Advertisement

The Moderating Role of Group Identification in Perceptions of Diversity—Exemplified by a Vignette Analysis of Diversely Characterized Muslims in Germany

  • Coskun CananEmail author
Article
  • 17 Downloads

Abstract

This paper explores the role of in-group identification of the members of the majority group in relation with the recognition of diverse Muslims in German society. It claims that comprehensive recognition does not only depend on the Muslims’ achievement of skills and acquirement of characteristics that are associated with the majority society. The crucial factor for accepting diversity is the identification of the perceivers with his own group. To investigate this hypothesis, the paper uses representative secondary data from a vignette experiment employed in a telephone survey in Germany. In particular, it examines perceptions of Christian respondents with low and high group identification regarding a hypothetical situation in which a Muslim or a Christian person marries into the respondent’s family. Among the respondents with low group identification, the Muslim category loses relevance when the person in question is a woman and is combined with the achievement category of volunteering at the retirement home. Differences in evaluations of a Muslim woman and an identically characterized Christian woman disappear completely. When the person in question is a man, none of the used vignette variables work to change the perception of the Muslim person and differences in evaluations of a Muslim man and identically characterized Christian man remain. The results have practical implications for understanding integration as a one-sided process of adaptation to the norms and values of the majority society solely carried out by migrant or minority groups. Results are discussed and suggestions for further research are made.

Keywords

Migration and integration Social identity Diversity Survey experiment Vignette 

Notes

References

  1. Alba, R., & Nee, V. (2003). Remaking the American mainstream: assimilation and contemporary immigration. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Badawia, T. (2002). Der dritte Stuhl: Eine Grounded Theory-Studie zum kreativen Umgang bildungserfolgreicher Immigrantenjugendlicher mit kultureller Differenz. Frankfurt am Main: IKO.Google Scholar
  3. Beigang, S., Kalkum, D., & Schrenker, M. (2014). Methodenbericht zur Studie Deutschland postmigrantisch. Berlin. Retrieved from https://www.projekte.hu-berlin.de/de/junited/methodenbericht-deutschland-postmigrantisch__.pdf/view.
  4. Brambor, T., Clark, W. R., & Golder, M. (2005). Understanding interaction models. Improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis, 14(1), 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Canan, C. (2015). Identitätsstatus von Einheimischen mit Migrationshintergrund. Wiesbaden: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Canan, C., & Foroutan, N. (2016). Changing perceptions? Effects of multiple social categorisation on German population’s perception of Muslims. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42(12), 1905–1924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Canan, C., & Simon, M. K. (2019). Immigration, diversity and the relevance of ascriptive characteristics in defining national identity across 21 countries and 28 West-German districts. Migration Studies, 7(2), 201–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crisp, R. J., & Hewstone, M. (1999). Differential evaluation of crossed category groups: patterns, processes, and reducing intergroup bias. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 2(4), 307–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crisp, R. J., & Hewstone, M. (2007). Multiple social categorization. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 163–254). San Diego: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  10. Dimaggio, P., & Mohr, J. (1985). Cultural capital, educational attainment, and marital selection. American Journal of Sociology, 90(6), 1231–1261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Egeler, R. (2013). Zensus 2011—Fakten zur Bevölkerung in Deutschland. Statement von Präsident Roderich Egeler. Pressekonferenz am 31.05.2013. Retrieved from https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressekonferenzen/pressekonferenzen-uebersicht.html.
  12. Ehrkamp, P. (2010). The limits of multicultural tolerance? Liberal democracy and media portrayals of Muslim migrant women in Germany. Space and Polity, 14(1), 13–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Foroutan, N., Canan, C., Arnold, S., Schwarze, B., Beigang, S., & Kalkum, D. (2014). Deutschland postmigrantisch I. Identität. Erste Ergebnisse. Berlin: Gesellschaft, Religion Retrieved from https://edoc.hu-berlin.de/handle/18452/20573.Google Scholar
  14. Fu, V. K. (2001). Racial intermarriage pairings. Demography, 38(2), 147–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gerhards, J., & Hans, S. (2009). From Hasan to Herbert: name-giving patterns of immigrant parents between acculturation and ethnic maintenance. American Journal of Sociology, 114(4), 1102–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Henderson-King, E., Henderson-King, D., Zhermer, N., Posokhova, S., & Chiker, V. (1997). In-group favoritism and perceived similarity: a look at Russians’ perceptions in the Post-Soviet era. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(10), 1013–1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jann, B. (2014). Plotting regression coefficients and other estimates. Stata Journal, 14(4), 708–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2001). Similarity as a source of differentiation: the role of group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(6), 621–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (2004). Intergroup distinctiveness and differentiation: a meta-analytic integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(6), 862–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kalmijn, M. (1998). Intermarriage and homogamy: causes, patterns, trends. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 395–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2014). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata (3rd ed.). College Station: Stata Press.Google Scholar
  23. Marques, J. M., & Paez, D. (1994). The ‘black sheep effect’: social categorization, rejection of ingroup deviates, and perception of group variability. European Review of Social Psychology, 5(1), 37–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Meng, M. (2015). Silences about Sarrazin’s racism in contemporary Germany. The Journal of Modern History, 87(1), 102–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moghaddam, F. M., & Stringer, P. (1988). Out-group similarity and intergroup bias. The Journal of Social Psychology, 128(1), 105–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mutz, D. C. (2011). Population-based survey experiments. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Paradis, C. (2000). Reinforcing adjectives: a cognitive semantic perspective on grammaticalization. In R. Bermudez-Otero, D. Denison, R. M. Hogg, & C. B. McCully (Eds.), Generative Theory and Corpus Studies (pp. 233–258). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  28. Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2001). Legacies: the story of the immigrant second generation. Berkeley, New York: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  29. Pratsinakis, M. (2018). Established and outsider nationals: immigrant–native relations and the everyday politics of national belonging. Ethnicities, 18(1), 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Putnam, R. D. (2007). E pluribus unum: diversity and community in the twenty-first century. The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Razack, S. H. (2004). Imperilled Muslim women, dangerous Muslim men and civilised Europeans: Legal and social responses to forced marriages. Feminist Legal Studies, 12(2), 129–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Roccas, S., & Schwartz, S. H. (1993). Effects of intergroup similarity on intergroup relations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23(6), 581–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rostock, P., & Berghahn, S. (2008). The ambivalent role of gender in redefining the German nation. Ethnicities, 8(3), 345–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schneider, J., & Lang, C. (2014). Social Mobility, habitus and identity formation in the Turkish-German second generation. New Diversities, 16(1), 89–105.Google Scholar
  35. Schubert, H.-J. (2006). Integration, Ethnizität und Bildung. Berliner Journal für Soziologie, 16(3), 291–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stichs, A. (2016). Wie viele Muslime leben in Deutschland? Eine Hochrechnung über die Anzahl der Muslime in Deutschland zum Stand 31. Dezember 2015. Working Paper 71. Nürnberg: Federal Office for Migration and Refugees.Google Scholar
  37. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: studies in social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
  39. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: a self-categorization theory. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.German Center for Integration and Migration ResearchHumboldt University to BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations