has the capacity to enhance the positive outcomes of cross‐group interaction. Analyses show that the capacity of intergroup contact to reduce prejudice toward majority members is disproportionately stronger among Muslims than among non‐Muslim minority members. Specifically, at the time of data collection, the two categories—Muslims and majority members—were highly salient in the public debate, whereas the non‐Muslim minority member category was not primed as a contrast to the majority culture. The political debate most likely stimulated Muslims to generalize their positive contact experiences to the entire majority group. The analysis contributes to the theoretical refinement of the so‐called categorization model by focusing on politically induced reactions among contacted ethnic minority members toward majority members. The analysis utilizes a tailor‐made national sample (fielded during the Mohammad Cartoon Crisis in 2006) among ethnic minority members in Denmark (N = 3,272).
ObjectivesThe pioneers of intergroup contact research suggested that the positive impact of face‐to‐face interaction might fail among "intolerant" participants. To challenge this view, the present study extends previous research by examining religiosity as a boundary condition of intergroup contact among ethnic minority members.MethodsThe results were generated in a regression analysis of a Danish national probability sample from 2006 (N = 3,958).ResultsAnalyses show that: (a) the ability of intergroup contact to reduce prejudice is strongest among the most religious and (b) that contact reduces prejudice at all levels of religiosity.ConclusionsThese findings support the general claim that intergroup contact is sufficiently powerful to produce positive outcomes, even among the most "intolerant." Additionally, the findings suggest that intergroup contact is not necessarily seriously infected by selection biases, as the most intolerant do not systematically avoid contact. The concluding section discusses the theoretical implications of the findings.
Socialpsykologer forfægter den såkaldte kontakthypotese, hvis påstand er, at majoritetsmedlemmer bliver mere imødekommende over for etniske minoritetsmedlemmer, når de kommer i personlig kontakt med dem. Denne hypotese efterprøves på baggrund af den mest omfattende danske spørgeskemaundersøgelse nogensinde vedrørende dette emne (N = 1.928). I modsætning til tidligere internationale undersøgelser, hvori betydningen af venskaber mellem etniske grupper understreges, fremhæver denne artikel betydningen af kontakt mellem majoritetsmedlemmer og minoritetsmedlemmer i nabolaget og på arbejdspladsen. Disse to typer kontakt tilvejebringer en mere overbevisende test af kontakthypotesen, eftersom de rummer mindre selvselektion. Naboskab og kontakt på arbejdspladsen dækker samtidig langt flere sociale relationer end venskaber, som primært vedrører en snæver privatsfære. Artiklen bidrager til den socialpsykologiske litteratur om kontakteffekter med tre hovedkonklusioner. For det første rummer kontakt i nabolaget og på arbejdspladsen mere meningsfuld samtale, end fagfolk hidtil har antaget. For det andet øger begge former for kontakt den etniske tolerance. For det tredje er det samtale og meningsudvekslinger, som delvis forklarer, hvorfor kontakt gør majoritetsmedlemmer mere tolerante over for minoritetsmedlemmer.
ENGELSK ABSTRACT:
Arzoo Rafiqi and Jens Peter Frølund Thomsen: When the Ethnic Majority Meets Ethnic Minority Members
This paper examines the so-called intergroup contact hypothesis by redirecting focus away from the friendship measure preferred by social psychologists. Although theoretically important, the friendship measure is infected by self-selection biases, and its social coverage is too limited, at least in a European context. Instead, this paper focuses on workplace contact and residential contact. It examines how these relate to ethnic tolerance, as reflected in support for various rights of ethnic minority members. These two types of intergroup contact provide a stronger test of the key hypothesis (contact has a positive influence on tolerance) as they do not meet all the ideal conditions. The analysis shows that although residential contact and workplace contact are more superficial (in terms of self-disclosure), they are both positively related to ethnic tolerance. In fact, both types of contact are as strongly related to ethnic tolerance as intimate cross-group friendship. We conclude that intergroup contact effects are robust as they are capable of occurring in unfavorable circumstances. The analyses are performed on the basis of a Danish national probability sample from 2009.
