The current studies integrate different frameworks on the positive and negative consequences of ethnic diversity for intergroup relations. Using a nationally stratified sample of Dutch majority members (N = 680) from 50 cities in the Netherlands, Study 1 demonstrated that objective diversity was indirectly related to prejudice and to generalized, ingroup, and outgroup trust, through more positive and more negative contact. These indirect effects tended to be stronger for high versus low authoritarians. Furthermore, perceived diversity was indirectly related to less trust and greater prejudice, via more negative contact and threat. Again, these associations were more pronounced among high authoritarians. Study 2, using a representative sample of German majority members (N = 412) nested within 237 districts, replicated the cross-sectional results regarding objective diversity and prejudice. In addition, longitudinal analyses indicated that objective diversity predicted more positive and more negative contact 2 years later, though only among moderate and high authoritarians.
AdornoT. W.Frenkel-BrunswikE.LevinsonD. J.SanfordR. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York, NY: Harper.
2.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. New York, NY: Addison.
3.
AltemeyerB. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: University of Manitoba Press.
4.
AltemeyerB. (1988). Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
5.
AsbrockF.ChristO.DuckittJ.SibleyC. G. (2012). Differential effects of intergroup contact for authoritarians and social dominators: A dual process model perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 477-490.
6.
BlalockH. M. (1967). Toward a theory of minority-group relations. New York, NY: John Wiley.
7.
BlumerH. (1958). Race prejudice as a sense of group position. Pacific Sociological Review, 1, 3-7.
8.
BoboL. D. (1999). Prejudice as group position: Microfoundations of a sociological approach to racism and race relations. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 445-472.
9.
BrownR.HewstoneM. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 255-343.
10.
BruneA.AsbrockF.SibleyC. G. (2016). Meet your neighbours. Authoritarians engage in intergroup contact when they have the opportunity. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 26, 567-580.
11.
Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. (2015). Jaarrapport Integratie 2015 [Annual report on integration 2015]. Den Haag, The Netherland: Author. Available from http://statline.cbs.nl
12.
ChristO.SchmidK.LolliotS.SwartH.StolleD.TauschN.. . . HewstoneM. (2014). Contextual effect of positive intergroup contact on outgroup prejudice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 3996-4000.
13.
ColeD. A.MaxwellS. E. (2003). Testing mediational models with longitudinal data: Questions and tips in the use of structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 558-577.
14.
CohrsJ. C.AsbrockF. (2009). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and prejudice against threatening and competitive ethnic groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 270-289.
15.
De keersmaeckerJ.Van AsscheJ.RoetsA. (2016). Need for closure effects on affective and cognitive responses to culture fusion. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 47, 1294-1306.
16.
DhontK.Van HielA. (2009). We must not be enemies: Interracial contact and the reduction of prejudice among authoritarians. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 172-177.
17.
DhontK.Van HielA. (2011). Direct contact and authoritarianism as moderators between extended contact and reduced prejudice: Lower threat and greater trust as mediators. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14, 223-237.
18.
DhontK.Van HielA.De BolleM.RoetsA. (2012). Longitudinal intergroup contact effects on prejudice using self- and observer-reports. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51, 221-238.
19.
DinesenP. T.SønderskovK. M. (2015). Ethnic diversity and social trust: Evidence from the micro-context. American Sociological Review, 80, 550-573.
20.
DuckittJ. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 41-113.
21.
ESS Round 7: European Social Survey Round 7 Data. (2014). Data file Edition 1.0. Norwegian Social Science Data Services, Norway.
22.
EvansG.NeedA. (2002). Explaining ethnic polarization over attitudes towards minority rights in Eastern Europe: A multilevel analysis. Social Science Research, 31, 653-680.
23.
FaselN.GreenE. G.SarrasinO. (2013). Facing cultural diversity. European Psychologist, 18, 253-262.
24.
FeldmanS.StennerK. (1997). Perceived threat and authoritarianism. Political Psychology, 18, 741-770.
25.
GijsbertsM.van der MeerT.DagevosJ. (2012). “Hunkering down” in multi-ethnic neighbourhoods? The effects of ethnic diversity on dimensions of social cohesion. European Sociological Review, 28, 527-537.
26.
GreenE. G.FaselN.SarrasinO. (2010). The more the merrier? The effects of type of cultural diversity on exclusionary immigration attitudes in Switzerland. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 4, 177-190.
27.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
28.
HeitmeyerW. (2002). Gruppenbezogene Menschenfeindlichkeit: Die Theoretische Konzeption und Erste Empirische Ergebnisse [Group-focused enmity: Theoretical conception and first empirical results]. In HeitmeyerW. (Ed.), Deutsche Zustände I [German states 1] (pp. 15-34). Frankfurt, Germany: Edition Suhrkamp.
29.
HewstoneM. (2015). Consequences of diversity for social cohesion and prejudice: The missing dimension of intergroup contact. Journal of Social Issues, 71, 417-438.
30.
HewstoneM.LolliotS.SwartH.MyersE.VociA.Al RamiahA.CairnsE. (2014). Intergroup contact and intergroup conflict. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 20, 39-53.
31.
HewstoneM.SwartH. (2011). Fifty-odd years of inter-group contact: From hypothesis to integrated theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 374-386.
32.
HjermM. (2007). Do numbers really count? Group threat theory revisited. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 33, 1253-1275.
33.
HodsonG. (2011). Do ideologically intolerant people benefit from intergroup contact?Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 154-159.
34.
HodsonG.DhontK. (2015). The person-based nature of prejudice: Individual difference predictors of intergroup negativity. European Review of Social Psychology, 26, 1-42.
35.
HoogheM.De VroomeT. (2015). The perception of ethnic diversity and anti-immigrant sentiments: A multilevel analysis of local communities in Belgium. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38, 38-56.
36.
HoogheM.ReeskensT.StolleD.TrappersA. (2009). Ethnic diversity and generalized trust in Europe: A cross-national multilevel study. Comparative Political Studies, 42, 198-223.
37.
KarrethJ.SinghS. P.StojekS. M. (2015). Explaining attitudes toward immigration: The role of regional context and individual predispositions. West European Politics, 38, 1174-1202.
38.
KauffM.AsbrockF.ThörnerS.WagnerU. (2013). Side effects of multiculturalism: The interaction effect of a multicultural ideology and authoritarianism on prejudice and diversity beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 305-320.
39.
KesslerT.CohrsJ. C. (2008). The evolution of authoritarian processes: Fostering cooperation in large-scale groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12, 73-84.
40.
KoopmansR.SchaefferM. (2015). Relational diversity and neighbourhood cohesion. Unpacking variety, balance and in-group size. Social Science Research, 53, 162-176.
41.
KoopmansR.VeitS. (2014). Ethnic diversity, trust, and the mediating role of positive and negative interethnic contact: A priming experiment. Social Science Research, 47, 91-107.
42.
KosterF. (2013). Sociality in diverse societies: A regional analysis across European countries. Social Indicators Research, 111, 579-601.
43.
KunovichR. M.HodsonR. (2002). Ethnic diversity, segregation, and inequality: A structural model of ethnic prejudice in Bosnia and Croatia. The Sociological Quarterly, 43, 185-212.
44.
LaurenceJ. (2011). The effect of ethnic diversity and community disadvantage on social cohesion: A multi-level analysis of social capital and interethnic relations in UK communities. European Sociological Review, 27, 70-89.
45.
LaurenceJ.SchmidK.HewstoneM. (2018). Ethnic diversity, inter-group attitudes and countervailing pathways of positive and negative inter-group contact: An analysis across workplaces and neighbourhoods. Social Indicators Research, 136, 719-749.
46.
LedererG. (1982). Trends in authoritarianism: A study of adolescents in West Germany and the United States since 1945. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 13, 3-29.
47.
LetkiN. (2008). Does diversity erode social cohesion? Social capital and race in British neighbourhoods. Political Studies, 56, 99-126.
48.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.
49.
OliverE. J.WongJ. (2003). Intergroup prejudice in multiethnic settings. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 567-582.
50.
OnraetE.DhontK.Van HielA. (2014). The relationships between internal and external threats and right-wing attitudes: A three-wave longitudinal study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 712-725.
51.
OnraetE.Van HielA. (2013). When threat to society becomes a threat to oneself: Implications for right-wing attitudes and ethnic prejudice. International Journal of Psychology, 48, 25-34.
52.
PettigrewT. F. (1991). Normative theory in intergroup relations: Explaining bo th harmony an d conflict. Psychology and Developing Societies, 3, 3-16.
53.
PettigrewT. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65-85.
54.
PettigrewT. F. (2008). Future directions for intergroup contact theory and research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 187-199.
55.
PettigrewT. F.HewstoneM. (2017). The single factor fallacy: Implications of missing critical variables from an analysis of intergroup contact theory. Social Issues and Policy Review, 11, 8-37.
56.
PettigrewT. F.MeertensR. W. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 57-75.
57.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751-783.
58.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R.WagnerU.ChristO. (2011). Recent advances in intergroup contact theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 271-280.
59.
PettigrewT. F.WagnerU.ChristO. (2010). Population ratios and prejudice: Modelling both contact and threat effects. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36, 635-650.
60.
PituchK. A.StapletonL. M. (2012). Distinguishing between cross- and cluster-level mediation processes in the cluster randomized trial. Sociological Methods & Research, 41, 630-670.
61.
PutnamR. D. (2007). E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century: The 2006 Johan Skytte prize lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30, 137-174.
62.
QuillianL. (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.
63.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
SavelkoulM.GesthuizenM.ScheepersP. (2011). Explaining relationships between ethnic diversity and informal social capital across European countries and regions: Tests of constrict, conflict and contact theory. Social Science Research, 40, 1091-1107.
66.
SchaefferM. (2014). Ethnic diversity and social cohesion: Immigration, ethnic fractionalization and potentials for civic action. Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing.
67.
ScheepersP.GijsbertsM.CoendersM. (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.
68.
SchlueterE.ScheepersP. (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, 285-295.
69.
SchlueterE.WagnerU. (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.
70.
SchmidK.Al RamiahA.HewstoneM. (2014). Neighborhood ethnic diversity and trust: The role of intergroup contact and perceived threat. Psychological Science, 25, 665-674.
71.
SchneiderS. L. (2008). Anti-immigrant attitudes in Europe: Outgroup size and perceived ethnic threat. European Sociological Review, 24, 53-67.
72.
SemyonovM.RaijmanR.TovA. Y.SchmidtP. (2004). Population size, perceived threat, and exclusion: A multiple-indicators analysis of attitudes toward foreigners in Germany. Social Science Research, 33, 681-701.
73.
SibleyC. G.DuckittJ.BerghR.OsborneD.PerryR.AsbrockF.. . . BarlowF. K. (2013). A dual process model of attitudes towards immigration: Person × residential area effects in a national sample. Political Psychology, 34, 553-572.
74.
StellmacherJ.PetzelT. (2005). Authoritarianism as a group phenomenon. Political Psychology, 26, 245-274.
75.
StennerK. (2005). The authoritarian dynamic. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
76.
StephanW. G.BonieckiK. A.YbarraO.BettencourtA.ErvinK. S.JacksonL. A.. . . RenfroC. L. (2002). The role of threats in the racial attitudes of Blacks and Whites. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1242-1254.
77.
StephanW. G.StephanC. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In OskampS. (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 23-46). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
78.
StolleD.SorokaS.JohnstonR. (2008). When does diversity erode trust? Neighborhood diversity, interpersonal trust and the mediating effect of social interactions. Political Studies, 56, 57-75.
79.
TaylorM. C. (1998). How White attitudes vary with the racial composition of local populations: Numbers count. American Sociological Review, 63, 512-535.
80.
TolsmaJ.van der MeerT.GesthuizenM. (2009). The impact of neighbourhood and municipality characteristics on social cohesion in the Netherlands. Acta Politica, 44, 286-313.
81.
Van AsscheJ.AsbrockF.RoetsA.KauffM. (in press). Positive neighborhood norms buffer ethnic diversity effects on neighborhood dissatisfaction, perceived neighborhood disadvantage, and moving intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
82.
Van AsscheJ.DhontK.Van HielA.RoetsA. (in press). Ethnic diversity and support for populist parties: The “right” road through political cynicism and lack of trust. Social Psychology.
83.
Van AsscheJ.RoetsA.DhontK.Van HielA. (2014). Diversity and out-group attitudes in the Netherlands: The role of authoritarianism and social threat in the neighbourhood. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 40, 1414-1430.
84.
Van AsscheJ.RoetsA.DhontK.Van HielA. (2016). The association between actual and perceived ethnic diversity: The moderating role of authoritarianism and implications for outgroup threat, anxiety, and mistrust. European Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 807-817.
85.
van der MeerT.TolsmaJ. (2014). Ethnic diversity and its effects on social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 459-478.
86.
Van HielA.CornelisI.RoetsA. (2007). The intervening role of social worldviews in the relationship between the five-factor model of personality and social attitudes. European Journal of Personality, 21, 131-148.
87.
WagnerU.ChristO.PettigrewT. F.StellmacherJ.WolfC. (2006). Prejudice and minority proportion: Contact instead of threat effects. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69, 380-390.
88.
WagnerU.Van DickR.PettigrewT. F.ChristO. (2003). Ethnic prejudice in East and West Germany: The explanatory power of intergroup contact. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6, 22-36.
89.
WasmerM.KochA.HarknessJ.GablerS. (1996). KonzeptionundDurchführung der AllgemeinenBevölker-ungsumfrage der Sozialwissenschaften (Allbus) [Conception and execution of the general population survey of the social sciences]. ZUMA-Arbeitsbericht 96/08, Mannheim, Germany.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
