Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Threats, Acceptance, and Ambivalence in Cooperation: the Image of China in Taiwan

  • Published:
East Asia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examines the two contending theories of racial issues or ethnic politics, namely, the “contact” and “group threat” theories, in an attempt to learn how increased exposure to and contact with China affect Taiwanese people’s perceptions of China. More explicitly, faced with China’s rising power and changes in cross-Strait relations, the attitudes and sentiments of the general public in Taiwan could either become friendlier or more hostile to China. This study employs a randomized telephone survey, and statistical analysis of the data has allowed us to identify a clear trend of increased exposure leading to more positive opinions of China, confirming the contact theory. Furthermore, these positive impressions have encouraged the very same people to display a willingness to continue interactions with China. This phenomenon understates the unchanging reality that close economic ties between the two sides have overcome, at least to some degree, the sense of hostility across the Taiwan Strait.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Instead of employing specific political parties as the units of analysis, this study divides party identification into supporters of the “pan-Blue” (i.e., the KMT, the People First Party [PFP], and the New Party [NP]), “pan-Green” (i.e., the Democratic Progressive Party [DPP], the Green Party [GP], and the Taiwan Solidarity Union [TSU]), and independents.

  2. The ordered logit model is also known as the proportional odds model because the odds ratio of the event is independent of the choice of category (j). The odds ratio is assumed to be constant for all categories [14, 26].

  3. An examination of the correlation coefficients among the independent variables reveals that the partial coefficients are not highly multicollinear. Due to limitations of space, it is impossible to present the data analysis in detail. Those who are interested in the data may contact the authors who will be pleased to provide such information.

References

  1. Alesina, A., & Ferrara, E. L. (2002). Who trusts others? Journal of Public Economics 85(2), 207–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Allport, G. W. ([1954] 1979). The nature of prejudice. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday.

  3. Blalock, H. M. (1967). Toward a theory of minority-group relations. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bobo, L. D. (2002). Prejudice as group position: microfoundations of a sociological approach to racism and racial relations. Journal of Social Issues 55(3), 445–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bonacich, E. (1973). A theory of middleman minorities. American Sociological Review 38(5), 583–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bowen, W. G., & Bok, D. (1998). The shape of the river: long-term consequences of considering race in college and university admissions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Brewer, M. B., & Miller, N. (1996). When contact is not enough: social identity and intergroup cooperation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 20 (3/4), 291–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chao, C. M. (2003). Will economic integration between Mainland China and Taiwan lead to a congenial political culture? Asian Survey 43(2), 280–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chao, C. M. (2004). National security vs. economic interests: reassessing Taiwan’s mainland policy under Chen Shui-bian. Journal of Contemporary China 13(41), 687–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Delhey, J., & Newton, K. (2005). Predicting cross-national levels of social trust: global pattern or Nordic exceptionalism? European Sociological Review 21(4), 311–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dixon, J. C., & Rosenbaum, M. S. (2004). Nice to know you? Testing contact, cultural, and group threat theories of anti-black and anti-Hispanic stereotypes. Social Science Quarterly 85(2), 257–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ellison, C. G., & Powers, D. A. (1994). The contact hypothesis and racial attitudes among black Americans. Social Science Quarterly 75(2), 385–400.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Evans, G., & Need, A. (2002). Explaining ethnic polarization over attitudes toward minority rights in Eastern Europe: a multilevel analysis. Social Science Research 31(4), 653–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fienberg, S. E. (1980). The analysis of cross-classified categorical data, second edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  15. Fossett, M. A., & Kiecolt, K. J. (1989). The relative size of minority populations and white racial attitudes. Social Science Quarterly 70(4), 820–35.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gaertner, S. L., Rust, M. C., Dovidio, J. F., Bachman, B. A., & Anastasio, P. A. (1992). The contact hypothesis: the role of common ingroup identity on reducing intergroup bias among majority and minority group members. In J. L. Nye & A. M. Brower (Ed.), What’s social about social cognition? (pp. 230–260). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Giles, M. W. (1977). Percent black and racial hostility: an old assumption reexamined. Social Science Quarterly 58(3), 412–17.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Giles, M. W., & Evans, A. (1985). Eternal threat, perceived threat, and group identity. Social Science Quarterly 66(1), 50–66.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Giles, M. W., & Buckner, M. (1993). David Duke and black threat: an old hypothesis revisited. Journal of Politics 55(3), 702–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Glaser, J. (1994). Back to the black belt: racial environment and white racial attitudes in the South. Journal of Politics 56(1), 21–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ha, S. E. (2010). The consequences of multiracial contexts on public attitudes toward immigration. Political Research Quarterly 63(1), 29–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hurtado, S. (1999). Reaffirming educators’ judgment: educational value of diversity. Liberal Education 85(1), 24–32.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Jackman, M. R., & Crane, M. (1986). “Some of my best friends are black…”: interracial friendship and whites’ racial attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly 50(4), 459–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lieberson, S. (1985). Making it count: the improvement of social research and theory. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Lo, C. C., & Lin, J. W. (1995). Between sovereignty and security: a mixed strategy analysis and current cross-strait interaction. Issues & Studies 31(3), 64–91.

    Google Scholar 

  26. McCullagh, P., & Nelder, J. A. (1989). Generalized linear models, second edition. London: Chapman and Hall.

  27. Oliver, J. E., & Wong, J. (2003). Intergroup prejudice in multiethnic settings. American Journal of Political Science 47(4), 567–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Olzak, S. (1992). The dynamics of ethnic competition and conflict. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology 49(1), 65–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Powers, D. A., & Ellison, C. G. (1995). Interracial contact and black racial attitudes: the contact hypothesis and selectivity bias. Social Forces 74(1), 205–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Quillian, L. (1996). Group threat and regional change in attitudes toward African-Americans. American Journal of Sociology 102(3), 816–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Rokeach, M., Smith, P. W., & Evans, R. I. (1960). Two kinds of prejudice or one? In M. Rokeach (Ed.), The open and closed mind (pp. 132–168). New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  34. 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), 285–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Semyonov, M., Rajiman, R., Jov, A. Y., & Schmidt, P. (2004). Population size, perceived threat and exclusion: a multiple indicator analysis of attitudes toward foreigners in Germany. Social Science Research 33(4), 426–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Sigelman, L., & Welch, S. (1993). The contact hypothesis revisited: interracial contact and positive racial attitudes. Social Forces 71(3), 781–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Stein, R. M., Post, S. S., & Rinden, A. L. (2000). Reconciling context and contact effects on racial attitudes. Political Research Quarterly 53(2), 285–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Strabac, Z., & Listhaug, O. (2008). Anti-Muslim prejudice in Europe: a multilevel analysis of survey data from 30 countries. Social Science Research 37(1), 268–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Taylor, M. (1998). How white attitudes vary with the racial composition of local populations: number count. American Sociology Research 63(4), 512–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Tung, C. Y. (2003). Cross-strait economic relations: China’s leverage and Taiwan’s vulnerability. Issues & Studies 39(3), 137–75.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Wagner, U., Christ, O., Pettigrew, T. F., Stellmacher, J., & Wolf, C. (2006). Prejudice and minority proposition: contact instead of threat effects. Social Psychology Quarterly 69(4), 380–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Welch, S., & Sigelman, L. (2000). Getting to know you? Latino-Anglo social contact. Social Science Quarterly 81(1), 67–83.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Welch, S., Sigelman, L., Bledsoe, T., & Combs, M. (2001). Race and place: race relations in an American city. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  44. Wright, G. (1977). Contextual models of electoral behavior: the southern Wallace vote. American Political Science Review 71(2), 497–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Political Science, Academia Sinica, 128 Academia Sinica Road, Section 2, Taipei, 11529, Taiwan

    Chung-li Wu & Xiaochen Su

  2. Department of Economics, National Chung Cheng University, 168 University Road, Minhsiung Township, Chiayi County, 62102, Taiwan

    Hsiao-Chien Tsui

Authors
  1. Chung-li Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiaochen Su
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hsiao-Chien Tsui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chung-li Wu.

Appendix: Survey Questions and Coding of Variables

Appendix: Survey Questions and Coding of Variables

Impression of China

“Is your overall impression of mainland China good or bad?” (4 = very good; 3 = good; 2 = bad; 1 = very bad)

Exposure to China

“In the past five years, how many times have you and your family members travelled to mainland China (not including Hong Kong and Macau) for a family visit, study, work, or investment?” (the continuous variable is divided into three categories: 1 = zero times; 2 = 1–3 times; 3 = 4 or more times)

Willingness to Interact with China

“If you have sons or daughters, are you willing to let them go to the mainland for study or work?” and “If you have sons or daughters, are you willing to let them marry mainlanders?” (4 = very willing; 3 = willing; 2 = unwilling; 1 = very unwilling) (the variable is combined through direct additions of the respondents’ separate answers to the two questions into new values of 2 to 8. We then divide this new additive index into three categories: willing [7 and 8], neutral [5 and 6], and unwilling [2, 3 and 4])

Gender

Respondent’s gender. (1 = male; 2 = female)

Age

Respondent’s age measured in years. (the continuous variable is divided into five categories: 20–29 years, 30–39 years, 40–49 years, 50–59 years, over 60 years)

Ethnicity

Ethnic background of respondent’s father. (1 = mainlander; 2 = Taiwanese Hakka; 3 = Taiwanese Minnan)

Education

Respondent’s level of educational attainment measured on a four-tier scale. (1 = primary school and below [through 6th grade]; 2 = junior high school [grades 7 to 9]; 3 = high or vocational school; 4 = some college and higher)

Party Identification

“Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as close to any particular political party?” Those who classify themselves as independents are asked the following question: “Do you think of yourself as being a little closer to one of the political parties than the others? [If yes] “Which party do you feel closest to?” (1 = pan-Blue [Kuomintang, People First Party, New Party, and leaning toward pan-Blue]; 2 = pan-Green [Democratic Progressive Party, Green Party, Taiwan Solidarity Union, and leaning toward pan-Green]; 3 = independent [vote for candidate rather than party and none of the above])

Taiwanese/Chinese Consciousness

“In our society, some people say they are Taiwanese, some people say they are Chinese, and some people say they are both Taiwanese and Chinese. Do you think you are Taiwanese, Chinese, or both?” (1 = Taiwanese; 2 = Chinese; 3 = both)

Unification/Independence Preference

“Concerning the relationship between Taiwan and mainland China, which of these six positions do you agree with: (1) immediate unification; (2) immediate independence; (3) maintain the status quo, but in the future move toward unification; (4) maintain the status quo, but in the future move toward independence; (5) maintain the status quo, but in the future decide to move toward either unification or independence; and (6) maintain the status quo forever?” (1 = China unification [immediate unification and maintain the status quo, but in the future move toward unification]; 2 = Taiwan independence [immediate independence and maintain the status quo, but in the future move toward independence]; 3 = maintain the status quo [maintain the status quo, but in the future decide to move toward either unification or independence, and maintain the status quo forever])

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wu, Cl., Su, X. & Tsui, HC. Threats, Acceptance, and Ambivalence in Cooperation: the Image of China in Taiwan. East Asia 31, 305–322 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12140-014-9218-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12140-014-9218-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation