Abstract
Research on attitudes and behaviour in intergroup relations often rests on the traditional social-psychological approaches of group threat theory and intergroup contact theory. In both theories, the presence of foreigners is the central point of departure, however, findings on the interplay of actual and perceived outgroup size with intergroup contact and perceived threat as well as anti-immigrant sentiments are far from being unequivocal. Especially for the German case earlier studies report mixed evidence, raising the presumption that relationships between measures of foreigner size and both concepts as well as their predictive power might vary significantly not only between West and East Germany, but also over time. In this study, we address these possible time specific and domestic differences using a moderated mediation framework with three time points of measurement in intervals of 10 years each. We use structural equation modelling to tackle our research questions empirically and utilize cross-sectional data from the German General Social Survey 1996, 2006 and 2016. Our findings undoubtedly reveal the relevance of the social psychological links discussed in explaining attitudes towards immigrants. Moreover, the performed analyses show that domestic German peculiarities matter not only regarding the micro-context, but especially regarding the differing socio-structural developments on the macro-level.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
This research design relates to studies for example conducted by Meuleman (2018), but instead applying a multi-level approach to investigate on cross-national (contextual) differences at one time point, we employ a repeated cross-section framework and thus focus on individual-level outcomes within the two German domestic regions over time (c.f. Billiet et al. 2018).
- 2.
Classical problems of surveys can hurt the comparability of measurements as well (c.f. Biemer et al. 2004). With regard to social desirability and acquiescence, answers can differ not only between respondents, but also over the years. For instance, terms like “foreigners” or “asylum seekers” in the questionnaires could have different connotations following the changing contexts of migration.
- 3.
In this case selection individuals with a migration background are included, namely those who have at least one parent who was not born in Germany. However, the share of persons who did not acquire German citizenship by birth merely ranges from 4.7% in 1996 to 7.1% in 2016 in the West and is at maximum of 1.4% at all time points of polling in the East. Accordingly, we do not expect any substantial biases. Among other things, we attempt to explain causes for dissimilarities with socialization influenced by the former western democratic versus eastern socialist regime, or with situational aspects of transformation focussing on economic and societal impacts after post-reunification (c.f. Westle 2004; Neller 2006). Therefore, domestic migration within Germany has been considered as well. Yet, analyses carried out with GGSS data from 1990 to 2016 show that domestic mobility is rather moderate as constantly over 91.5% of the respondents grew up in the part of the country in which they were surveyed (c.f. Westle 2019). Thus, we decided to set up the subsamples for West and East Germany with the commonly used variable “region of interview: west – east”.
- 4.
Unfortunately, more detailed questions on contact frequencies and quality, especially on negative contact, which is discussed as an independent and mutually influencing predictor with regard to positive contact, are available only in the survey 2016. Thus, the possible predictive power of negative contact for anti-immigrant sentiments has long been underestimated in (German) contact research. To some extent, this is a limitation for repeated cross-section analyses, since new theoretical and empirical insights from recent research cannot be considered.
- 5.
Many studies deal with behavioral and attitudinal persistence or change, as questions of intergroup relations have been a popular field of research after German reunification. Thus, it is shown that hostile attitudes towards immigration were common in large parts of the national ingroup in the 1990s (e.g. Heitmeyer et al. 1992; Fuchs et al. 1993; Hopf et al. 1995; Lederer and Schmidt 1995; Silbermann and Hüsers 1995; Wagner and Zick 1998; Alba et al. 2000), and continued to be pronounced throughout the nation and especially in structurally weak (eastern) regions in the 2000s (e.g. Coenders and Scheepers 2004; Kleinert 2004; Endrikat 2006; Decker et al. 2006; von Gostomski et al. 2007; Heitmeyer 2007; Decker et al. 2010). Of course, different valuations of attitudinal development and pervasiveness may exist in some cases. However, this is not necessarily contradictory because a comparatively long period is considered here and possible short-term fluctuations are not depicted. Furthermore, results can diverge due to different data, methods, and operationalizations.
- 6.
Earlier studies indicate that differences in average levels of contact, threat perceptions, and exclusionary views among individuals may depend on socio-demographic and/or structural factors. Thus, we conducted the final structural model with commonly included background variables (age, gender, education, religiosity, income), which were allowed to affect all modelled individual-level (latent) variables. In general, either no significant relations were found, or findings are in line with the pertinent research on this topic. That is, younger generations and those with higher education are more likely to have intergroup contact and less likely to express exclusionary views on immigration. Moreover, feelings of threat are likely to decrease with education and income and to increase with age. Since we are primary investigating on variation of effects due to contextual differences, and in doing so with focus on two key concepts, we decided not to deal with this in the further course, also because no specific theoretical assumptions were made. Furthermore, we think that forgo these findings in the empirical section is beneficial for the presentation and its clarity, especially when the model complexity with six subgroups under study is considered.
- 7.
These only barely significant differences must be interpreted with caution because only major districts had notable amounts of foreigners in comparison to rural Eastern areas relatively short after reunification. As this extreme skewness seems to influence effect size and to be responsible for reaching significance, this finding should be considered as methodical artefact (c.f. Campbell and Kenny 2002).
- 8.
Furthermore, only respondent’s formal education has an unmediated effect on attitudes towards influx across groups as well (not shown), underlining the widely confirmed liberalization effect of education regarding intergroup behavior (c.f. Quillian 1995; Coenders and Scheepers 2003; Hainmueller and Hiscox 2007).
Literatur
Aberson, C. L. (2019). Indirect effects of threat on the contact-prejudice relationship: A meta-analysis. Social Psychology, 50, 105–126.
Ahrens, P.-A. (2017). Skepsis und Zuversicht: Wie blickt Deutschland auf Flüchtlinge? Hannover: Sozialwissenschaftliches Institut der EKD.
Alba, R., Schmidt, P., & Wasmer, M. (2000). Blickpunkt Gesellschaft 5. Deutsche und Ausländer: Freunde, Fremde oder Feinde? Empirische Befunde und theoretische Erklärungen. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Allerbeck, K., Allmendinger, J., Bürklin, W., Kiefer, M. L., Müller, W., Opp, K.-D., & Scheuch, E. K. (2005). German General Social Survey—GGSS 1996 (ZA3751; Version Data file Version 1.0.0). Cologne: GESIS Data Archive. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.3751.
Allport, G. W. (1982). The nature of prejudice (4th edn.). Reasing, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Andreß, H.-J., Diekmann, A., Feger, H., Huinink, J., Meulemann, H., Schmitt-Beck, R., & Solga, H. (2011). German General Social Survey—GGSS 2006 (ZA4500; Version Data file version 2.0.0). Cologne: GESIS Data Archive. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.10832.
Anstötz, P., & Westle, B. (2019). Wertvorstellungen, nationale Identifikation, gruppenbezogene Ausgrenzung und Bedrohungswahrnehmung als Determinanten von Einstellungen zu Immigration. In E. Bytzek, U. Rosar, & M. Steinbrecher (Eds.), Wahrnehmung—Persönlichkeit—Einstellungen (pp. 101–142). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Anstötz, P., Schmidt, P., & Heyder, A. (2019). Wie valide ist die empirische Messung der Through- und Outputlegitimität politischer Systeme? Eine kritische Betrachtung. In C. Wiesner & P. Harfst (Eds.), Legitimität und Legitimation: Vergleichende Perspektiven (pp. 33–55). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Arant, R., Dragolov, G., & Boehnke, K. (2017). Sozialer Zusammenhalt in Deutschland 2017. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.
Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2006). Robust Chi square difference testing with mean and variance adjusted test statistics. Mplus Web Notes, No. 10.
Bade, K. J. (2011). Von der Arbeitswanderung zur Einwanderungsgesellschaft. In S. Stemmler (Ed.), Multikultur 2.0. Willkommen im Einwanderungsland Deutschland (pp. 154–185). Göttingen: Wallstein.
BAMF. (2019). Aktuelle Zahlen zu Asyl: Ausgabe März 2018. Nürnberg: Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge.
Bauernschuster, S., Diekmann, A., Hadjar, A., Kurz, K., Rosar, U., Wagner, U., & Westle, B. (2017). German General Social Survey—GGSS 2016 (ZA5250; Version Data file Version 2.1.0). Cologne: GESIS Data Archive. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.12796.
Baur, H., Klein, D., Seuring, J., Walcher, G., & Weidner, A. (2010). Fremdenfeindlichkeit im Ost-Westdeutschen Vergleich: Welchen Erklärungsbeitrag leisten Kontakt- und Konflikthypothese? In M. Siegert & I. Kogan (Eds.), Einstellungen gegenüber ethnischen Minderheiten in Europa: Analysen mit dem European Social Survey (pp. 1–34). Bamberg: University of Bamberg.
Becker, B. (2007). Ausländerfeindlichkeit in Ost- und Westdeutschland: Theoretische Grundlagen und empirische Analysen. Saarbrücken: VDM Münster.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.
Biemer, P. P., Groves, R. M., Lyberg, L. E., Mathiowetz, N. A., & Sudman, S. (2004). Measurement errors in surveys. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Billiet, J., Meuleman, B., & Davidov, E. (2018). The relation between ethnic threat and economic insecurity in times of economic crisis: Analysing data from the European Social Survey. In F. Sztabiński, H. Domański, & P. B. Sztabiński (Eds.), New uncertainties and anxieties in Europe: Seven waves of the European Social Survey (pp. 17–34). Berlin: Peter Lang.
Binder, J., Zagefka, H., Brown, R., Funke, F., Kessler, T., Mummendey, A., Maguil, A., Demoulin, S., & Leyens, J.-P. (2009). Does contact reduce prejudice or does prejudice reduce contact? A longitudinal test of the contact hypothesis among majority and minority groups in three European countries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 843–856.
Blalock, H. M. (1967). Toward a theory of minority-group relations. New York: Wiley.
Blumer, H. (1958). Race prejudice as a sense of group position. Sociological Perspectives, 1, 3–7.
Bommes, M. (1997). Von ›Gastarbeitern‹ zu Einwanderern: Arbeitsmigration in Niedersachsen. In K. J. Bade (Ed.), Fremde im Land: Zuwanderung und Eingliederung im Raum Niedersachsen seit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg (vol. 3, pp. 249–322). Osnabrück: IMIS-Schriften.
Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. New York/London: Guilford.
Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. O. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456–466.
Campbell, D. T., & Kenny, D. A. (2002). A primer on regression artifacts. New York/London: Guilford.
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14, 464–504.
Christ, O., & Wagner, U. (2008). Interkulturelle Kontakte und Gruppenbezogene Menschenfeindlichkeit: Die Wirkung von interkulturellen Kontakten auf eine Ideologie der Ungleichwertigkeit. In W. Heitmeyer (Ed.), Deutsche Zustände. Folge 6 (pp. 154–168). Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.
Coenders, M., & Scheepers, P. (2003). The effect of education on nationalism and ethnic exclusionism: An international comparison. Political Psychology, 24, 313–343.
Coenders, M., & Scheepers, P. (2004). Ablehnung der sozialen Integration von Ausländern in Deutschland 1980–2000. In Schmitt-Beck, M. Wasmer, & A. Koch (Eds.), Sozialer und politischer Wandel in Deutschland: Analysen mit ALLBUS-Daten aus zwei Jahrzenten (pp. 201–233). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Davidov, E., Dülmer, H., Schlüter, E., Schmidt, P., & Meuleman, B. (2012). Using a multilevel structural equation modeling approach to explain cross-cultural measurement noninvariance. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 558–575.
Davidov, E., Meulemann, B., Cieciuch, J., Schmidt, P., & Billiet, J. (2014). Measurement equivalence in cross-national research. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 55–75.
Davidov, E., Ciecuich, J., Meuleman, B., Schmidt, P., Algesheimer, R., & Hausherr, M. (2015). The comparability of measurements of attitudes toward immigration in the European soical survey: Exact versus approximate measurement equivalence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 79, 244–266.
Davidov, E., Cieciuch, J., & Schmidt, P. (2018). The cross-country measurement comparability in the immigration module of the european social survey 2014–15. Survey Research Methods, 12, 15–27.
Decker, O., Brähler, E., & Geißler, N. (2006). Vom Rand zur Mitte: Rechtsextreme Einstellung und ihre Einflussfaktoren in Deutschland. Leipzig: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Forum Berlin.
Decker, O., & M., W., Kiess, J., & Brähler, E. (2010). Die Mitte in der Krise: Rechtsextreme Einstellungen in Deutschland 2010. Leipzig: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Forum Berlin.
Decker, O., Kiess, J., & Brähler, E. (2016). Die enthemmte Mitte: Autoritäre und rechtsextreme Einstellung in Deutschland. Die Leipziger »Mitte«- Studie 2016. Gießen: Psychosozial-Verlag.
Destatis. (2018). Ausländische Bevölkerung: Ergebnisse des Ausländerzentralregisters. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis).
Destatis. (2019). Schutzsuchende: Ergebnisse des Ausländerzentralregisters. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis).
Dimitrov, D. M. (2010). Testing for factorial invariance in the context of construct validation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 43, 121–149.
Dovidio, J. F., Eller, A., & Hewstone, M. (2011). Improving intergroup relations through direct, extended and other forms of indirect contact. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14, 147–160.
Dovidio, J. F., Love, A., Schellhass, F. M. H., & Hewstone, M. (2017). Reducing intergroup bias through intergroup contact: Twenty years of progress and future directions. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20, 606–620.
Dustmann, C., Fasani, F., Frattini, T., Minale, L., & Schoenberg, U. (2017). On the economics and politics of refugee migration. Economic Policy, 32, 497–550.
Endrikat, K. (2006). Jüngere Menschen. Größere Ängste, geringere Feindseligkeit. In W. Heitmeyer (Ed.), Deutsche Zustände: Folge 4 (pp. 101–114). Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
Evans, G., & Need, A. (2002). Explaining ethnic polarization over attitudes toward minority rights in Eastern Europe: A multilevel analysis. Social Science Research, 31, 653–680.
Faus, R., & Storks, S. (2019). Das pragmatische Einwanderungsland: Was die Deutschen über Migration denken. Bonn: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.
Fuchs, D., Gerhards, J., & Roller, E. (1993). Wir und die anderen. Ethnozentrismus in den zwölf Ländern der europäischen Gemeinschaft. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 45, 238–253.
Fuß, D. (2012). Einstellungen zur Immigration. In S. I. Keil (Ed.), Deutschlands Metamorphosen: Ergebnisse des European Social Survey 2002 bis 2008 (pp. 299–327). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Gorodzeisky, A., & Semyonov, M. (2016). Not only competitive threat but also racial prejudice: Sources of anti-immigrant attitudes in european societies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 28, 331–354.
Gorodzeisky, A., & Semyonov, M. (2019). Perceptions and misperceptions: Actual size, perceived size and opposition to immigration in European societies. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2018.1550158.
Graf, S., Paolini, S., & Rubin, M. (2014). Negative intergroup contact is more influential, but positive intergroup contact is more common: Assessing contact prominence and contact pre-valence in five central European countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 536–547.
Green, E. G. T., Visintin, E., & Sarrasin, O. (2018). From ethnic group boundary demarcation to deprovincialization: The interplay of immigrant presence and ideological climate. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 59, 383–402.
Hainmueller, J., & Hiscox, M. J. (2007). Educated preferences: Explaining attitudes toward immigration in Europe. International Organization, 61, 399–442.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression‐based approach. New York: Guilford.
Heitmeyer, W. (1996). Für türkische Jugendliche in Deutschland spielt der Islam eine wichtige Rolle. Die Zeit.
Heitmeyer, W. (2007). Was hält die Gesellschaft zusammen? Problematische Antworten auf soziale Desintegration. In W. Heitmeyer (Ed.), Deutsche Zustände: Folge 5 (pp. 37–50). Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
Heitmeyer, W., Buhse, H., Liebe-Freund, J., Möller, K., J., M., Ritz, H., Siller, G., & Vossen, J. (1992). Die Bielefelder Rechtsextremismus-Studie: Erste Langzeituntersuchung zur politischen Sozialisation männlicher Jugendlicher. Weinheim/München: Juventa.
Herbert, U. (2003). Geschichte der Ausländerpolitik in Deutschland: Saisonarbeiter, Zwangsarbeiter, Gastarbeiter, Flüchtlinge. Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.
Herrmann, A. (2001). Ursachen des Ethnozentrismus in Deutschland: Zwischen Gesellschaft und Individuum. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Hjerm, M. (2007). Do numbers really count? Group threat theory revisited. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 33, 1253–1275.
Hoesch, K. (2018). Migration und Integration: Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Hopf, C., Rieker, P., Sanden-Marcus, M., & Schmidt, C. (1995). Familie und Rechtsextremismus: Familiale Sozialisation und rechtsextreme Orientierungen junger Männer. Weinheim/München: Juventa.
Ipsos. (2016). Perceptions are not reality: What the world gets wrong. The Perils of Perception. https://perils.ipsos.com/index.html.
Jöreskog, K. G. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika, 36, 409–426.
Jöreskog, K. G. (2005). Structural equation modeling with ordinal variables using LISREL. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
Kleinert, C. (2004). Fremdenfeindlichkeit: Einstellungen junger Deutscher zu Migranten. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Kobert, U. (2017). Willkommenskultur im „Stresstest“: Einstellungen in der Bevölkerung 2017 und Entwicklungen und Trends seit 2011/12. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.
Kotzur, P., Schäfer, S., & Wagner, U. (2018). Meeting a nice asylum seeker: Intergroup contact changes stereotype content perceptions and associated emotional prejudices, and encourages solidarity-based collective action intentions. British Journal of Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12304.
Lederer, G., & Schmidt, P. (1995). Autoritarismus und Gesellschaft: Trendanalysen und vergleichende Jugendforschung von 1945–1993. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
MacKinnon, D., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. S. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99–128.
McKeown, S., & Dixon, J. (2017). The “contact hypothesis”: Critical reflections and future directions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12295.
McLaren, L. M. (2003). Anti-immigrant prejudice in Europe: Contact, threat perception, and preferences for the exclusion of migrants. Social Forces, 81(3), 909–936. www.jstor.org/stable/3598180.
Meier-Braun, K.-H., & Weber, R. (2013). Deutschland Einwanderungsland: Begriffe—Fakten—Kontroversen. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Meitinger, K. (2017). Necessary but insufficient: Why measurement invariance tests need online probing as a complementary tool. Public Opinion Quarterly, 81, 447–472.
Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis, and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525–543.
Messing, V., & Ságvári, B. (2019). Still divided but more open: Mapping European attitudes towards migration before and after the migration crisis. Budapest: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.
Meuleman, B. (2018). Perceived economic threat and anti-immigration attitudes: Effects of immigrant group size and economic conditions revisited. In E. Davidov, P. Schmidt, J. Billiet, & B. Meulemann (Eds.), Cross-cultural analysis: Methods and applications (pp. 283–314). New York: Routledge.
Meyer, T. (2002). Parallelgesellschaft und Demokratie. In H. Münkler, M. Llanque, & C. K. Stepina (Eds.), Der demokratische Nationalstaat in den Zeiten der Globalisierung: Politische Leitideen für das 21. Jahrhundert (pp. 193–229). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Milfont, T. L., & Fischer, R. (2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3, 111–121.
Muthén, B. O., & Satorra, A. (1995). Sample data in structural equation modeling. Sociological Methodology, 25, 267–316.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus user’s guide: Eighth edition. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
Neller, K. (2006). Getrennt vereint? Ost-West-Identitäten, Stereotypen und Fremdheitsgefühle nach 15 Jahren deutscher Einheit. In J. W. Falter, O. W. Gabriel, H. Rattinger, & H. Schoen (Eds.), Sind wir ein Volk? Ost- und Westdeutschland im Vergleich (pp. 13–36). München: Beck.
Oltmer, J. (2016a). Gewaltmigration und Aufnahme von Schutzsuchenden im späten 20. und frühen 21. Jahrhundert. Journal for Comparative Government and European Policy, 4, 455–482.
Oltmer, J. (2016b). Migration vom 19. bis zum 21. Jahrhundert. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.
Oltmer, J. (2018). ‚Neue Migrationen‘ und ‚Alte Migrationen‘. Der Wandel der bundesdeutschen Migrationsverhältnisse. In R. Ceylan, M. Ottersbach, & P. Wiedemann (Eds.), Neue Mobilitäts- und Migrationsprozesse und sozialräumliche Segregation (pp. 7–32). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1997). Generalized intergroup contact effects on prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 173–185.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–85. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783.
Pettigrew, T. F., Christ, O., Wagner, U., & Stellmacher, J. (2007). Direct and indirect intergroup contact effects on prejudice: A normative interpretation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31, 411–425.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185–227.
Quillian, L. (1995). Prejudice as a response to perceived group threat: Population composition and anti-immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe. American Sociological Review, 60, 586–611.
Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 336–353.
Rippl, S. (2003). Kompensation oder Konflikt? Zur Erklärung negativer Einstellungen zu Zuwanderung. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 55, 231–252.
Santel, B., & Weber, A. (2000). Zwischen Ausländerpolitik und Einwanderungspolitik: Migrations- und Ausländerrecht. In K. J. Bade & R. Münz (Eds.), Migrationsreport 2000: Fakten, Analysen, Perspektiven (pp. 109–140). Frankfurt a. M./New York: Campus.
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2010). Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference Chi-square test statistic. Psychometrika, 75, 243–248.
Scheepers, P., Gijsberts, M., & Coenders, M. (2002). Ethnic exclusionism in European countries: Public opposition to civil rights for legal migrants as a response to perceived ethnic threat. European Sociological Review, 18, 17–34. https://www.jstor.org/stable/522912.
Schlueter, E., & Scheepers, P. (2010). The relationship between outgroup size and anti-outgroup attitudes: A theoretical synthesis and empirical test of group threat- and intergroup contact theory. Social Science Research, 39(2), 285–295.
Schlueter, E., & Wagner, U. (2008). Regional differences matter: Examining the dual influence of the regional size of the immigrant population on derogation of immigrants in Europe. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 49, 153–173.
Schlueter, E., Schmidt, P., & Wagner, U. (2008). Disentangling the causal relations of perceived group threat and outgroup derogation: Cross-national evidence from German and Russian panel surveys. European Sociological Review, 24, 567–581. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcn029.
Schmidt, P., & Weick, S. (2017). Kontakte und die Wahrnehmung von Bedrohungen besonders wichtig für die Einschätzung von Migranten: Einstellungen der deutschen Bevölkerung zu Zuwanderern von 1980 bis 2016. Informationsdienst Soziale Indikatoren, 57, 1–7.
Schmidt, P., Winkelnkemper, P., Schlüter, E., & Wolf, C. (2006). Welche Erklärung für Fremdenfeindlichkeit: Relative Deprivation oder Autoritarismus? In A. Grasse, C. Ludwig, & B. Dietz (Eds.), Soziale Gerechtigkeit (pp. 215–224). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Schmidt, P., Weick, S., & Gloris, D. (2019). Wann wirken Kontakte zwischen Migranten und Mehrheitsgesellschaft? Längsschnittanalysen zu Erfahrungen mit Kontakten und zur Bewertung von Flüchtlingen und Muslimen durch die deutsche Bevölkerung. Informationsdienst Soziale Indikatoren, 61, 24–29.
Schneider, S. L. (2008). Anti-immigrant attitudes in Europe: Outgroup size and perceived ethnic threat. European Sociological Review, 24, 53–67.
Scholz, E., & Wasmer, M. (2009). German General Social Survey 2006: English translation of the German ALLBUS-questionnaire. GESIS-Technical Reports.
Schroeder, J., & Risen, J. L. (2016). Befriending the enemy: Outgroup friendship longitudinally predicts intergroup attitudes in a coexistence program for Israelis and Palestinians. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19, 72–93.
Seipel, C., & Rippl, S. (2005). Eine Überprüfung der “Integrated Threat Theory of Prejudice” am Beispiel der EU-Osterweiterung. Zeitschrift für Politische Psychologie, 13, 419–441.
Semyonov, M., Raijman, R., Tov, A. Y., & Schmidt, P. (2004). Population size, perceived threat, and exclusion: A multiple-indicators analysis of attitudes toward foreigners in Germany. Social Science Research, 33, 681–701.
Semyonov, M., Raijman, R., & Gorodzeisky, A. (2008). Foreigners’ impact on European societies: Public views and perceptions in a cross-national comparative perspective. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 49, 5–29.
Sherif, M. (1966). Group conflict and co-operation: their social psychology. London: Routledge.
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers' Cave experiment. Norman: University of Oklahoma.
Silbermann, A., & Hüsers, F. (1995). Der „normale“ Hass auf die Fremden: Eine sozialwissenschaftliche Studie zu Ausmaß und Hintergründen von Fremdenfeindlichkeit in Deutschland. Berlin: Quintessenz Verlag-GmbH.
Sola, A. (2018). The 2015 refugee crisis in Germany: Concerns about immigration and populism. SOEP papers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research No. 966.
Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78–90.
Stein, R. M., Post, S. S., & Rinden, A. L. (2000). Reconciling context and contact effects on racial attitudes. Political Research Quarterly, 53, 285–303.
Steinbach, A. (2004). Soziale Distanz: Ethnische Grenzziehung und die Eingliederung von Zuwanderern in Deutschland. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Stephan, W. G., & Renfro, L. C. (2002). The role of threats in intergroup relations. In D. Mackie & E. Smith (Eds.), From prejudice to intergroup emotions: Differential reactions to social groups (pp. 191–207). New York: Psychology.
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 23–46). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Stephan, W. G., Stephan, C. W., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1999). Anxiety in intergroup relations: A comparison of anxiety/uncertainty management theory and integrated threat theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23, 613–628.
Stephan, W. G., Renfro, L. C., Esses, V. M., Stephan, C. W., & Martin, T. (2005). The effects of feeling threatened on attitudes toward immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 1–19.
Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Morrison, K. R. (2009). Intergroup threat theory. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 43–59). New York: Psychology.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monery, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Tajfel, H., Billig, G. M., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. I. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149–177.
van Laar, C., Levin, S., & Sidanius, J. (2008). Ingroup and outgroup contact: A longitudinal study of the effects of cross-ethnic friendships, dates, roommate relationships and participation in segregated organizations. In U. Wagner, L. Tropp, G. Finchilescu, & C. Tredoux (Eds.), Improving intergroup relations: On the legacy of Thomas F. Pettigrew (pp. 127–142). Oxford: Blackwell.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4–70.
Voci, A., & Hewstone, M. (2003). Intergroup contact and prejudice toward immigrants in Italy: The mediational role of anxiety and the moderational role of group salience. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6, 37–54.
von Gostomski, B., Küpper, B., & Heitmeyer, W. (2007). Fremdenfeindlichkeit in den Bundesländern: Die schwierige Lage in Ostdeutschland. In W. Heitmeyer (Ed.), Deutsche Zustände: Folge 5 (pp. 102–128). Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
Wagner, U., & Zick, A. (1998). Ausländerfeindlichkeit, Vorurteile und diskriminierendes Verhalten. In H. W. Bierhoff & U. Wagner (Eds.), Aggression und Gewalt (pp. 145–164). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Wagner, U., van Dick, R., Pettigrew, T. F., & Christ, O. (2003). Ethnic prejudice in east and west Germany: The explanatory power of intergroup contact. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6, 22–36.
Wagner, U., Christ, O., Pettigrew, T. F., Stellmacher, J., & Wolf, C. (2006). Prejudice and minority proportion: Contact instead of threat effects. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69, 380–390.
Wagner, U., Christ, O., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2008a). Prejudice and group-related behavior in Germany. Journal of Social Issues, 64, 403–416.
Wagner, U., Christ, O., van Dick, R., Stellmacher, J., Schlüter, E., & Zick, A. (2008b). Social and political context effects on intergroup contact and intergroup attitudes. In U. Wagner, L. R. Tropp, G. Finchilescu, & C. Tredoux (Eds.), Improving intergroup relations: Building on the legacy of Thomas F. Pettigrew (pp. 195–209). Malden/Oxford: Blackwell.
Walker, I., & Pettigrew, T. F. (1984). Relative deprivation theory: An overview and conceptual critique. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 301–310.
Weinmann, M. (2010). Ausländerfeindlichkeit in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland: Der Einfluss von Intergruppenwettbewerb und Intergruppenkontakten. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Weins, C. (2004). Fremdenfeindliche Vorurteile in den Staaten der EU. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Weins, C. (2011). Gruppenbedrohung oder Kontakt? Ausländeranteile, Arbeitslosigkeit und Vorurteile in Deutschland. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 63, 481–499.
Westle, B. (2004). Kollektive Identifikation und Orientierungen gegenüber Demokratie und Sozialismus. In R. Schmitt-Beck & M. Wasmer (Eds.), Sozialer und politischer Wandel in Deutschland: Analysen mit ALLBUS-Daten aus zwei Jahrzehnten (pp. 261–301). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Westle, B. (2019). Haltungen zur Demokratie in Ost- und Westdeutschland im Wandel: Entwicklungen und Trägergruppen [Unpublished manuscript]. Paper presented at the AK-Wahlen annual conference in Mannheim, May 2019.
Wolf, C. (2016). Einflussfaktoren auf das Zustandekommen von Intergruppenkontakt: Wann anders nicht schlechter ist. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Wolf, C., Wagner, U., & Christ, O. (2005). Die Belastungsgrenze ist nicht überschritten: Empirische Ergebnisse gegen die Behauptung vom vollen Boot. In W. Heitmeyer (Ed.), Deutsche Zustände: Folge 3 (pp. 73–91). Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
Zick, A., & Klein, A. (2014). Fragile Mitte—feindselige Zustände: Rechtsextreme Einstellungen in Deutschland 2014. Bonn: Dietz.
Zick, A., & Preuß, M. (2019). Einstellungen zur Integration in der deutschen Bevölkerung—dritte Erhebung im Projekt „ZuGleich—Zugehörigkeit und Gleichwertigkeit“. Essen: Stiftung Mercator GmbH.
Zick, A., Küpper, B., & Krause, D. (2016). Gespaltene Mitte—Feindselige Zustände: Rechtsextreme Einstellungen in Deutschland 2016. Bonn: J H Dietz.
Zick, A., Berghan, W., & Mokros, N. (2019). Gruppenbezogene Menschenfeindlichkeit in Deutschland 2002–2018/19. In A. Zick, B. Küpper, & W. Berghan (Eds.), Verlorene Mitte—Feindselige Zustände: Rechtsextreme Einstellungen in Deutschland 2018/19 (pp. 53–114). Bonn: J H Dietz.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
1.1 Appendix 1: Total, total indirect, and direct effects
Exogenous variables | Endogenous variables | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Subjective size (SZ) | ||||||||||||
96west | 06west | 16west | 96east | 06east | 16east | |||||||
OZ | ||||||||||||
Total | .078 | .401 | ** | .427 | ** | -.999 | .154 | -.137 | ||||
Direct | .078 | .401 | ** | .427 | ** | -.999 | .154 | -.137 | ||||
Total indirect | ||||||||||||
SZ | ||||||||||||
Total | ||||||||||||
Direct | ||||||||||||
Total indirect | ||||||||||||
IC | ||||||||||||
Total | ||||||||||||
Direct | ||||||||||||
Total indirect | ||||||||||||
TH | ||||||||||||
Total | ||||||||||||
Direct | ||||||||||||
Exogenous variables | Endogenous variables | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Intergroup contact (IC) | ||||||||||||
96west | 06west | 16west | 96east | 06east | 16east | |||||||
OZ | ||||||||||||
Total | -.099 | *** | -.150 | *** | -.144 | *** | -.528 | *** | -.297 | *** | -.284 | *** |
Direct | -.099 | *** | -.151 | *** | -.142 | *** | -.512 | *** | -.300 | *** | -.283 | *** |
Total indirect | .000 | .001 | -.002 | -.017 | .003 | .001 | ||||||
SZ | ||||||||||||
Total | -.001 | .003 | -.005 | .017 | .016 | * | .005 | |||||
Direct | -.001 | .003 | -.005 | .017 | .016 | * | .005 | |||||
Total indirect | ||||||||||||
IC | ||||||||||||
Total | ||||||||||||
Direct | ||||||||||||
Total indirect | ||||||||||||
TH | ||||||||||||
Total | ||||||||||||
Direct | ||||||||||||
Exogenous variables | Endogenous variables | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Perceived threat (TH) | ||||||||||||
96west | 06west | 16west | 96east | 06east | 16east | |||||||
OZ | ||||||||||||
Total | -.036 | *** | -.022 | * | -.010 | -.236 | ** | -.086 | * | -.070 | * | |
Direct | .004 | .013 | .025 | -.078 | -.023 | -.001 | ||||||
Total indirect | -.040 | *** | -.035 | *** | -.035 * | -.159 | *** | .-.063 | *** | -.068 | * | |
SZ | ||||||||||||
Total | .025 | *** | .024 | *** | .031 | *** | .031 | *** | .028 | *** | .027 | *** |
Direct | .026 | *** | .023 | *** | .032 | *** | .027 | *** | .025 | *** | .026 | *** |
Total indirect | -.001 | .001 | -.002 | .004 | .004 | * | .001 | |||||
IC | ||||||||||||
Total | .424 | *** | .295 | *** | .314 | *** | .250 | *** | .226 | *** | .228 | *** |
Direct | .424 | *** | .295 | *** | .314 | *** | .250 | *** | .226 | *** | .228 | *** |
Total indirect | ||||||||||||
TH | ||||||||||||
Total | ||||||||||||
Direct | ||||||||||||
Exogenous variables | Endogenous variables | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Attitudes towards immigration (ATI) | ||||||||||||
96west | 06west | 16west | 96east | 06east | 16east | |||||||
OZ | ||||||||||||
Total | -.017 | .018 | .038 | -.238 | -.095 | -.132 | ||||||
Direct | -.026 | -.010 | -.030 | -.024 | -.063 | -.153 * | ||||||
Total indirect | .009 | .028 | .067 | -.214 | -.032 | .022 | ||||||
SZ | ||||||||||||
Total | .029 | *** | .025 | *** | .048 | *** | .049 | ** | .046 | *** | .065 | *** |
Direct | .003 | -.009 | .009 | .006 | .003 | .027 | ** | |||||
Total indirect | .027 | *** | .035 | *** | .039 | *** | .042 | *** | .043 | *** | .038 | *** |
IC | ||||||||||||
Total | .426 | *** | .429 | *** | .316 | ** | .464 | ** | .360 | ** | .215 | |
Direct | -.027 | .004 | -.107 | .129 | .013 | -.116 | ||||||
Total indirect | .454 | *** | .425 | *** | .423 | *** | .335 | *** | .347 | *** | .331 | * |
TH | ||||||||||||
Total | 1.069 | *** | 1.441 | *** | 1.240 | *** | .1339 | *** | 1.533 | *** | 1.451 | *** |
Direct | 1.069 | *** | 1.441 | *** | 1.240 | *** | .1339 | *** | 1.533 | *** | 1.451 | *** |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Der/die Autor(en), exklusiv lizenziert durch Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Anstötz, P., Westle, B. (2021). Do Contextual Differences Between East and West (Still) Matter in Reunified Germany?. In: Schulz, S., Siegers, P., Westle, B., Hochman, O. (eds) (In)Toleranz in der Einwanderungsgesellschaft?. Blickpunkt Gesellschaft. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-32627-2_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-32627-2_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-658-32626-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-658-32627-2
eBook Packages: Social Science and Law (German Language)