Advertisement

Is Subjective Ill-Being Related to Islamophobia in Germany? In Search for Moderators

Abstract

Is subjective ill-being, defined as the inverse of subjective well-being, related to Islamophobia in Germany? We conducted a study guided by two goals to answer this question. The first goal was to test the hypothesis that subjective ill-being is associated with Islamophobia. The second goal, contingent on the results of testing for the association between subjective ill-being and Islamophobia, was to test a set of variables presumed to moderate this relationship—positive and negative contact with Muslims, right-wing political views, political participation, the importance of political life, and cultural diversity orientation. Data from the GESIS Panel, a probability-based panel representative of the German-speaking population aged between 18 and 70 years permanently residing in Germany, were used to test the study hypotheses. The data provided support for the hypothesis that subjective ill-being is indeed associated with Islamophobia in Germany (r = .12, p < .01). The data provided support for only one of the moderator hypothesis, namely cultural diversity orientation. Specifically, the data showed that the relationship between subjective ill-being and Islamophobia is stronger for those who have low (rather than high) cultural diversity orientation.

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 99

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    Ed Diener, the father of the subjective well-being movement, defines subjective well-being as a broad category of phenomena that includes a preponderance of positive over negative emotions, satisfaction with life domains (satisfaction in work life, social life, family life, etc.), and global judgments of life satisfaction (Diener and Tov 2012).

  2. 2.

    Subjective ill-being in our study is treated as the inverse of subjective well-being. That is, subjective ill-being is the other polar end of subjective well-being. Although there is debate in the subjective well-being literature about the distinction between subjective well-being and ill-being as being two distinct factors (e.g., Headey et al. 1984), we agree with those scholars who argue that the distinction between mental well-being and ill-being is counterproductive (e.g., Wood and Joseph 2010). In essence, subjective well-being should not be treated as a construct independent from subjective ill-being. A continuum approach should be used in conceptualizing both subjective well-being and ill-being, with positive functioning as one polar end of the continuum and negative functioning at the other end.

  3. 3.

    Sections dbaw, dbbd, dcbi, dczy, dbbd, and dcbi according to the codebook of the GESIS Panel, which can be retrieved via www.gesis-panel.org.

  4. 4.

    German citizenship does not reflect religious faith. The GESIS Panel does not include survey items related to religious faith because, under German law, such data require special data protection.

  5. 5.

    With regard to categorical variables, t test and ANOVA tests were conducted to identify the relationships between categorical and continuous variables.

References

  1. Allen, C. (2010). Islamophobia. London: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

  2. Allen, C., & Nielsen, J. S. (2002). Summary report on Islamophobia in the EU after 11 September 2001. Vienna: European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia.

  3. Allen, J. B. (2018). The psychology of happiness in the modern world: A social psychological approach. New York: Springer.

  4. Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  5. Amnesty International. (2012). Choice and prejudice: Discrimination against muslims in Europe. London: Amnesty International.

  6. Ata, A., Bastian, B., & Lusher, D. (2009). Intergroup contact in context: The mediating role of social norms and group-based perceptions on the contact-prejudice link. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,33, 498–506.

  7. Bauder, H., & Semmelroggen, J. (2009). Immigration and imagination of nationhood in the German parliament. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics,15, 1–26.

  8. Bennett, S., Ter Wal, J., Lipinski, A., et al. (2011). Thematic Report 2011/02: Media content. MEDIVA: Media for diversity and migrant Integration. San Domenico di Fiesole, Italy: European University Institute, Badia Fiesolana. Available at: http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/19730/MEDIVA_THEMATIC_REPORT_rev.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed 18 Sept 2013.

  9. Berkowitz, L. (1969). Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination and reformulation. Psychological Bulletin,106, 59–73.

  10. Bierly, M. M. (1985). Prejudice toward contemporary outgroups as a generalized attitude. Journal of Applied Sociology,15, 189–199.

  11. Bilefsky, D., & Homola, V. (2017). Austrian parliament bans full facial veils in public. The New York Times, May 17, 2017. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/world/europe/austria-veil-ban-muslim.html. Accessed 29 Oct 2017.

  12. Bleich, E. (2009). Where do muslims stand on ethno-racial hierarchies in Britain and France: Evidence from public opinion surveys, 1988–2008. Patterns of Prejudice,43, 379–400.

  13. Bosnjak, M., Dannwolf, T., Enderle, T., Schaurer, I., Struminskaya, B., Tanner, A., et al. (2018). Establishing an open probability-based mixed-mode panel of the general population in Germany: The GESIS panel. Social Science Computer Review,36, 103–115.

  14. Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2011). Cognitive adaptation to the experience of social and cultural diversity. Psychological Bulletin,137, 242–266.

  15. Crowson, M. (2009). Right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation: as mediators of worldview beliefs on attitudes related to the war on terror. Social Psychology,40, 93–103.

  16. Cummins, R. A., Eckersley, R., Pallant, J., Van Vugt, J., & Misajon, R. (2003). Developing a national index of subjective wellbeing: The Australian Unity Wellbeing Index. Social Indicators Research,64, 159–190.

  17. Diener, E., & Tov, W. (2012). National accounts of well-being. In K. C. Land, A. C. Michalos, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook of social indicators and quality of life research (pp. 137–157). Dordrecht: Springer.

  18. Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly,46, 229–273.

  19. Esposito, J. L., & Kalin, I. (Eds.). (2011). Islamophobia: The challenge of pluralism in the 21st century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  20. Euractiv. (2015). Poll: Majority of Germans reject immigration from outside the EU. Available at: https://www.euractiv.com/section/justice-home-affairs/news/poll-majority-of-germans-reject-immigration-from-outside-the-eu/. Accessed 13 Aug 2018.

  21. Factank. (2018). Differing views of immigrants pose a test for Germany’s coalition government. Available at: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/06/21/differing-views-of-immigrants-pose-a-test-for-germanys-coalition-government/. Accessed 13 Aug 2018.

  22. Gallup World. (2013). Islamophobia: understanding anti-Muslim sentiment in the West. Available at: http://www.gallup.com/poll/157082/islamophobia-understanding-anti-muslim-sentimentwest.aspx. Accessed 10 Jan 2013.

  23. Garofalo, J. (1981). The fear of crime: Causes and consequences. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology,72, 839–857.

  24. Gay, G. (2010). Acting on beliefs in teacher education for cultural diversity. Journal of Teacher Education,61, 143–152.

  25. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.

  26. Headey, B., Holmström, E., & Wearing, A. (1984). Well-being and ill-being: Different dimensions? Social Indicators Research,14, 115–139.

  27. Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. (2004). Toward national well-being accounts. The American Economic Review,94, 429–434.

  28. Kepel, G., & Jardin, A. (2017). Terror in France: The rise of Jihad in the West. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  29. Kinder, D. R., & Kiewiet, D. R. (1979). Economic grievances and political behavior: The role of personal discontents and collective judgments in congressional voting. American Journal of Political Science,23, 495–527.

  30. Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. New York: Guilford.

  31. Lau, A. L., Cummins, R. A., & McPherson, W. (2005). An investigation into the cross-cultural equivalence of the personal wellbeing index. Social Indicators Research,72, 403–430.

  32. Lubbers, M., Gijsberts, M., & Scheepers, P. (2002). Extreme right-wing voting in Western Europe. European Journal of Political Research,41, 345–378.

  33. McClaren, L. (2003). Anti-immigrant prejudice in Europe: Contact, threat perception and preferences for the exclusion of immigrants. Social Forces,81, 909–936.

  34. Moore, K., Mason, P., & Lewis, J. (2008). Images of Islam in the UK. The representation of British Muslims in the national print news media 20002008. UK: Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies. Available at: http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/jomec/resources/08channel4-dispatches.pdf. Accessed 17 Sept 2013.

  35. Ogan, C., Willnat, L., Pennington, R., & Bashir, M. (2014). The rise of anti-muslim prejudice: Media and Islamophobia in Europe and the United States. The International Communication Gazette,76, 27–46.

  36. Parekh, B. (2001). Rethinking multiculturalism: Cultural diversity and political theory. Ethnicities,1, 109–115.

  37. Salmela, M., & von Scheve, C. (2017). Emotional roots of right-wing political populism. Social Science Information,56, 567–595.

  38. Sirgy, M. J. (2012). The psychology of quality of life: Hedonic well-being, life satisfaction, and Eudaimonia. Dordrecht: Springer.

  39. Sputnik International. (2016). New poll finds Germans want immediate freeze on immigration. Available at: https://sputniknews.com/europe/201611111047337512-germans-immigration-freeze-poll/. Accessed 13 Aug 2018.

  40. Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues,41, 157–175.

  41. Thorisdottir, H., Jost, J. T., Liviatan, I., & Shrout, P. E. (2007). Psychological needs and values underlying left-right political orientation: Cross-national evidence from Eastern and Western Europe. Public Opinion Quarterly,71, 175–203.

  42. Uenal, F. (2016). Disentangling Islamophobia: The differential effects of symbolic, realistic, and terroristic threat perceptions as mediators between social dominance orientation and Islamophobia. Journal of Social and Political Psychology,4, 66–90.

  43. Wike, R., Stokes, B., & Simmons, K. (2016). Europeans fear wave of refugees will mean more terrorism, fewer jobs. Pew Research Center,11, 2016.

  44. Wikipedia. (2018). Demographics of Germany. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Germany. Accessed 25 Nov 2018.

  45. Wodak, R. (2015). The politics of fear: What right-wing populist discourses mean. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  46. Wood, A. M., & Joseph, S. (2010). The absence of positive psychological (eudemonic) well-being as a risk factor for depression: A ten year cohort study. Journal of Affective Disorders,122, 213–217.

  47. Zick, A., Kupper, B., & Hovermann, A. (2011). Intolerance, prejudice and discrimination: A European report. Berlin: Friederich Ebert Stiftung.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to M. Joseph Sirgy.

Appendix

Appendix

Results of regression and moderation analyses (outcome: islamophobia)

HypothesisPredictorsCoefficientSEtp95% CI
LowHigh
H2Constant.350.3171.102.271− .273.973
 Subj. ill-being.079.0253.188.001.030.128
 Positive contact− .307.028− 10.878.000− .363− .252
 Subj. Ill-being × positive contact.032.0251.303.193− .016.081
 Age− .002.002− 1.158.247− .007.002
 Marital status.011.030.350.726− .049.070
 Gender− .240.052− 4.578.000− .342− .137
 Education− .062.013− 4.737.000− .088− .036
 Citizenship status.103.0851.216.224− .063.269
 Living standard.161.0413.880.000.080.242
 Social welfare.026.119.224.823− .206.259
 R2 = .232, F = 24.647, df = 10, 814, p = .0000
H3Constant− .111.329− .336.737− .757.536
 Subj. ill-being.056.0262.188.029.006.107
 negative contact.277.0436.378.000.192.362
 Subj. Ill-being × negative contact.051.0321.586.113− .012.114
 Age.003.0021.282.200− .002.007
 Marital status.006.031.201.841− .055.068
 gender− .171.055− 3.137.002− .278− .064
 Education− .070.014− 5.142.000− .096− .043
 Citizenship status.011.088.129.897− .161.184
 Living standard.172.0434.017.000.088.256
 Social welfare.127.1241.031.303− .115.370
 R2 = .170, F = 16.598, df = 10, 813, p = .0000
H4Constant.438.1892.318.021.068.809
 Subj. ill-being.079.0155.335.000.050.108
 Right-wing view.598.02227.446.000.555.641
 Subj. Ill-being × right-wing view− .020.018− 1.134.257− .056.015
 Age− .005.001− 3.839.000− .007− .002
 Marital status.020.0181.156.248− .014.055
 Gender− .132.030− 4.327.000− .191− .072
 Education− .028.008− 3.548.000− .043− .012
 Citizenship status.130.0522.507.012.028.231
 Living standard.050.0242.029.043.002.098
 Social welfare− .058.069− .852.394− .193.076
 R2 = .248, F = 99.019, df = 10, 2996, p = .0000
H5Constant.312.2051.519.129− .091.714
 Subj. ill-being.071.0164.356.000.039.103
 Politically activeness− .294.047− 6.290.000− .385− .202
 Subj. Ill-being × politically activeness.053.0331.628.104− .011.117
 Age− .001.001− .851.395− .004.002
 Marital status.025.0191.280.201− .013.063
 Gender− .139.033− 4.171.000− .204− .074
 Education− .069.008− 8.208.000− .085− .052
 Citizenship status.131.0532.452.014.026.236
 Living standard.101.0263.812.000.049.152
 Social welfare− .024.074− .326.745− .170.121
 R2 = .069, F = 23.109, df = 10, 3131, p = .0000
H6Constant.271.2071.305.192− .136.677
 Subj. ill-being.070.0164.260.000.038.102
 Importance on political life− .122.024− 5.001.000− .170− .074
 Subj. Ill-being × importance on political life− .034.020− 1.756.079− .073.004
 Age.000.001.237.813− .002.003
 Marital status.022.0191.153.249− .016.061
 Gender− .164.034− 4.856.000− .231− .098
 Education− .069.008− 8.126.000− .085− .052
 Citizenship status.139.0542.576.010.033.244
 Living standard.094.0273.534.000.042.147
 Social welfare− .019.075− .256.798− .166.128
 R2 = .068, F = 22.488, df = 10, 3014, p = .0000

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sirgy, M.J., Kim, M.Y., Joshanloo, M. et al. Is Subjective Ill-Being Related to Islamophobia in Germany? In Search for Moderators. J Happiness Stud 20, 2655–2675 (2019) doi:10.1007/s10902-018-0063-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Islamophobia
  • subjective well-being
  • National well-being
  • Prejudice against Muslim immigrants
  • Discrimination against Muslim immigrants
  • Islam