Skip to main content

The Religious Become Tolerant

The Changing Relationship Between Religiosity and Anti-Immigrant Attitudes in Germany From 1980 to 2016

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
(In)Toleranz in der Einwanderungsgesellschaft?

Part of the book series: Blickpunkt Gesellschaft ((BLICKG))

Abstract

The present study investigates whether the relationship between religiosity and anti-immigrant attitudes has changed between 1980 and 2016 in Germany. Based on the intrinsic religiosity thesis (Siegers, Köln Z Soziol Sozialpsychol 71:491–517, 2019), I assume that the decreasing social importance of religion in Germany strengthened the alignment between Churches’ message of tolerance and attitudes of religious individuals. If this is true, religiosity should become more associated with positive attitudes towards immigrants. I apply this argument not only to the direct effect of religiosity but also to the indirect effect mediated via contacts with foreigners. I assume that secularization reduces the preference for homophily of religious individuals. Moreover, I expect that the change is more pronounced in West Germany because secularization is already more advanced in East Germany. I analyse the data from the longitudinal data file of the German General Social Survey covering the period from 1980 to 2016 for West Germany and from 1994 to 2016 for East Germany. The results of the moderated mediation model show that there has been a substantial change in the relationship between individual religiosity and anti-immigrant attitudes in West Germany. While in the 1980s church-goers in West Germany tended to be more sceptical about immigrants than the non-religious, this relationship reversed over time: the religious became tolerant. Today, going to church is associated with less anti-immigrant attitudes. Moreover, an indirect effect of religiosity mediated via contacts with foreigners has disappeared over time indicating that the religious preference for homophily decreased. The change is less pronounced in East Germany where over the whole observation period church-goers had more contacts with foreigners than the non-religious leading to more tolerant attitudes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    We must be cautious when interpreting the results reported by Koopmans because he only reports results for the pooled samples of six countries and does not control for religious participation.

  2. 2.

    Although, the majority of existing research stresses the detrimental effects of specific forms of religiosity on tolerance of ethnic and religious minorities, there are also approaches acknowledging that religiosity can support tolerance towards outgroups. Streib (2018) developed the concept of xenosophia for the study of religion and out-group attitudes. Xenosophia—different from merely neutral attitudes—describes a positive evaluation of leaning about others in contacts with the alien.

  3. 3.

    The 2018 wave does not include the questions on attitudes towards immigration.

  4. 4.

    The exact item wordings are reported in the “Appendix”.

  5. 5.

    In the alignment method, the zero point of the latent variable is chosen in a way to minimize heterogeneity in the model. In this case it is 2010 for West Germany and 2002 for East Germany.

  6. 6.

    Mplus uses a weighted least square mean and variance adjusted (WLSMV) estimator for path models with indirect effects.

  7. 7.

    It should be noted that the main effect of time is estimated for church attendance = 0 “never attending” because an interaction term between both variables is included in the model.

References

  • Allport, G. W. (1966). The religious context of prejudice. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 5(3), 447–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5(4), 432–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altemeyer, B. (2003). Why do religious fundamentalists tend to be prejudiced? The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 13(1), 7–28. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327582IJPR1301_03.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, H., & Mayerl, J. (2018). Attitudes towards Muslims and fear of terrorism. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 41(15), 2634–2655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asparouhov, T., & Muthen, B. (2014). Multiple-group factor analysis alignment. Structural Equation Modeling-a Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(4), 495–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbato, M., & Löffler, J. (2019). Papst Franziskus und die Flüchtlinge. In O. Hidalgo & G. Pickel (Eds.), Flucht und Migration in Europa (pp. 101–125). Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beller, J. (2020). Xenophobia trends in Germany: Increasing negative attitude towards foreigners in younger birth cohorts. The Social Science Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/03623319.2020.1735855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blank, T., & Wasmer, M. (1996). Gastarbeiter oder Ausländer? Ergebnisse des Splits mit den reformulierten Gastarbeiterfragen im ALLBUS 1994. ZUMA Nachrichten, 20(38), 45–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blohm, M., & Wasmer, M. (2018). Einstellungen und Kontakte zu Ausländern. In Statistisches Bundesamt and Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB) (Ed.), Datenreport 2018: Ein Sozialbericht für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland (pp. 403–409). Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohman, A., & Hjerm, M. (2014). How the religious context affects the relationship between religiosity and attitudes towards immigration. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 37(6), 937–957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cieciuch, J., Davidov, E., Schmidt, P., & Algesheimer, R. (2019). How to obtain comparable measures for cross-national comparisons. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 71, 157–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deslandes, C., & Anderson, J. R. (2019). Religion and prejudice toward immigrants and refugees: A meta-analytic review. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 29(2), 128–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doebler, S. (2015). Love Love thy neighbor? Relationships between religion and racial intolerance in Europe. Politics and Religion, 8(4), 745–771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erisen, C., & Kentmen-Cin, C. (2017). Tolerance and perceived threat toward Muslim immigrants in Germany and the Netherlands. European Union Politics, 18(1), 73–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Froese, P., & Pfaff, S. (2005). Explaining a religious anomaly: A historical analysis of secularization in eastern Germany. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 44(4), 397–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GESIS—Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften. (2019). German general social survey (ALLBUS)—Cumulation 1980–2016 (ZA4588; Version 1.0.0) GESIS Datenarchiv. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13291.

  • Hall, D. L., Matz, D. C., & Wood, W. (2010). Why don't we practice what we preach? A meta-analytic review of religious racism. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 126–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardy, M., Skirbekk, V., & Stonawski, M. (2019). The religiously unaffiliated in Germany, 1949–2013: Contrasting patterns of social change in east and west. Sociological Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380253.2019.1593064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, E. D., Cohen, A. B., Terrell, H. K., & Nagoshi, C. T. (2010). The role of social cognition in the religious fundamentalism-prejudice relationship. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 49, 724–739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria of fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, C., Lühr, M., & Streib, H. (2018). Extant empirical research on religion and prejudice. In H. Streib & C. Klein (Eds.), Xenosophia and religion. Biographical and statistical paths for a culture of welcome (pp. 23–84). Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koopmans, R. (2015). Religious fundamentalism and hostility against out-groups: A comparison of Muslims and Christians in western Europe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 41(1), 33–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotzur, L., Markewitz, P., Robinius, M., Cardoso, G., Stenzel, P., Heleno, M., & Stolten, D. (2020). Bottom-up energy supply optimization of a national building stock. Energy and Buildings, 209. <Go to ISI>://WOS:000509819200027

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Y., Millsap, R. E., West, S. G., Tein, J. Y., Tanaka, R., & Grimm, K. J. (2017). Testing measurement invariance in longitudinal data with ordered-categorical measures. Psychological Methods, 22(3), 486–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lüchau, P. (2007). By faith alone? Church attendance and Christian faith in three European countries. Journal of Contemporary Religion, 22(1), 35–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCutcheon, A. L. (2000). Religion und Toleranz gegenüber Ausländern. In D. Pollack & G. Pickel (Eds.), Religiöser und kirchlicher Wandel in Ostdeutschland 1989–1999 (pp. 87–104). Opladen: Leske + Budrich. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-95198-4_5.

  • Paluck, E. L., Green, S. A., & Green, D. P. (2019). The contact hypothesis re-evaluated. Behavioural Public Policy, 3(2), 129–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paterson, I. (2018). Any room at the inn? The impact of religious elite discourse on immigration attitudes in the United Kingdom. British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 20(3), 594–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew, T. F., Tropp, L. R., Wagner, U., & Christ, O. (2011). Recent advances in intergroup contact theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(3), 271–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pleinen, J. (2016). Ein Europa von Sonderfällen? Überlegungen zu einer Migrationsgeschichte der Bundesrepublik in europäischer Perspektive. In S. Levsen & C. Torp (Eds.), Wo liegt die Bundesrepublik? Vergleichende Perspektiven auf die westdeutsche Geschichte (pp. 255–273). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porst, R., & Jers, C. (2007). Die ALLBUS-»Gastarbeiter-Frage«. Zur Geschichte eines Standard-Instruments in der Allgemeinen Bevölkerungsumfrage der Sozialwissenschaften (ALLBUS). Soziale Welt, 58(2), 145–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheepers, P., Grotenhuis, M. T., & Silk, F. V. D. (2002). Education, religiosity and moral attitudes: Explaining cross-national effect differences. Sociology of Religion, 63(2), 157–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.07.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegers, P. (2019). Is the influence of religiosity on attitudes and behaviors stronger in less religious or more religious societies? A review of theories and contradictory evidence. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 71, 491–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegers, P., & Jedinger, A. (2020). Religious immunity to populism: Christian religiosity and public support for the alternative for Germany. German Politics. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644008.2020.1723002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spenkuch, J. L., & Tillmann, P. (2018). Elite influence? Religion and the electoral success of the Nazis. American Journal of Political Science, 62(1), 19–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stavrova, O. (2015). Religion, self-rated health, and mortality: Whether religiosity delays death depends on the cultural context. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(8), 911–922. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615593149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stavrova, O., & Siegers, P. (2014). Religious prosociality and morality across cultures how social enforcement of religion shapes the effects of personal religiosity on prosocial and moral attitudes and behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(3), 315–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213510951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinmann, J. P. (2020). Religiosity and natives’ social contact with new refugees. Explaining differences between east and west Germany. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 74, 189–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storm, I. (2018). When does religiosity matter for attitudes to immigration? The impact of economic insecurity and religious norms in Europe. European Societies, 20(4), 595–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Streib, H. (2018). Xenosophia and religion. Biographical and statistical paths for a culture of welcome. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Noll, J. (2014). Religious toleration of Muslims in the German public sphere. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 38, 60–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasmer, M., & Baumann, H. (2018). German general social survey 2016: English translation of the German “ALLBUS”-questionnaire. Mannheim: GESIS—Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pascal Siegers .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 Dependent Variable: Attitudes Towards Immigrants

This question is about the foreigners who live in Germany. On this card, there are some statements we have all heard at one time or another. Please tell me for each statement to what extent you agree with it.

  •  >1 on the scale means you ‘completely disagree’,

  •  >7 on the scale means you ‘completely agree’.

You can use the numbers in between to differentiate your answer.

  1. 1.

    The foreigners living in Germany [until 1994: guest workers] should adapt their way of life a little more closely to the German way of life [ma01].

  2. 2.

    When jobs get scarce, the foreigners living in Germany [until 1994: guest workers] should be sent home again [ma02].

  3. 3.

    Foreigners living in Germany [until 1994: guest workers] should be prohibited from taking part in any kind of political activity [ma03].

  4. 4.

    Foreigners living in Germany [until 1994: guest workers] should choose to marry people of their own nationality [ma04].

  1. 1.

    Focal predictor: church attendance

As a rule, how often do you go to church?

Answer categories:

−9 No answer, −7 Refused; 1 More than once a week; 2 Once a week; 3 Between one and three times a month; 4 Several times a year; 5 <1980:> Less often or never; <from 1982:> Less often, 6 <From 1982:> Never.

Note: scale reversed for analysis.

1.2 Mediator: Contact with Foreigners

Do you have any personal contact with foreigners living in Germany? Specifically…

  1. 1.

    …in your own family or close family circle? [mc01]

  2. 2.

    …at work? [mc02]

  3. 3.

    …in your neighborhood? [mc03]

  4. 4.

    …among your other friends and acquaintances? [mc04]

Answer categories:

1) Yes, 2) No, −9) No answer;

1.3 Controls

  1. a)

    Denominational membership

May I ask you what religion you belong to? (Int.: Only one choice possible.)

Answer categories:

−9 No answer, −7 Refused; 1 The German Protestant church (excluding free churches), 2 A Protestant free church; 3 The Roman Catholic church; 4 Another Christian denomination; 5 Another non-Christian denomination; 6 No religious affiliation.

  1. b)

    Self-rated social class

There is a lot of talk about social class these days. What class would you describe yourself as belonging to? The lower class, the working class, the middle class or the upper class?

Answer categories:

−50 None of these classes (Int.: Don't read aloud.); -9 No answer; −8 Don't know; −7 Refused to select a category; 1 The lower class <1982 only in split 1> , 2 The working class, 3 The middle class, 4 The upper middle class; 5 The upper class.

  1. c)

    Educational achievement

What general school leaving certificate do you have? (Int.: Only one choice possible. Request highest school leaving certificate only.)

Answer categories:

−9 No answer; 1 Finished school without school leaving certificate; 2 Lowest formal qualification of Germany’s tripartite secondary school system, after 8 or 9 years of schooling; 3 Intermediary secondary qualification, after 10 years of schooling; 4 Certificate qualifying for studies at a University of Applied Sciences; 5 Certificate qualifying for studies at university level; 6 Other school certificate; 7 <From 1986:> Still at school.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Der/die Autor(en), exklusiv lizenziert durch Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Siegers, P. (2021). The Religious Become Tolerant. 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_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-32627-2_6

  • 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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics