[The Effects of the Arrival of Different Groups on Assimilation
Rates Amongst Established Immigrant Communities]
[A Study of the Effects of the Refugee Crisis on Existing
Immigrant Populations Within the Netherlands]
[GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE]
[MSC POLITICAL SCIENCE] – [PUBLIC POLICY AND GOVERNANCE]
Author: Danielle Cristine DePaulis Supervisor: Dr. Seiki Tanaka Second Reader: Dr. Floris Freek Vermeulen Master Thesis Political Science – Public Policy and Governance June 22, 2018
Abstract
The full effects of the refugee crisis in Europe are yet to be understood. The literature that does exist, has to do with economic effects on the host countries and the social effects on the native host populations. However, there are no studies that analyze the effects of the refugee crisis on the already existing immigrant populations within the host countries. These are most likely the populations in the host countries most affected. Therefore, this study looks at how current immigrant populations are affected by the new arrival of immigrant populations. Moreover, this thesis looks at how this has affected assimilation rates of older groups of immigrants. In addition to the contribution on refugee crisis research, this thesis contributes the analysis of religion on assimilation, as that has been largely ignored by the existing literature.Keywords: immigrants, assimilation, religion, skin tone, social cues, refugee crisis, populism, discrimination, competition, horizontal hostility, integration
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ____________________________________________________________8 2. Literature Review ______________________________________________________ 12 2.1 Assimilation Explained 2.2 How Assimilation is Measured 2.3 Social Cues and Hindrances to Assimilation 2.4 Gaps in the Literature 2.5 Literature Framework for Thesis 2.6 Contributions to Literature and Framework 3. Background____________________________________________________________18 3.1 Populism 3.2 History of Immigration 3.3 Effects on Immigrants and Immigration 4. Argument _____________________________________________________________20 4.1 Mechanisms and Social Cues Overview 4.2 Discrimination 4.3 Competition 4.4 Horizontal Hostility 5. Case Selection__________________________________________________________29 5.1 The City of Amsterdam 5.2 First-Generation Immigrants 5.3 Immigrant Groups Analysis Groups Effects Groups
6. Methods _____________________________________________________________35 6.1 Research Design 6.2 Population Sample 6.2.1 Immigrant Population Sample 6.2.2 Native Dutch Population Sample 6.3 Design 6.3.1 Dutch Native Population Survey Design 6.3.2 Immigrant Groups Survey Design 6.3.3 Experiment 6.3.4 Qualitative Written Survey Responses 6.3.5 Interview 7. Results and Analysis ____________________________________________________47 7.1 Native Dutch Population 7.1.1 Examination 7.1.2 Analysis 7.2 Immigrant Groups Survey 7.2.1 Cleaning of Data 7.2.2 Computation of Variables i. Assimilation Variable ii. Horizontal Hostility Variable iii. Skin Tone Variable iv. Religion Variable v. Group Comparison Variables 7.2.3 Cross-Tabulations 7.2.4 Pearson’s R Correlation 7.2.5 T-Tests 7.2.6 Analysis of T-Tests 7.3 Qualitative Data and Interview
7.3.1 Somalis 7.3.2 Turks 7.3.3 Interview 8. Discussion _____________________________________________________________62 8.1 Limitations and Recommendations 9. Conclusion ____________________________________________________________66 10. References ____________________________________________________________68
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, thank you to my supervisor, Seiki Tanaka. I appreciate your feedback, the hours put in, and your dedication in helping me complete this thesis. Second, thank you to Dr. Floris Vermeulen for taking time to read my thesis and be my second reader. Lastly, a huge thank you to the kind Turkish and Somali man, and the immigrants of Amsterdam, who helped me in the collection of data. Without their help, I would have no project.“They make you stand up for yourself. You see, you have to be a student, you have to go to work, you have to do things. The ability to make you produce as man and as a woman. Those who have succeeded here, and who have survived the weather, has found their own self.”
1. Introduction
In the start of 2014, and continued escalation throughout 2015, Europe has had to cope with a sharp increase in migrants and refugees who have flooded into its border. The cause of this is mainly due to conflicts in Syria, continued violence in Afghanistan and Iran, human right abuses in Eritrea, and poverty in Kosovo (BBC, 2017). In both 2015 and 2016, 1.3 million asylum seekers, respectively were recorded (Eurostat) to have sought refuge in Europe. Countries in Europe with influxes of their populations are Germany, Hungary, France, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands (VOX, 2017). These countries are now navigating to life post-mass migration as well as still accepting refugees. Therefore, policy agendas in relation to immigration, asylum, human rights, and migration have been pushed to the forefront if the European Union last four years and this will most likely not change anytime soon (Carrera, Blocksman, Guild 2015). The population growth and the larger presence of different cultures has already had an impact on European politics and economics as well as an aggravation of certain social movements and patterns, like the right-wing Populist movement (Heisburg, 2015). The country of the Netherlands has been far from immune to this, as the country has agreed to take in 7,000 of asylum seekers as part of a quota system implemented by the EU to help with refugee resettlement (Rjksoverhied). The world witnessed the September 11th terrorist attacks in New York City and other terrorist attacks throughout Europe, and the Netherlands fell witness to the murder of Theo van Gogh in November of 2004 by a man of Moroccan ethnicity described as ‘well-integrated’ (Buijs, 2009). These sparked political problems and perceptions already present in Dutch society which lead to Muslims to feel excluded, engendered fear, and have been a threat to the ‘tolerant society’ (Buijs, 2009). A rise in apprehension towards immigrants, especially those from the Middle East due to their Islamic beliefs and practices, has built up to today’s pushback against the acceptance of refugees in the Netherlands and the negative attitudes towards those who are not Dutch, non-Westerners, and people of color (Sierra, Guettache, Kovtun, 2014). Now that there are new groups of immigrants who have arrived, communities have begun to shift to adapt to them. However, the immigrants who already exist within theNetherlands, like the Somalis and Turks, who have been in the country for some time, have been neglected in terms of comprehension on how this majority of people feel and what are the effects upon them. Not only are they partially the target of the negative attitudes, as they are mainly from Islamic countries, but it is presumed they too have to adjust to influxes of new people around them as it is most likely where the new refugee immigrants will settle and live amongst. An assumption is made that the communities most affected are, in fact, immigrant communities who already exist within the Netherlands. It is hypothesized that because these groups are the most effected, there will be change in their assimilation rates. By this, it is meant the older immigrant groups will have a shift on their views of assimilation, with a want to either work harder to do so, or lose the desire to do so. Therefore, the research question of this paper is: How are migrants that have been established and live in the Netherlands reacting to new immigrants who settle into communities/the country? Moreover, do these new, different arrivals of immigrants motivate the older and more established populations of migrants to assimilate faster or slower into Dutch society? There is believed to be an effect on assimilation rates of older, more established groups1 due to the Dutch majority population is in strongly favor of ethnic groups who assimilate into the dominate society (Oudenhoven, Prins, Buunk, 1998). As these new groups arrive, like Eritreans and Syrians, the older, more established groups of immigrants feel external pressures that will affect their rates of assimilation from the Dutch native population via discrimination, as well as internally amongst their own people based on horizontal hostility theory (White and Schmitt, 2006). Competition is a third factor which effects assimilation rates; competition can do this on its own, but also stems from the discrimination of the native population as well. This thesis argues that because these new groups come from different countries, with different cultures, this is what stimulates the desires to assimilate faster or slower. The thesis puts forth three hypotheses based on the mechanisms of competition, horizontal hostility, and discrimination. Because the new refugee groups, Eritreans and Syrians, may be of different
1 ‘Older’ and ‘established’ will be used interchangeably within this paper. ‘Older’ does not refer to age, but to the amount of time living within the Netherlands.
religion and skin tone2 than the Somalis and Turks, it triggers the mechanisms and thus results in assimilation changes. Therefore, assimilation is measured through the social cues of religion and skin tone. The fact Eritreans and Syrians do have different characteristics, it may open an opportunity for the older groups to become closer to the Dutch population. There may become a wish to differentiate from the new groups based on these social cues, to appear more white or Christian/atheist, like the native Dutch population in comparison to the new refugees, might be to their advantage one could conclude. This may speed up assimilation rates. The Dutch may not like though or not notice the efforts made. However, assimilation may slow down with the arrival of new groups, because there is a larger immigrant community to now interact with and discrimination from the Dutch and competition may result in the opposite effect It should be noted that assimilation may not be a goal for all immigrants, or seen as urgent This thesis seeks to explore this topic, as to the author’s knowledge, this has not yet been done in regards to the European refugee crisis. Vasiliki Fouka, Soumyajit Mazumder, and Marco Tabellini’s 2018 article demonstrates how discrimination from the native population can speed up assimilation rates of an immigrant group, especially when a new ‘outside’ group is introduced and guides the foundation of this research. Their article also claims that competition over resources, like jobs, amongst these new and old groups also play an important role in which speeds up the assimilation process for the older immigrant groups. The discrimination and competition in Fouka, Mazumder, and Tabellini’s article was guided on skin color, as the ‘older’ group of immigrants in their study were Southern and Eastern Europeans, and the ‘new’ group was African Americans who were clearly darker. The research of this study also contributes an analysis of religion. Religion is often not assessed when assimilation is investigated and this thesis hopes to fill the gap. However, if there are no social cues different amongst a certain older group and newer group, horizontal hostility is added to the framework to account for this. It is assumed there will always be a reason for assimilation to be affected.
The study takes place within the Netherlands first, because the country has been largely affected by the refugee crisis (IND). Second, because there has consistently been a pushback on the rise within the Netherlands against the acceptance of refugees into the country (VOX, 2017). There have also been social clashes amongst western countries, like the Netherlands, with Islamic countries, who have large Muslim populations residing in them. Any research on the effects on immigrant groups from the refuge crisis has not been found and this thesis wished to contribute to this. it will contribute to the start of the assessments of the effects of the after math of the refugee crisis in Europe. The research will be conducted through a mixed-methods quantitative and qualitative approach. This includes surveys of both the native Dutch population and both Turkish and Somali immigrant groups. Qualitative data will be collected through written responses through the surveys as well as one interview. This will help provide a complete overall assessment of assimilation of immigrants in the Netherlands, specifically Amsterdam. The thesis is comprised of 9 chapters. In the first chapter, the thesis explores the literature on assimilation, as well what is missing in regards to the topic. Fouka, Mazumder, and Tabellini’s article is also discussed as to how their work contributes to assimilation, but is also built upon. Second, the argument explores how assimilation can be assessed and measured. Here, the three mechanisms of discrimination, competition, and horizontal hostility are explained as well as how these are measured by social cues. Third, is the layout of the analysis which is comprised of a description of how data will be gathered. In the fourth chapter, the results of this study are explained. This research found the results to be statistically significant and that assimilation is affected, in that immigrant groups do want to assimilate faster due to the arrival of new groups, but it is because of alternative reasons not put forth in this paper. Lastly, a discussion explores the reasons this may be and provides an overview of the limitations and recommendations to help further analysis.
2. Literature Review
This chapter, the Literature Review, first lays out what the majority of literature discusses about the concept of assimilation. The first part of the chapter details what assimilation is, how it is measured, the different levels within assimilation, and how it is helpful for immigrants. This is necessary because assimilation rates are what this research measures and bases all conclusions upon. The chapter then leads into a discussion of what information is missing within the topic of assimilation and why this needs to be studied. The chapter ends with a discussion of the framework used for this thesis, and then what is contributed to the literature. 2.2 Assimilation Explanation In order to understand the effects of the recent refugee influx has had on the immigrant groups of the Netherlands, it is important to first understand what assimilation is. There are several factors that determine if one is considered “assimilated” or if she or he is on track. There are also different levels and categories of assimilation, as well as causes that may hinder or speed up an individual’s rate of assimilation. Most articles agree that levels of cultural assimilation of immigrants are often related to the quality and satisfaction of an immigrant’s life; the more an immigrant identifies with his or her host culture, the more he or she will have a positive experience within the host country (Angelini, Casi and Corazzini, 2015). Assimilation sometimes is described in a way such as “the process of reduction of the psychological pain inherent in the migration experience (Safi, 2009),” or technically defined as something like “individuals who are trying to reduce differences with the dominant group in various areas such as religion, language, and cultural habits (Maliepaard, Lubbers, and Gijsberts, 2009).” This study focuses more on the latter description of assimilation: how immigrants in the Netherlands reduce or change their differences with the native Dutch population within various circumstances.2.3 How Assimilation is Measured Assimilation universally is measured by certain benchmarks. The most used are socioeconomic status, language skills, spatial concentration, education, and intermarriage (Waters and Jimenez, 2005). These factors can measure the extent of assimilation of an immigrant and, in turn, also provide an indication to his or her quality of life in their host country. These factors are considered standard benchmarks within most research as they cover an array of conditions in a person’s life. Socioeconomic status is influenced by an immigrant’s job and income; if an immigrant has a job in their host country, he or she is able to interact with the host population as well as provide for themselves, and buy goods that the host culture values. Spatial concentration is in regards to where the immigrant lives; if he or she is in an ethnic enclave and does not live amongst the native host population, it could hinder assimilation. Education is important to gain better jobs, income, and goods, and is usually highly regarded in a country like the Netherlands. Language skills may be one of the most important factors of assimilation as it necessary to gain and achieve all of the other factors of assimilation. Literature has also divided up assimilation into different levels. Full assimilation is considered “strong identification with the host culture (Angelini, Casi and Corazzini, 2015, pg. 820)” as well as to relinquish aspects of “their culture and identity in order to join dominant society (Maliepaard, Lubbers, Merove, pg. 10, 2009).” The other levels that proceed this are: integration (strong identification with host and origin culture), marginalization (strong detachment from both cultures), and separation (weak identification with host culture and strong identification with origin culture) (Angelini, Casi and Corazzini, 2015). The target population of this study are first generation Turks and Somalis who can be considered ‘established,’ or “exposed to long cultural assimilation processes since arrival (Angelini, Casi and Corazzini, 2015).” Therefore, the highest level of assimilation is utilized and measured. 3 Literature is also unanimous on the concept that the differences between the native population and immigrants, as well as the gap between the group’s life satisfactions, will diminish in correlation with length of stay (Safi, 2009).
3 The words ‘assimilation’ and ‘integration’ may be used interchangeably throughout the course of this paper
It is emphasized that not assimilating can have detrimental effects on quality of life and will make it difficult for immigrants, as well as their children, to get ahead in the society in which they live. Dissimilation not only affects immigrants, but natives as well. Social conflict that arises between natives and immigrant populations in major European countries brings to light damage which stems from the neglect of the effects of cultural dissimilation, like economic losses and unsustainable social conditions (Angelini, Casi and Corazzini, 2015). Immigrants usually experience this dissimilation in respect to the native population, and they are singled out based on their cultural differences and other characteristics (Konya, 2007). 2.4 Social Cues and Hindrances to Assimilation Distinctive ethnic traits, such as skin color, language, and religion, are sources of disadvantages when compared to a native population (Zhou, 1997). These ethnic groups are expected to abandon these differences and ‘melt’ into the population via residency, and occupational and social achievements (Zhou, 1997). Subordination of these immigrant minority groups is mainly based on their ascribed characteristics, which can make it difficult to integrate into society. Aspects of assimilation, like language, can improve over time and differences in social or economic status can disappear (Zhou, 1997). But readily identifiable characteristics of minority groups, like those who are black or wear a hijab, will likely be confined within the racial-caste system (Zhou, 1997). These visible characteristics of ethnic groups can have the tendency to keep them separated for each other as well as from the native population, which results in spatial isolation and little contact, resulting in dissimilation. Integration is then based on acceptance of the dominant population and designates superiority (Zhou, 1997; Ajrouch and Kusow, 2007). 2.5 Gaps in the Literature What is needed to be studied more in terms of assimilation is first what immigrants think of the assimilation process and life perceptions themselves (O’Connell, 2005; Basil, 2008; Schneider, 2008). Ample research is available about attitudes and representations in relation to the native populations of the host countries, but lacks studies in which bring attention from the
immigrants’ perspectives (Berry, 2001). Second, religion has been largely disregarded within assimilation literature (Maliepaard, Lubbers, Gijsberts, 2009). This is crucial especially when the case study is of the Netherlands, a country of which has one of the lowest rates of religiousness in the world (Maliepaard, Lubbers, Gijsberts, 2009). Assimilation is determined in degrees of ‘closeness’ or ‘distance’ (Ajrouch and Kusow, 2007). Islam is seen as a boundary that restricts integration, yet there is not enough known as to how and to what extent (Maliepaard, Lubbers, Gijsberts, 2009). As adaption to life in host country increases, one would expect to see religiosity among migrants decrease, speeding up assimilation; a few studies of this exist within the European context, yet there is no clear indication as to what can be drawn from this information. Therefore, the topic of assimilation is in need of research in regards to these specific topics, and this thesis looks to contribute to the gap. 2.6 Literature Framework for Thesis One piece of literature that does attempt to bring perspective to immigrants on assimilation is “From Immigrants to Americans: Race, Status, and Assimilation During the Great Migration,” by Fouka, Mazumder, and Tebellini. Their research focuses on a major geographical and cultural shift in a time of United States history: The Great Migration. This was a time in the early 20th century when African Americans left in droves from the South of the U.S. to other parts of the country in the West and in the North. They settled into cities to look for jobs and better opportunities. Shortly before the Great Migration occurred, and still continuing somewhat, was the Age of Mass Migration to the United States of immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe. These immigrants were a new demographic within the U.S., as the current population was mainly made up of settlers from Nordic, Anglo-Saxon, and Germanic countries. This new generation of immigrants came in large numbers, and were different than the current population as they tended to be Catholic, spoke different languages, and to be of darker hair and skin (Fouka, Mazumder, and Tebellini, 2018). Within a short period of time, U.S cities adapted and changed to the new cultures, and population expansions. Fouka, Mazumder, and Tebellini noticed that the assimilation rates of the new European immigrants were exceedingly high at this point in time, and hypothesized
that this occurred due to African Americans who had arrived shortly afterward within the same areas. Their literature explains that the rise in numbers of a new ‘out-group’ (the African Americans) after the immigrants, favored the economic and cultural integration of the previous European outsiders. Therefore, competition rose, but the racial threat of the African Americans lowered the barriers to assimilation for the immigrants. This upgraded immigrants’ lives to that of native status. This is because African Americans were considered more as ‘outsiders’ due to their black skin and viewed in a negative way by the native population. Southern and Eastern Europeans wanted to be perceived as ‘Americanized’ and distinct from blacks, because it provided them more opportunities for jobs and housing. Their research concluded that “black migration increases the social assimilation of immigrants” and “fostered the assimilation of European immigrants” because “skin tone was an important factor affecting views towards immigrants (Fouka, Mazumder, and Tebellini, 2018, pg. 8).” There was less reason for the native population to discriminate against the European immigrants now that African Americans were present. 2.7 Contributions to Literature and Framework Fouka, Mazumder, and Tebellini prove, first, when one outgroup attempts to integrate into mainstream society and is exposed to a new outgroup, there are effects on that group’s assimilation rates. Second, that skin color plays a large role in this. And lastly, is that the native population determines constraints, salience, and is the main mechanism in which factors of assimilation are compared to. However, this study is not primary research as it examines past events, and it may prove beneficial to get first-hand accounts of why immigrants want or not want to assimilate faster, as well as perhaps discovering new factors. Their research also analyzes 20th century events and not current events; to apply these methods to modern times can assist in determining if these factors always hold constant throughout time when assimilation rates are studied. Lastly, again, the research misses the analysis of the effects of which religion influences integration. While using the framework provided by Fouka, Mazumder, and Tebellini, this thesis seeks to expand upon their research to
fill the gaps in the literature which is necessary to get a better understanding of the overall process of assimilation of immigrants.
3. Background
As stated, this thesis seeks to understand if the arrival of the refugees to the Netherlands, specifically Amsterdam, has resulted in older groups of to want to assimilate faster, or if there has been any affect upon these groups at all. The background chapter is present as it provides context for this thesis. To be able to understand why there may be effects on assimilation, one first has to understand the Dutch. This chapter discusses the history of immigration in the Netherlands. It also breaks down attitudes of the Dutch towards immigrants and those of non-western decent. Based on the analysis of the Dutch culture and population, mechanisms have been chosen to explain reasons for assimilation which are argued are competition, discrimination, and horizontal hostility which are explained later. 3.1 Populism The Netherlands has largely been known as one of the stronger liberal democracies within Europe and takes pride in being tolerant people. However, with the rise of populist sentiment within the 21st century and the Dutch Freedom Party/Partij poor de Vrijheid, it can be questioned about how tolerant the Dutch really are, especially in regards to immigrants (Verkuyten and Zaremba, 2005). Attitudes towards immigrants have shifted since the 1990s, which has opened up an entrance for extremist right-wing parties to politics. This, in turn, has directed in passing of stricter laws on immigration and has led to a humanitarian crisis of sorts with the occurrence of the refugee crisis. Those who have applied for asylum in recent years due to unrest in their home countries have felt the effects of these policies the most, as not all are granted asylum or are told that they must return back home (Sierra, Guettache and Kovtun, 2014). 3.2 History of Immigration Negative attitudes towards immigrants were not always as prevalent. As recent as the 1980’s and beforehand, multiculturalism was embraced within the Netherlands and the migrant workers viewed positively as contributing people. After the Second World War, the Netherlands had its first experience with immigration; the country was in need of rebuilding and people tohelp do so. The migrants who were originally brought to the country were from former Dutch colonies, like Suriname and Indonesia. These immigrants were familiar with the language and the culture of the Dutch and had no problems assimilating into life in the Netherlands and were accepted quickly by the population. The second wave of migrant workers came from Morocco and Turkey along with a dissimilar religion, culture, and language. Although different, these groups were seen as actively contributing to the Dutch economy and growth and accepted (Sierra, Guettache and Kovtun, 2014). However, it is shown that when a country’s economy begins to slow or grow stagnant, anti-immigrant sentiment rises (Bauer, Lofstrom, Zimmerman, 2000), which eventually occurred in the Netherlands. This was coupled with rising numbers of immigrant populations, as well as sharp influx of asylum seekers, and all together fostered a negative environment for immigrants (Sierra, Guettache and Kovtun, 2014). 3.3 Effects on Immigrants and Immigration This anti-immigrant rhetoric, and the current policies that they have shaped, have restricted life for immigrants. Therefore, these groups have had to rely more heavily upon their family networks and communities around them, pushing these groups to the outside of Dutch society. Refugees and large immigrant groups residing in the country, like the Turkish and Somalis, are suffering from social exclusion, but, ironically, are being blamed for not contributing more to society nor having a more active role or trying to integrate (Sierra, Guettache and Kovtun, 2014). As these groups have to look inward to their families and community organizations for support and a feeling of belonging, it promotes a higher identification with one’s culture (Verkuyten, 2008). In turn, these groups are retaining their culture and not integrating, and they are seen as a threat culturally to the Dutch identity. Both refugees and the previous migrant workers are viewed as promoting “religious violence, gender inequality, and crime” (Sierra, Guettache and Kovtun, 2014).
4. Argument
The argument chapter lays out the three mechanisms in which drive assimilation rates. These have been chosen based on the analysis of the Dutch population and life within the Netherlands. The three mechanisms are competition, discrimination, and horizontal hostility. All three of these mechanisms can individually motivate reasons for assimilation or dissimilation. They also can, at times, also work together, with discrimination as an underlying mechanism. The argument chapter then explains how the mechanisms are measured by the social cues of skin tone and religion, as these characteristics are sometimes indicators an immigrant is far removed from the norm of Dutch society, affecting assimilation rates. 4.1 Mechanisms and Social Cues Overview This thesis argues that discrimination from the native Dutch population is the first mechanism that explains assimilation behaviors in this thesis. Two other existing concepts which contribute to assimilation are Horizontal Hostility and competition. Both mechanisms of competition and Horizontal Hostility each drive assimilation rates on their own. However, there are underlying influences from discrimination that detail some structures within both competition and Horizontal Hostility. At times, discrimination can connect all three. All three mechanisms result in separate hypotheses for this thesis. The three mechanisms interact based on social cues of religion and skin color. This is so because skin tone, and some characteristics of religion, are the most outward differentiations of people, possibly perpetrating discrimination. Assimilation is based on closeness to and from the native population and skin tone and certain religious characteristics can lie far from the norm. Both are assessments of identity (Ajrouch and Kusow, 2007). ‘Otherness’ emerges on the grounds of racial and religious bases (Ajrouch and Kusow, 2007). Both religion and race are critical attributes which set forth the processes of the adaption process (Ajrouch and Kusow, 2007). Race, more so than religion, is readily apparent and provides one with an immediate category in which he or she can be placed (Ajrouch and Kusow, 2007). Religion promotes identity of originating country and cultural behavior. Both play a large role in how immigrants view one another and also how the native population views them. This study is thereforeassessing the effects of discrimination, competition, and Horizontal Hostility through the social cues of race and religion. Figure 1: Mechanisms of Study 4.2 Discrimination Research stresses that perceived discrimination from the host country and population relates to a lower life satisfaction amongst immigrants living within that country as well as generating immigration segregation (Verkuyten, 2008) (Hall, 2013). Discrimination here is defined as “a process by which a member of a socially defined group is treated differently, especially unfairly, because of his or her membership in that group (Bruss, 2008).” Discrimination can range from avoidance of a group, rejection, antipathy, and reallocating of resources all the way to physical attacks (Bruss, 2008). Through a study with the Central Bureau of Statistics in the Netherlands (2005), it is demonstrated that ethnic Dutch have a higher overall level of life satisfaction than those of the immigrants and minority groups living amongst them (Central Bureau of Statistics). Because of this, they are also more likely to develop a stronger identification with the ethnic group to which they belong as it acts as a buffer to discrimination and provides a sense of belonging, instead of identifying with the Dutch majority, as based on the Rejection-Identification model (Verkuyten, 2008). This has been
proven true amongst Turks in the Netherlands (Verkuyten, 2008). Based on this however, if what it takes to be happy and have a higher satisfaction of life in the host country is to be more Dutch, then it can also be argued immigrants might want to assimilate faster. It is also stated that groups like the Moroccans and Turks who came as migrant workers, are at the bottom of the hierarchy within Dutch society (Verkuyten, 2008). However, now, there are new groups of ethnicities coming changing and shifting the hierarchical structure and society. This can be interpreted in a couple of ways. Assimilation may grow slower because there are more immigrants and communities to turn inwards to, further separating the immigrant groups from Dutch society. These groups, who are all discriminated against, may ensemble together, forming their own communities in retaliation. Immigrant segregation is maintained when immigrants band together in co-ethnic neighborhoods (Hall, 2013). On the other hand, the refugees may now be seen as the lowest within the hierarchy and previous immigrant groups may take advantage of this. Ethnic minority groups have opportunities to improve their status in relation to one another based on ethnic discrimination (Gupta, 2012). Aware of discrimination stemming from the native population, the older groups may face less discrimination because so much attention is falling upon the refugees and turn inward to their own communities less. Second, in also understanding how discrimination works from the Dutch, these older groups may want to distinguish themselves from the newer groups reflecting discrimination upon the newer ones allowing them to disappear a little more into society. By a new group arriving, it may appear to increase the status of the older immigrant groups encouraging assimilation (Gupta, 2012). When a group has exposure to discrimination, that discrimination then affects the group’s attitudes towards other ethnic minority groups (Gupta, 2012). This consistent exposure to the norms of discrimination from the host culture can lead one, or a group, to hold more racist or discriminatory views than he or she would otherwise (Gupta, 2012). In order to gain social approval, an immigrant group may portray as having more prejudice to another group, like the new refugees. Minorities typically conform to what is thought to be of best evaluation by the majority culture (Gupta, 2012). Possibly this is in order to become assimilated to then
increase their life satisfaction within the Netherlands. Allport in 1958 wrote “the experience of belonging to a stigmatized identity can either make stigmatized individuals more likely to stigmatize others or make them less likely subject others to the same experience (106).” The older immigrant groups may have adapted to the discriminatory behavior by also discriminating against the new groups, involuntarily making them assimilate faster and become closer to the native population. It could also happen the older immigrant groups in the Netherlands do not want to perpetrate the same discrimination and turn inwards to the immigrant community, therefore slowing assimilation. H1: Discrimination stemming from the native population will result in an effect on assimilation rates of older immigrant groups within the Netherlands based on how the immigrant groups respond to the discrimination. 4.3 Competition Competition is also projected to have an effect on assimilation rates within this study. Competition, in any scenario, is stemmed from a perceived limited amount of resources for a group of people where not all those in the group have the same access to those resources (Riek, Mania and Gaertner, 2006). This then creates conflict. Conflict is typically assumed to happen at a group level rather, which this thesis researches, rather than an individual level (Esses, Jackson and Armstrong, 2010). Competition can be categorized into three sectors: racial threat, economic competition, and political/power domain (Olzak, 2013). This paper will use the first two of these to understand the motives for assimilation of groups within the Netherlands. The racial threat argument holds true depending on the timing and size of the incoming of the group(s) as well as the ethnic distinctions made between the newcomers and native population (Esses, Jackson and Armstrong, 2010). Immigrants are made to believe from the host society that there is competition for resources and that they have to compete with other immigrant groups within the society for those resources (Esses, Jackson and Armstrong, 2010). These resources can be jobs, money, and government aid, as well as social power. Groups that
are more likely to stand out from the native population will likely be the groups that suffer the most from competition. This occurs because resource stress is perceived higher as status within society decreases, as there is an unequal distribution of resources throughout the society usually based on status (Gupta, 2012). It is assumed the more one stands out from the native population, the lower his or her status, and therefore a harder time accessing resources. The more added to the outgroup, the more those groups have to compete for resources because they are all ‘far’ from the in-group (native population). A threat of a new ‘race’ or ethnicity in an area can either lower or raise a group’s barrier to assimilation by pushing the group either farther or closer to the native population (Fouka, Mazumder, and Tabeliini, 2018). If one becomes less salient, he or she will be more likely to access resources (Fouka, Mazumder, and Tabeliini, 2018). When a large outgroup presence becomes noticeable, any existing economic difficulties, or ones that occur, are attributed to the outgroup. Different ethnicity groups will be seen more as competitors when viewed on a similar dimension when it comes to obtaining resources (Gupta, 2012). Not only can the native population feel threatened, but the other immigrant groups as well as there are more people to compete with for resources in an already restrictive environment (Riek, Mania and Gaertner, 2006). Economic competition begins to increase as ethnic and racial populations grow and produce niches (Olzak, 2013). As groups compete, the success of one group threatens the well-being of another and negative attitudes are likely to progress (Gupta, 2012). This evokes bias in perception and attitude, as well as beginning to favor one’s group over others (Espinoza and Garza, 1984). Through this conflict of competition, a group may attempt to decrease another group’s competitiveness, increase the way one’s group competiveness is perceived, or avoid competition by decreasing proximity to other groups, or avoiding them altogether (Esses, Jackson and Armstrong, 2010). One way of achieving the upper hand when there is competition within the outgroup is limiting opportunities for other members. Another way of doing this is to make the majority population more aware of the differentiations of the new members of the outgroups. As outgroups are salient, bringing attention to another group about the level of its salience could be mean easier access to resources (Esses, Jackson and
Armstrong, 2010). If the other groups are receiving less resources, there are more resources available. Also, if a group decreases its proximity from another, it leaves more room for the other group to be discriminated against and lessens competition (Olzak, 2013). Immigrants are all categorized into one outgroup from the native population. Discrimination from the native population determines which group is viewed more positively, and one belonging to a positively portrayed group is important (Riek, Mania and Gaertner, 2006). This fosters a need to want to be distinct from others and not be classified as the same as another group (Esses, Jackson and Armstrong, 2010). This is because of discrimination. If a group is classified as very ‘far’ from the native population, in terms of skin color, religion, or culture, then that means it will be harder for that group to access resources. Need to want to make a distinction that they are not as far removed from the majority group as that other outgroup promotes a want for distinction, for hopes in the long run they will have easier and more access to resources. Discrimination is underlying here because it is judging what is close and far from the native population as how a group can designate itself as separate than another. Discrimination towards another group can benefit another because it removes the source of competition (Esses, Jackson and Armstrong, 2010). H2: The arrival of the refugee groups within the Netherlands is triggering competition both socially and economically amongst immigrant groups, thus speeding up assimilation rates so that competition can be decreased. 4.4 Horizontal Hostility The last mechanism that explains assimilation in this thesis is horizontal hostility. This mechanism focuses more on bottom-up from the immigrant perspective than the other two mechanisms which are steered from the top-down of the native population. Horizontal Hostility is based on the studies of in-groups and outgroups and cultural identity and at times is intertwined with competition. White and Schmitt describe horizontal hostility as “a pattern of expressing relatively unfavorable attitudes toward an output that is similar to and more mainstream than the minority group (2006, pg.340).” This hostility results from the motivation
to differentiate one’s minority in-group from a similar, more mainstream group in a comparative context to the majority group (White and Schmitt, 2006). This means the negative attitudes toward similar minority groups by other minority groups are not just a coincidence, but part of an established, larger pattern (White and Schmitt, 2006). As a gap between the in-group (native population) and outgroups increases, negative attitudes towards the outgroups increases due to a feeling of perceived cultural threat (Riek, Mania and Gaertner, 2006). This creates biases about other groups. Incompatible goals and perceived competition between groups generate negative outgroup attitudes (Riek, Mania and Gaertner, 2006). By the coming of new immigrant groups, interests of a group eel threatened even though self-interest is not directly impacted; bias may occur even if there is not a direct threat (Riek, Mania and Gaertner, 2006). This theory focuses on conflicting values and beliefs and how discrimination stems from this rather than competition (Riek, Mania and Gaertner, 2006). Horizontal hostility is based on the fact of minority group members wanting a distinct social identity. The native population may see all of the minority groups as one population, even if they are from different countries, creating a need for distinction amongst the minority members. Therefore, groups are actively working to differentiate their group from other similar outgroups within society (White and Schmitt, 2006). By maximizing the relative appearance of difference between groups in favor of the in-group, there becomes a desire to maintain a positive social identity (Espinoza and Garza, 1984). The positive social identity is achieved through social comparisons as the majority in-group as a gauge and in which the majority in-group is the favorited identity (Espinoza and Garza, 1984). Salience of the difference of outgroups is increased when there are numerous minorities within a relatively heterogeneous setting (Espinoza and Garza,1984). It is important to belong to a group that is positively valued (Riek, Mania and Gaertner, 2006). The purpose of maintain a separate identity is to do just this. There may be fear that the majority group thinks certain individuals belong to a group in which he or she does not that is more lowly regarded than the other (Riek, Mania and Gaertner, 2006). Expression of differentiation can be demonstrated in not interacting with a group, or withholding of goods
from another group (White and Schmitt, 2006). When there are many minority groups, evaluation is always taking place as to what role and identities are doing well and how to achieve a better social status. The evaluation is always in comparison to the native population (White and Schmitt, 2006). This results in being hostile to other groups. Horizontal hostility is likely to promote faster means of assimilation. As each group makes themselves distinct from the other trying to achieve better status, they are slowly assimilating into the majority. The more different a group is from the majority population, the more the group is seen as a threat; in order to be less of a threat, horizontal hostility will make a group want to be distinct from others a push itself into being similar to the in-group. The more one group focuses on itself to protect its identity, the less likely that group is to band together with other immigrant groups to protect the lot as a whole (White and Schmitt, 2006). New immigrants arriving that are negatively viewed can push for a desire for other immigrant groups to distinguish themselves as better which means having similar characteristics and lifestyles as the native population, resulting in assimilation. This is similar to the theory proven true in Fouka, Mazumder, and Tabellini’s writing where the European immigrants wanted to assimilate faster to prove they were not similar to the African Americans who were more discriminated against and regarded as low status in society. However, assimilation can also slow because of this. By maintaining a distinctive identity, this leads a group to turn inwards and focus on their own identity. Minority groups value their minority group identity (White and Schmitt, 2006). This action may direct the group to slowly assimilate by bettering themselves, but it could also slow assimilation. Since the group is working on differentiating itself from new or other groups through horizontal hostility, there is a chance distinctiveness will actually be enhanced (White and Schmitt, 2006). By the group turning inwards, it is focusing heavily upon its culture and people actually enhancing the original cultural belonging and practices, furthering itself from the culture of the host society. By rejecting other groups, focusing on the groups cultural identity, and distancing itself from the host population because of this, results may be slowing of assimilation. As there is two ways this theory could affect assimilation, it is interesting to study. This results in the final hypothesis for this thesis:
H3: Horizontal hostility assumes minority groups will have unfavorable attitudes towards other minority groups who are similar motivating a need to distinguish their group from others, thus resulting in immigrant groups assimilating faster or slower into the host society dependent upon how the group enforces horizontal hostility.
5. Case Selection
The case selection chapter is to explain why certain aspects within the project were picked. This section will describe first why Amsterdam was picked to conduct research in. Second, why there is focus only on first-generation immigrants. Lastly, why the immigrant groups of this study were picked. This last part explains why Turks and Somalis were chosen to interview, and then why Eritreans and Syrians as the experiment groups. 5.1 The City of Amsterdam All research and data collection took place within the city of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The city of Amsterdam was chosen for multiple reasons. It is the capital of the Netherlands. It is also the place of which the author resides, works, and studies, and therefore it made it easy to access all resources and people for this research. Amsterdam is the largest and most populated of the cities within the country and is home to the largest community of non-Western immigrants (Gemeente Amsterdam). 40% of non-Western immigrants live in the four major cities of the Netherlands, which is 1 in 3 people within Amsterdam (UCL). As the Netherlands has agreed to resettle 2,000 refugees by the end of 2019, Amsterdam is taking responsibility for a lot of the process as a capital city (Gemeente Amsterdam). As Amsterdam is home to a large portion of non-Western immigrants, it is home to the largest concentration of immigrants analyzed in this study. Immigrants tend to settle in areas which have already been populated with those of similar ethnicity and culture (Djajic, 2004). This means that a lot of immigrants have settled in the Amsterdam area and continue to do so. Refugees are also being resettled into the same neighborhoods, prompting the hypotheses to occur mentioned earlier in this paper; this incubates tensions and puts all participants within the same spatial context. The study was also constricted to Amsterdam because spatial context is important when assessing immigrants and culture. Where one lives, and how close in proximity to other immigrant groups, affects quality of life (Djajic, 2004). Assimilation can slow or speed up depending on the proximity to other immigrant groups. The chances of relating to someone from a large group are higher within a large population like Amsterdam (Wimmer, 2010). Whenin an urban area, resident immigrants tend to stick with the same ethnicity and this could affect the outcomes of this study (Wimmer, 2010). Those who are established and those who are newcomers living in close proximity fight over resources available in the host country (Wimmer, 2010). Spatial proximity can trigger or some levels of competition. Although this study does not give an overview of all immigrants and cities throughout the Netherlands, it can begin to assist in the assessment of assimilation affects by analyzing one place in depth. Figure 2: Approximate Spatial Area of Data Collection Within Amsterdam 5.2 First Generation Immigrants Many studies chose to study assimilation rates through multiple generations and assimilation is often determined by how well second-generation immigrants do within the host country, like education, economically, and socially (Waters and Jimenez, 2005). This research, however, analyzes only first-generation immigrants within Amsterdam. A lot about assimilation can be assessed through first-generation immigrants on their own; time within the host country
is usually some indication of how assimilated an immigrant will be. 10 years of living within a host is a standard measurement to assess assimilation as it has been enough time for a person to figure out parts of culture, find a job, and adapt to their new life. As assimilation is usually based on how well the second generation is doing, it is important to analyze the opinions and the effects of the new populations arriving on first- generation immigrants and to gain more and new perspectives within this demographic. First-generation immigrants are the original individuals to have gone through the experience of coming and settling into the Netherlands and assumed, that if the refugee crisis has had any impact, it would be upon this generation. This is so because they are the ones who had to navigate life within a new country, compete for resources, and make a life for themselves. Now with a new group arriving, it may trigger certain feelings one way or the other, reminding them of their original experience. First-generation immigrants are culturally farther away from the native Dutch population than second-generation would be, having been born in the country (Waters and Jimenez, 2005). This is a similar condition to the new refugees that are settling in to the neighborhoods in which they are living, and make it a better comparison. 5.3 Immigrant Groups Much thought was put into deciding what specific immigrant groups would be analyzed within this study, both for those to be surveyed and those asked about. An examination was conducted looking into all of the refugee and immigrant groups that have arrived within the Netherlands and the Amsterdam area since the start of immigration in the 1950’s. There have been may immigrant groups that have migrated to the country and it was imperative to select the correct communities that would fulfill all characteristics of the social cues within this study as well as represent a large majority of the immigrant community of the city of Amsterdam. Analysis Groups A first ethnicity had to be chosen as the ‘older, established’ immigrant group whom had been living within Amsterdam for at least 10 years, which is the population who will be
assessed for assimilation rate changes.4 A second ethnicity was chosen to also be assessed, as there are many large immigrant communities within Amsterdam and choosing just one group would not be an accurate representation of the effects of current migration. A second group was also chosen to better analyze all social cues that are assisting in measuring assimilation rates. The ethnicities picked for the analysis groups are Turks and Somalis. Turks, Moroccans, and the Surinamese make up the largest and main ethnic groups in the Netherlands (Tolsma, Lubbers and Coenders, 2007). They are also the largest ethnic groups residing in the Netherlands and it made sense to choose one of these groups. Therefore, Turkish immigrants were picked to be studied. Moroccans and Turks are both Muslim with similar skin tones and considered the same distance culturally from the native population, and for the purpose of this research, classify as somewhat similar ethnic groups. Consequently, choosing one over the other was just a matter of convenience. Although amongst the first arrivals of immigrants to the Netherlands and being a quite large population living amongst the native Dutch, Surinamese were not chosen for this thesis (Sierra, Guettache and Kovtun, 2014). This is due to their familiarity with the Dutch language and culture and have facilitated a quick integration and welcoming amongst the native population (Sierra, Guettache and Kovtun, 2014). Relatively, Surinamese are somewhat culturally close to the Dutch and do not fulfil the qualifications for this study. This is also true for any immigrant group in Amsterdam who are from a former Dutch colony, like the Dutch Caribbean. Other migrant groups were considered that were numerous and had been living in Amsterdam for some time like Iraqis, Pakistanis, and Iranians. However, for accessibility, having been here the longest, and as they are the largest group, Turkish immigrants were settled on. Turks were also chosen because they are often the center of conversation and are still viewed as a threat to Dutch culture today, and thus are quite relevant (Sierra, Guettache and Kovtun, 2014). Somalis were chosen over these groups as well due to qualifications of both skin tone and religion. Somalis are black, Muslim, and large in population size within Amsterdam. This 4
ethnic group is appropriate in assessing the effects of social cues of assimilation and have distinct comparisons with other groups. Somalis migrated to the Netherlands seeking refuge in the 1990’s, and fit the qualifications for time as well in this study. Effect Groups The analysis of this research is focused on the effects of the refugee crisis and large influxes of new ethnicities arriving to the Amsterdam area, and thus refugee groups have to be chosen in order to investigate their impact. Turks and Somalis will be asked about these migrants and whether these new populations have had any effect on their lives, influencing assimilation patterns. As there are two groups of older immigrants, two groups of refugees are also used for analysis. When one thinks about the refugee crisis, it is likely he or she automatically associates this with Syrians. This is so because the ongoing war in Syria has received much attention in the media and has been deemed the “largest global humanitarian crisis” and a “contemporary crisis that will define the decade” (Holmes and Castaneda, 2016, pg.14). 6.1 million are displaced currently displaced within Syria, and approximately 6 million Syrians have fled the country as refugees, a main consequence resulting in the numbers Europe has had to cope with. The Netherlands have agreed to take in 2,000 of these refugees and have a large presence with Amsterdam (Holmes and Castaneda, 2016). Hence, this is migrant group is an obvious choice to use for this research to which structure surveys around. Not only Syrians the most recent and largest group to migrate to the Netherlands, but also fit certain cultural and physical characteristics for this study, as Syrians are often Muslim and stand out from native Dutch. Second, Eritreans were used as an effect group for this thesis. With the use of Syrians and Eritreans, the groups mirror those of the analysis. Within both the new and older immigrant populations, there are similar characteristic people present. Eritreans mirror characteristics of Somalis as they are black and from Africa. Eritreans, however, can either be Islamic or Christian, and this adds a variable for the comparison and measurements religion may play in assimilation, as Christianity is not found amongst either older group. Demographically, Eritreans characteristically fit this analysis. In 2017, Eritreans accounted for
the second largest number of asylum applications in the Netherlands after Syrians (IND). Eritrean migrants are both recent and impactful in numbers and thus contribute to a lot of the shifting of life and population in Amsterdam, and thus an appropriate group to analyze in possible influences on assimilation and established immigrant populations. Figure 3: Population Groups of Study
6. Methods
This chapter lay outs the how the research was conducted. This includes first the explanation of how all the surveys were created, distributed, and analyzed. This is for both the surveys inquiring about the native Dutch population as well as the immigrant groups. The experiment section is divided up by each survey. There is an explanation as to how the experiment was designed to assess assimilation amongst the immigrant groups. Next, qualitative methods are explained. Lastly, this chapter discusses the addition of an interview to the research. 6.1 Research Design This study aims to examine the possible effects of the refugee crisis on assimilation rates of older immigrant groups living within the Netherlands, specifically Amsterdam. Through this, this study will contribute to the field of migration and immigrant studies by beginning to analyze the outcomes of the refugee crisis on host countries socially and the effects of religion on assimilation rates. This examination was conducted through a mixed methods approach. A mixed methods approach was taken in attempt to completely encapsulate an understanding of immigrant life within the country and possible effects. The analysis consists of one questionnaire, multiple survey experiments, added qualitative elements of written responses on those surveys, as well as one interview. The first surveys were administered to the Native Dutch population to support the claims of mechanisms being used within this analysis and to assess current attitudes of the host population in regards to immigrants and discrimination. The second round of surveys were those administered to the immigrant groups chosen for this research: Somalis and Turks. This was done to measure assimilation rates and attitudes that may guide assimilation. One interview took place with a Somalian refugee who has been living in the Amsterdam area for 20 years. Surveys were distributed in different ways according to the population group responding. For native Dutch respondents, surveys were sent through links via Survey Monkey. For the immigrant groups, physical surveys were printed out and they were done in person. These surveys were meant to ask questions about how he or she felt about their time in the Netherlands thus far, how he or she felt about other immigrant groups, and in which ways, if atall, he or she has felt affected by the refugee crisis while living in Amsterdam. All surveys and designs were created solely by the researcher based on literature and research of what needed to be measured and assessed. Each survey provided background information of who and what the research was for, an explanation of anonymity, as well as a question assuring consent. There has been no information collected in regards to identification of who a responder is besides ethnicity, age, and gender. The surveys administered to immigrant groups were collected, translated, and analyzed by hand. The information from these surveys was then manually entered into an Excel document and coded. After this, the file was uploaded into the statistical software analysis package SPSS. After this SPSS was used to conduct all analysis. Some basic analysis was also done in Survey Monkey as the Dutch population survey was conducted through this. 6.2 Population Sample 6.2.1 Immigrant Population Sample A total of 108 responses were able to be collected for this study. The respondents consist of 57 Somalis and 51 Turks, both of which had more male participants (57% overall). It is unknown why more male respondents answered the surveys for either group. Individual ages were not recorded, but categorized in ranges; 39% of those who answered were of 35 years or under and is the largest category percentage overall as well as amongst each immigrant group. Participants were chosen through a convenient, snowball sample of the city of Amsterdam and its outlying neighborhoods. Having no contacts within the immigrant community nor having any appropriate language skills proved difficult in trying to get an unbiased and large enough sample size for this study, which thus resulted in the approach taken for sample collection. First, the study is convenient because a Somali man and a Turkish man were hired within the Amsterdam area, in close proximity to the researcher, to help with translation and data collection. These men were also hired because participants in the survey were more trust worthy of someone of their own ethnicity asking them questions and talking to them about the material.
Second, the data is a snowball sample because all respondents were acquaintances or family members of one of the men hired. Lastly, the researcher was not present during the times of data collection as it was stressed not to be present by those hired to help. It should therefore be noted this does not accurately give a proper representation of the attitudes and measurements of all Somalis or Turks living within Amsterdam. 6.2.2 Native Dutch Population Sample Age for the native Dutch population was also recorded in age ranges instead of specific numbers. The majority of respondents are 36 years old or younger; 60% are aged 18-25 years, and 24% are aged 26-36. This sample population is quite young. However, there is representation for all age groups present within the data. There were only 43 participants of this survey which is recognized as a small sample size. Both genders are represented equally within the data. The same approach of a convenient, snowball sampling method is used for this population sample as well. The data collection is convenient because it was sent to Dutch friends of the researcher, whom are all roughly of the same age and educational background. The data was then snowball sampling due to Dutch friends the researcher knew sent it to their friends and family. This then results in not covering all demographics of the Dutch population. It also does not represent all areas of the Netherlands. 6.3 Design 6.3.1 Dutch Native Population Survey Design This survey was short and consisted of 20 questions. There was no experiment involved or a certain way questions were asked to evoke an answer. There was also no particular order in which the questions were asked. Questions were included to evaluate the social cues and mechanisms being assessed in the study from a native perspective. Basic demographic questions were asked in order to analyze who the respondents were. This study is basing hypotheses that are led by how the native population feels and responds towards immigrants. Therefore, it is necessary to assess these attitudes to see if the hypotheses
hold to be true. The survey was used to assess how often the Dutch interact with immigrant groups, how they felt about these groups, and understand the social cues being utilized. For an overall assessment of attitudes towards immigrants, respondents were asked about things like crime, what immigrants should or could be doing better and what they would like to see from them, like learning more Dutch or acquiring better language skills. It was also inquired about how one felt about the refugee crisis on its impacts on the population. To assess competition and discrimination, questions specifically asked about how often one interacts with non-Western immigrants on a weekly or monthly basis. There were also questions asked about neighborhood demographics. This is used to give an indication as to whether or not a respondent is open to living amongst immigrants, or if he or she is maintaining separation. Living within close or far proximity also waivers one’s opinion about immigrants (Tolsma, Lubbers and Coenders, 2007). Opposition to certain ethnicities also varies according to the municipality or neighborhood level, so this is important to get a picture of (Tolsma, Lubbers and Coenders, 2007). Competition questions inquired about jobs, welfare and government assistance, and schooling. This assisted in gaging where negative attitudes may be stemming from economically. Questions concerning discrimination were divided into analyzing thoughts on race and religion. This was done by asking about how comfortable a respondent was about certain outward appearances, like skin tone, as well as religious symbols. Questions also directly asked how one felt about interracial marriage or about being uncomfortable around those who are Muslim. All questions for this survey were multiple choice but the last one. As this was not the main experiment survey, answers available for respondents were categorical and within a small range to manage time properly when analyzing results. For questions asking about frequency of interactions with immigrants, weekly and monthly, there were answer choices of “Quite Frequently,” “Often,” “Once or Twice,” or “None.” Question 11, “I feel immigrants in the Netherlands should,” had a unique set-up as all answer choices provided for this were available and the respondent had to check all those he or she felt applied. Possible answers to this were “Speak fluent Dutch,” “Have access to government benefits equal to that of native Dutch
citizens,” “Be able to speak English,” “Interact with the Dutch population,” and “Have easy access to citizenship.” All other questions had available answers of “Yes,” “No,” and ‘Somewhat.” The last question was an option of a scale and one had to mark where he or she fell on that when asked “How comfortable are you with inter-racial marriage.” This is all to assess and measure how the native population feels about skin tone, religion, and immigrants. 6.3.2 Immigrant Groups Survey Design Two different surveys were drafted for each immigrant group; two surveys were alternated amongst Somali respondents and two surveys alternated amongst Turkish respondents, adding up to four surveys for the immigrant population sample in total. These surveys were all of experimental design to test the research hypotheses concerning discrimination, competition, and horizontal hostility based on the social cues of skin tone and religion. Each participant received a survey that either asked him or her about Syrians or Eritreans so that half of an immigrant group was answering about Syrians, and the other half about Eritreans. The expectation was that, by doing this, it could be determined whether skin tone or religion had a bigger effect on whether or not a group wanted to differentiate from another and then if this was causing assimilation rates to change. The surveys took approximately five to ten minutes to complete and questions were either written responses or categorical. All participants began with the same first half of the survey. The first half of the survey inquired about standard demographics. Each person answered about age, gender and how long he or she has lived within the Netherlands and Amsterdam area. Questions then asked about cultural identity, how strongly he or she identified with their ethnic identity, and ensured the respondent was a first-generation immigrant living within Amsterdam. These questions were multiple choice with simple “Yes” or “No” answers, or a range when asking about years or age. The survey then transitions into questions to help understand the experience of the respondent’s time in the Netherlands so far: has this experience been good or bad, how have they been received, how Dutch does he or she feel currently, what language skills has he or she acquired, have they felt discriminated against, and what interpretations does one have about
