Advertisement

Generalized Trust and Attitudes Toward Refugees in Portugal and Spain

  • Alfonso Serrano-MailloEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Several studies have found a relationship between trust and attitudes toward immigrants and refugees. Following Uslaner and others, we make a distinction between different kinds of trust and reject the idea that it must be analyzed solely as an element of social capital. It is predicted that generalized trust or trust in people who are different from us is a predictor of attitudes toward refugees. Generalized trust (as well as racist values) is established early in life. It is expected that variables that do not depend on experience will be better predictors of attitudes toward refugees than those that are influenced by experience. We explore these hypotheses with data from Portugal and Spain collected in the frame of the seventh wave of the European Social Survey. Regional particularities than can be masked in studies with heterogeneous samples can make a difference in the explanation of attitudes. Data analyses rely on standard regression tools.

Keywords

Attitudes toward refugees Generalized trust Institutional trust Experience-based factors Racist values 

References

  1. Allport, G. W. (1979). The nature of prejudice (25th Anniversary ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Mesley.Google Scholar
  2. Andreescu, V. (2011). Attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy in United Kingdom. Journal of Identity and Migration Studies, 5, 61–85.Google Scholar
  3. Blalock, H. M. (1967). Toward a theory of minority-group relations. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  4. Boelhouwer, J. (2016). The mood in Europe: Opinions on democracy, trust, migrants and life satisfaction. In J. Boelhouwer et al. (Eds.), Trust, life satisfaction and opinions on immigration in 15 European countries (pp. 10–27). The Hague: The Netherlands Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
  5. Burns, P., & Gimpel, J. (2000). Economic insecurity, prejudicial stereotypes, and public opinion on immigration policy. Political Science Quarterly, 115(2), 201–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crepaz, M. M. L., Polk, J. T., Bakker, R. S., & Singh, S. P. (2014). Trust matters: The impact of ingroup and outgroup trust on nativism and civicness. Social Science Quarterly, 95(4), 938–959.Google Scholar
  7. Delhey, J., Newton, K., & Welzel, C. (2011). How general is trust in ‘most people’? Solving the radius of trust problem. American Sociological Review, 76(5), 786–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Economidou, C., Karamanis, D., Kechrinioti, A., & Xesfingi, S. (2017). What shapes Europeans’ attitudes toward xeno-philia(/phobia)? (MPRA Paper no. 76511). Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/76511/
  9. European Commission. (2015). Public opinion in the European Union. Standard Eurobarometer 83. Spring.Google Scholar
  10. European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI). (2015). Annual Report. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
  11. Ford, R. (2011). Acceptable and unacceptable immigrants: How opposition to immigration in Britain is affected by migrant’s region of origin. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37(7), 1017–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. London: Hamish Hamilton.Google Scholar
  13. Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control. Crime and social order in contemporary society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Greene, W. H. (2012). Econometric analysis (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
  15. Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2004). Survey methodology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and sons.Google Scholar
  16. Hainmueller, J., & Hangartner, D. (2013). Who gets a Swiss passport? A natural experiment in immigrant discrimination. American Political Science Review, 107, 159–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hainmueller, J., & Hiscox, M. (2010). Attitudes toward highly skilled and low skilled immigration: Evidence from a survey experiment. American Political Science Review, 104, 61–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hainmueller, J., & Hopkins, D. J. (2014). Public attitudes toward immigration. Annual Review of Political Science, 17, 225–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Halapuu, V., Paas, T., Tammaru, T., & Schütz, A. (2013). Is institutional trust related to pro-immigrant attitudes? A pan-European evidence. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 54(5–6), 572–593.Google Scholar
  20. Heath, A., & Richards, L. (2016). Attitudes towards immigration and their antecedents: Topline results from Round 7 of the European Social Survey. London: European Social Survey ERIC.Google Scholar
  21. Herreros, F., & Criado, H. (2009). Social trust, social capital and perceptions of immigration. Political Studies, 57, 337–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization. Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change, and democracy. The human development sequence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kaufmann, E., & Harris, G. (2015). Diversity and attitudes to immigration in Britain. Comparative Political Studies, 50(1), 10–20.Google Scholar
  25. Kury, H., & Ferdinand, T. (1999). Public opinion and punitivity. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22, 373–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kury, H., & Obergfell-Fuchs, J. (2008). Punitivity in Germany: Attitudes to punishment, sentencing and prison rates. In H. Kury & T. N. Ferdinand (Eds.), International perspectives on punitivity (pp. 107–138). Bochum: Dr. N. Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
  27. Mayda, A. M. (2006). Who is against immigration? A cross-country investigation of individual attitudes toward immigrants. Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(3), 510–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McLaren, L. (2003). Anti-immigrant prejudice in Europe: Contact, threat perception, and preferences for the exclusion of migrants. Social Forces, 81(3), 909–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McLaren, L. (2012). Immigration and trust in Politics in Britain. British Journal of Political Science, 21(1), 163–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Meuleman, R., Lubbers, M., & Kraaykamp, G. (2016). Opinions on migration in a European perspective. Trends and differences. In J. Boelhouwer et al. (Eds.), Trust, life satisfaction and opinions on immigration in 15 European countries (pp. 28–53). The Hague: The Netherlands Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
  31. O’Connell, A. (2006). Logistic regression models for ordinal response variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. (1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36(4), 859–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling alone. The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  35. Quillian, L. (1995). Prejudice as a response to perceived group threat: Population composition and anti-immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe. American Sociological Review, 60(4), 586–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Reeskens, T., & Hooghe, M. (2008). Cross-cultural measurement equivalence of generalized trust: Evidence from the European Social Survey. Social Indicators Research, 85(3), 515–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reines, T., Goodwin, M., & Cutts, D. (2017). The future of Europe. Comparing public and elite attitudes. London: The Royal Institute of International Affairs.Google Scholar
  38. Rosenberg, M. (1956). Misanthropy and political ideology. American Sociological Review, 21(6), 690–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Salamonska, J. (2016). Friend or foe? Attitudes towards immigration from other European Union countries. SocietáMutamentoPolitica, 7(13), 237–253.Google Scholar
  40. Serrano-Maillo, A., Serrano-Tárraga, M. D., & Vázquez González, C. (2008). Un estudio descriptivo y exploratorio de una muestra de delincuentes juveniles nacionales e inmigrantes de segunda nueva generación. In A. Serrano-Maillo (Ed.), Intersecciones teóricas en Criminología. Acción, elección racional y teoría etiológica (pp. 173–230). Madrid: Dykinson.Google Scholar
  41. Snijders, T. A., & Bosker, R. J. (2012). Multilevel analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Stoop, I. (2007). If it bleads, it leads: The impact of media-reported events. In R. Jowell et al. (Eds.), Measuring attitudes across-nationality (pp. 95–111). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Thornberry, T. P., & Krohn, M. D. (2000). The self-report method for measuring delinquency and crime. In D. Duffee (Ed.), Criminal Justice 2000 (Vol. 4, pp. 33–83). Washington, DC: NIJ.Google Scholar
  44. Toshkov, D., & Kortenska, E. (2015). Does immigration undermine public support for integration in the European Union? Journal of Common Market Studies, 53(4), 910–925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Uslaner, E. M. (2002). The moral foundations of trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Valentova, M., & Bezosa, G. (2012). Attitudes toward immigrants in Luxemburg. Do contacts matter? International Review of Sociology, 22, 341–363.Google Scholar
  47. Welzel, C. (2013). Freedom rising. Human empowerment and the quest for emancipation. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wollebaeck, D., Lundasen, S. W., & Trägardh, L. (2012). Three forms of interpersonal trust: Evidence from Swedish Municipalities. Scandinavian Political Studies, 35, 319–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Criminal Law and CriminologyNational Distance Education University/UNEDMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations