• No results found

When details matter : the effect of the abstract and concrete construal level mind-sets on the level of tolerance of the Dutch majority towards ethnic minorities

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "When details matter : the effect of the abstract and concrete construal level mind-sets on the level of tolerance of the Dutch majority towards ethnic minorities"

Copied!
81
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

When details matter

The effect of the abstract and concrete construal level mind-sets on the level of tolerance of the Dutch majority towards ethnic minorities.

Author: Wendelien Jongepier Student number: 10876634 Supervisor: Dr. S. Tanaka Second reader: Dr. M. Medeiros

29June 2018

Master thesis Political Science

Specialization: International Relations

University of Amsterdam

(2)

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.Introduction ... 3 1.1 Introduction ... 3 2.Literature review ... 7 2.1 Introduction ... 7 2.2 Tolerance ... 7

2.3 Factors for intergroup tolerance ... 8

2.4 Intergroup relations in society ... 10

2.5 Dutch tolerance ... 12

3. Theoretical Argument ... 13

3.1 Introduction ... 13

3.2 Construal level theory ... 13

3.3 Perceived identity threat... 14

3.4 Interaction effects ... 17

4. Research design... 18

4.1 Introduction ... 18

4.2 Case selection ... 18

4.3 Method ... 18

4.3.1 Online survey experiment ... 19

4.3.2 Data collection ... 20 4.3.3 Limitations ... 21 4.4 Operationalisation ... 22 4.4.1 Procedure ... 23 4.4.2 Thought-listing experiment ... 24 4.4.3 Psychological distance ... 26 4.4.4 Threat to identity ... 26

4.4.5 Measure attitudes towards minorities ... 27

4.4.6 Real attitude change ... 27

5. Analysis ... 29 5.1 Introduction ... 29 5.2 Descriptive analysis ... 29 5.2.1 Response ... 29 5.2.2 Self-assertion of tolerance ... 30 5.2.3 Level of tolerance ... 31

(3)

2

5.2.4 Perceived threat to identity ... 32

5.3 MEDIATION and interaction analysis ... 33

5.3.1 Control variables ... 33

5.3.2 Intermediate effects ... 35

5.4 Interview analysis ... 37

5.4.1 Abstract mind-set interviewees ... 37

5.4.2 Concrete mind-set interviewees ... 39

6. Discussion ... 40

6.1 Introduction ... 40

6.2 Interpration of the results ... 40

6.3 Limitations and recommendations ... 43

7. Conclusion ... 45 7.1 Introduction ... 45 7.2 General conclusions ... 45 7.3 Implications ... 46 References ... 47 Appendices ... 52

(4)

3

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Social cognitive construal theory poses that construing goals or actions in different levels of abstraction can affect people’s judgements, attitudes and behaviours (Levy et al., 2002; McCrea et al., 2012; Trope & Liberman, 2010). This thesis aims to find this is also the case for the level of tolerance of the Dutch majority towards ethnic and cultural minorities by triggering an abstract or concrete mind-set by construing multiculturalism in a different way. In order to do, so an experiment is conducted with a thought-listing task that manipulates people into the corresponding mind-set. An abstract mind-set will guide people to think about the broader goals that multiculturalism can achieve, and a concrete mind-set will steer people into thinking about the actions that should be taken to achieve multiculturalism.

The research question for this thesis is therefore: To what extent can a different construal of multiculturalism change the level of tolerance of the Dutch majority towards ethnic minorities in The Netherlands?

This question relates to the Dutch assumption that tolerance is a part of their culture (Gordijn, 2010). People like to believe that they are tolerant; it is a socially desirable trait to have and it is assumed to be institutionalized in a liberal democracy (Pasamonk, 2004; Gordijn, 2010). However, another important element of Dutch culture is a strong desire for conformity (Gordijn, 2010). I encountered the same noticeable paradox among my Dutch peers when discussing their level of tolerance. Initially they all confirmed that they are tolerant people. May that be to the LGBT community, religious minorities or ethnic minorities, they were tolerant to people who are different from them. Yet, when going into further detail on the concept and practice of tolerant behaviour, their assertion became less certain. A possible explanation for this is that people often support the general idea of tolerance but react differently when they have to face the practical consequences (Jackman, 1978).

The increase in cultural diverse societies all around the world has resulted in calls for toleration of intergroup differences to eventually achieve harmony among the different groups in society (Ivarsflaten & Sniderman, 2017; Van Heerden, De Lange, Van Der Brug & Fennema, 2013; Zunes, 2017). These calls are not new and social research has examined a wide range of behaviour related to the realm of tolerance such as stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination (Blinder, Ford & Ivarsflaten, 2013; Dovidio, Gaertner & Saguy, 2007; Ivarsflaten, Blinder & Ford, 2010; Jackman, 1977; Luguri, Napier & Dovidio, 2012; Oudenhoven, Prins & Buunk, 1998; Velasco Gonzalez et

(5)

4 al., 2008; Verkuyten, 2013). However, little research has been done on the concept of tolerance and its nature and impact on society (Verkuyten & Yogeeswaran, 2017). Tolerance is an important topic of research for intergroup relations as the principle draws attention to concrete cultural norms and practices (Verkuyten & Yogeeswaren, 2017). Cultural diversity and the need for tolerance is put to the test by these concrete issues of intergroup differences (Verkuyten & Yogeeswaran, 2017).

This thesis brings together several theories known in social psychology, namely: construal level theory, social-geographic impact theory and social identity theory. The argument of this thesis is that the variations in tolerance in Dutch society can be explained by the different construal levels through the mechanism of perceived threat to identity.

Construal level theory is not the same as framing or priming of an issue, it describes the cognitive process of construing an idea or principle on different levels of abstraction that induces a certain mind-set. This theory poses that different levels of abstraction affects the perceptions, behaviour and attitude of an individual. An abstract mind-set zooms out to capture the big picture focusing on the goal: why is this important? Why is this action being performed? The concrete mind-set zooms in to understand the consequences focusing on the specific actions: how can this goal be achieved? What actions are necessary?

The different levels of abstraction will provide for a greater (abstract) or smaller (concrete) psychological distance. The social-geographic impact theory poses that the salience of group differences is dependent on this psychological distance. The salience of intergroup differences will be reduced by the great psychological distance of the abstract mind-set since it will focus on the high-level similarities. Opposite is the concrete mind-set that relates to a smaller psychological distance and will increasingly focus on the salient intergroup differences.

Social identity theory is a prominent theory in psychological research concerned with intergroup relations. The theory describes how people are motivated to maintain a clear distinction between the in-group and the out-group perceiving their own group as more positive and superior from all others (Rodriguez & Gurin, 1990). The theory poses that members of a group feel threatened when their group distinctiveness attacked. Subgroup identity threat is one of the greatest obstacles to social harmony and will thus also relate to the level of tolerance people have in cultural diverse societies.

The experiment conducted in this thesis is based on an often-used research design by Freitas et al. (2004). Other studies in social psychology using construal level theory have used this design (see Fujita, Trope, Liberman & Levin-Sagi, 2006; Luguri, Napier & Dovidio, 2012; McCrea et al., 2012; Yogeeswaran & Dagupta, 2014) but no one has studied the effect of these different construal level mind-sets on the level of tolerance. Especially not the level of tolerance of the Dutch majority.

(6)

5 This research will focus on the influence of the construal level mind-sets on the level of tolerance of the Dutch majority towards the Turkish minority group in The Netherlands. In the experiment a thought-listing experiment will construe the ideology of multiculturalism in an abstract or a concrete way to find if these different mind-sets influence the level of tolerance of Dutch citizens. The hypothesis is that the concrete mind-set highlights the specific actions causing people to focus on the concrete cultural differences between the different groups and how this will impact them. Therefore, people perceive more threat to national identity and this will generate a lower level of tolerance towards minorities. The abstract mind-set would then have the opposite effect. The abstract mind-set highlights the goals of multiculturalism and will cause people not to focus on the concrete cultural differences but the similarities between different groups. Therefore, people will perceive less threat to national identity and this will generate a higher level of tolerance towards minorities. Regarding the Dutch culture it is expected that the control group will put forth a high level of tolerance to minority groups as the Dutch perceive themselves as tolerant.

Aside from the effect on tolerance, this research aims to find if the proposed change in attitude is real or if it is a temporal change induced by the questions asked in the experiment. The multiple experiments conducted by Yogeeswaran & Dagupta (2014) have found that a different construal level of multiculturalism has affected the prejudice of White Americans towards the Hispanic minority. They posed in their research that although this effect was measured they did not know if this effect caused real attitude change or was just of temporary nature. This research will try and find if the effect generates real attitude change by interviewing respondents a month after they were exposed to the manipulation in the experiment.

If the results of this experiment reflect an attitude change, real or temporal, it could have meaningful social implications. Construing multiculturalism on different levels could evoke more support for this ideology, benefitting social cohesion within Dutch society. Additionally, if the different construal levels induce a real attitude change of the Dutch majority this could mean that is worthwhile for politicians to make use of these mindsets to target their voters and create support for their political programmes. People could also engage in self-reflection regarding their own level of tolerance and change their attitude towards ethnic minorities to improve their level of tolerance. If people are aware of their attitude toward minorities and change it for the better, it could benefit social cohesion in a tremendous way.

The research found that the effect of the construal level mind-sets did affect the level of tolerance of the Dutch majority towards the Turkish minority. People who were manipulated into the concrete mind-set perceived more threat to identity emanated for minority cultures and expressed less tolerant attitudes towards the Turkish minority. The respondents who were manipulated into the

(7)

6 abstract mindset had a slightly higher level of tolerance compared to the control group. The difference between level of tolerance of the control group and the concrete group is statistically significant. However, the difference between the control group and the abstract group was not. The mechanism of perceived threat to identity accounted for a large part of the effect of the manipulations to the level of tolerance. However, it appears that the measured effects to the level of tolerance are only temporary and do not generate real attitude change towards minorities. The survey experiment did make people more aware of the cultural diversity in Dutch society and sparked an increased interest in multiculturalism and tolerance in general.

The structure of the thesis is set up in three sections. The first section includes this first chapter devoted to the overall introduction of the thesis. Chapter two introduces the literature that provides the context for this thesis. Then, chapter three provides the theoretical argument that is the foundation of the conducted research.

Section two is dedicated to this research to answer the proposed research question to what extent a different construal of multiculturalism can change the level of tolerance of the Dutch majority towards ethnic minorities in The Netherlands. First, chapter four describes the research design in further detail. Afterwards, chapter five presents and gives an interpretation of the results of the survey-embedded experiment and the short follow-up interviews.

The last section includes the final chapter devoted to the discussion of the results and the limitations of the conducted research in this thesis. Chapter seven concludes the thesis with the general conclusions and the academic and societal implications of the research.

(8)

7

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION

This literature review places the proposed research of this thesis in a broader context and determines the gaps in the academic literature it aims to fill. First, the literature on the concept of tolerance is discussed. Then I will give a brief overview of the different factors that influence intergroup relations and tolerant attitudes and the different theoretical models that suggest how to improve these relations. The discussion of managing cultural diversity in contemporary societies is set out, introducing the diversity ideology of multiculturalism. Eventually the literature on Dutch tolerance is discussed indicating the gap this thesis aims to fill. Namely, the variation of tolerance of the Dutch majority towards minorities in the abstract and concrete sense.

2.2 TOLERANCE

The contemporary culturally diverse societies have increased the need for managing intergroup relations (Roccas & Amit, 2011; Schellhaas & Dovidio, 2016). Where societies used to be fairly homogeneous they are now complex mix of cultures, ethnicities and religions (Frølund Thomsen, 2012; Roccas & Amit, 2011). A consequent of such a diverse society is that people possibly encounter others whose norms, values and behaviour differ from their own. Tolerance towards these others is a key to harmonious social relations and societal cohesiveness (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000; Roccas & Amit, 2011).

Tolerance is generally defined as a social virtue and a necessary principle to ensure that people peacefully coexists with different groups holding deviant views and norms within the same society (Pasamonk, 2004). Tolerance is not indifference, neutrality or the opposite of prejudice (Verkuyten & Yogeeswaran, 2017). Even though tolerance is considered as a positive trait, its core lies in the disapproval of differences we do not understand. Being tolerant is disapproving of certain views or behaviours of others but at the same time having the self-control and restraint of not expressing this disapproval (Pasamonk, 2004; Verkuyten & Yogeeswaran, 2017). In other words, tolerance concerns a situation where people have to endure the norms and practices that they might object to, but they will thwart this objection (Verkuyten & Yogeeswaran, 2017).

Moreover, philosophy and politics usually differentiate in two types of tolerance that reflect the motivations of this behaviour: weak tolerance and strong tolerance (Pasamonk, 2004; Verkuyten & Yogeeswaran, 2017). Weak tolerance is grounded in negative motivations such as a person showing ‘indifference, a sense of superiority, or a desire for preservation of peace of mind’ and strong

(9)

8 tolerance presumes positive motivations showing ‘understanding and respect for a diversity of views, beliefs and behaviours’ (Pasamonk, 2004: 206).

The research in this thesis is concerned with intergroup tolerance, specifically the tolerance of the in-group (the majority group) towards the different out-groups (minority groups), accepting and respecting the intergroup cultural differences.

2.3 FACTORS FOR INTERGROUP TOLERANCE

Attitudes towards minorities, such as being tolerant or intolerant, is influenced by a number of factors according to literature on intergroup relations. These factors have their foundation in the perceived group differences or similarities within society (Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999). In the literature on intergroup relations the most commonly used model is Social Identity Theory (SIT) and its off-shoot Self-Categorization Theory (SCT) (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000).

These theories argue that people are motivated to identify themselves in categories to reduce uncertainty (Hogg & Abrams, 1993; Hogg & Mullin, 1999; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000; Tjafel, 1982) and to enhance self-esteem (Abrams & Hogg, 1988; Rubin & Hewstone, 1998; Turner, 1982). With this process people avoid uncertainty about who they are, how they should act, and how others will behave (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000). The process of categorizing into groups will create a clear structure for their social environment (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000). Critical in the SIT and SCT is the need for positive intergroup distinctiveness (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000). In other words, the ingroup is perceived as positively superior compared to the deviant outgroup. Maintaining this distinction can be the traced back to negative and aggressive behaviour such as prejudice, discrimination and negative stereotyping (Dieckmann, Steffens & Methner, 2016; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000). However, some groups are less aggressive in asserting their distinction (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000). This variation is due to different factors but one of the most critical factors is perceived threat (Frølund Thomsen, 2012; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000; Jetten, Spears & Manstead, 1997; Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999).

Threat is especially a dominant factor in the SIT and SCT theories arguing that threat to the distinctiveness and identity of a group can increase hostile tensions between the different groups in society (Jetten, Spears & Manstead, 1997). Threat to identity is a symbolic social threat and in a democratic society such threats are usually induced by the perception that intergroup boundaries are blurring (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000). On the other hand, threats can also relate to the availability of economic resources and is often associated with the increasing flow of immigrants into a society (King & Wheelock, 2007; Snider, Hagendoorn & Prior, 2004). In either way, the perceived threats

(10)

9 emphasise the boundaries between groups and group-biased attitudes and behaviours (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000).

Another suggested factor that influences attitudes towards minorities in culturally diverse societies are people’s individual value priorities (Roccas & Amit, 2011; Sagiv et al., 2010). Values are abstract, desirable goals that can influence someone’s life as guiding principles (Roccas & Amit, 2011). These internalized values can affect someone’s personal preferences (Feather, 1995), perceptions (Sagiv et al., 2010), daily actions (Bardi & Schwartz, 2003) and even long-term behaviour (Sagiv & Schwartz, 2004). Roccas and Amit (2011) term these values as ‘motivational constructs’ as they refer to the abstract goals that will motivate our ideas, perceptions and actions. Motivational constructs are also present in theories of intergroup relation and group processes as these theories explain how people satisfy their basic needs or goals, such as categorizing people into different social groups (Correl & Park, 2005; Roccas & Amit, 2011). Yet, the argument that abstract values guide people’s attitudes and behaviour is not always visible in real life. Jackman’s (1978) study in the United States for instance suggest that a variation exists between supporting the abstract idea of tolerance and applying the idea of tolerance in their daily lives. She found that Americans appeared to generally value tolerance in an abstract way but seem to prioritize tolerance less when confronted with the practical consequences (Jackman, 1978).

Research on intergroup relations is often interested in how to improve these relations by reducing prejudice, intergroup differences and perceived threat (Frølund Thomsen, 2012; Gaertner, Rust, Dovidio, Bachman & Anastasio, 1994; Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999; Roccas & Amit, 2011; Schellhaas & Dovidio, 2016).

Allport’s (1954) intergroup contact theory is a renowned theory to improve intergroup relations. The theory proposes that promoting intergroup contact will create a source of mutual acceptance and thus reduces negative stereotypes, prejudice and negative attitudes towards outgroups (Allport, 1954; Frølund Thomsen, 2012; Pettigrew, 1998). Social psychologists that used this contact hypothesis in their research have endorsed the hypothesis that it reduces prejudice towards ethnic minorities in different countries (see Dovidio et al., 2003; Pettigrew, 1997; McLaren, 2003; Ward & Masgoret, 2006) and also increases tolerance towards ethnic outgroups (Frølund Thomsen, 2012).

However, some have argued that intergroup contact theory is flawed since the requirements of the necessary contact situation to actually change negative attitudes through intergroup contact are not representative to the settings of daily life (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000; Wenzel, Mummendey & Waldzus, 2007). Critique on the contact theory has created the development of alternative theories that could also improve intergroup relations.

(11)

10 One of those theories is the common ingroup identity model that proposes that intergroup contact is only beneficial when it creates the perception of one inclusive superordinate group, instead of two separate groups (Gaertner et al., 1994; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000). This model does not try to eliminate group boundaries but attempts to obscure them with a more inclusive, binding and overarching identity (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000; Wenzel et al., 2007). To achieve the common ingroup identity the salience of a pre-existing superordinate identity can be increased or new factors such as shared goals can be introduced to create a new superordinate identity (Gaertner et al., 1994). It is of utmost importance that the superordinate identity is strengthened and that the exiting boundaries of the subgroups are not deliberately weakened since this would only create an unwillingness to support the new identity as people feel threatened (Gaertner et al., 1994).

Another alternative is the mutual intergroup differentiation model that presumes that you cannot simply eliminate a previously valued social category as these usually have strong historical and social foundations (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000). Trying to eliminate these established social categories would be perceived as a threat to the group identity and this will only increase intergroup differentiation because a threatened category will try to reassert their distinctiveness (Hewstone & Brown, 1986). Reducing this threat is possible by recognizing the value of each different social group (Hewstone & Brown, 1986; Wenzel et al., 2007). The model of mutual intergroup differentiation model provides for a social structure that maintains the salience of the original social categories, this preserves the identities of these groups and will thus minimize the distinctiveness threat (Hewstone & Brown, 1986; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000).

2.4 INTERGROUP RELATIONS IN SOCIETY

The topic of cultural diversity in society does not only impact the academic field of social sciences but also political policies that try to manage these intergroup relations as best as possible (Guimond, De la Sabonnière & Nugier, 2014; Rosenthal & Levy, 2010). How this should be done is a question that is debated in different countries, cities, communities, organisations and even in schools. A societal implication is the development of several diversity ideologies (Guimond et al., 2014; Plaut, 2010; Rattan & Ambady, 2013). The last two discussed models in 2.4 are also reflected in two different diversity ideologies.

One of these ideologies is colour blindness and relates to the common ingroup identity model as this ideology ignores cultural diversity by favouring individual characteristics which propose a superordinate identity (Rattan & Ambady, 2013).

Another well-known ideological framework is assimilation and effectively rejects diversity by focussing on the dominant majority group in society (Hartmann & Gerteis, 2005; Verkuyten, 2011).

(12)

11 Assimilation is found in countries with a strong sense of conformity and nationalism such as France. Minorities are allowed to practice their own minority culture in private spheres but when in public spheres everyone is French and should adhere to the cultural norms of the French majority (Beauchemin, Lagrange & Safi, 2011; Brubaker, 2010).

Finally, diversity can also be acknowledged and celebrated with the diversity ideology of multiculturalism (Hartmann & Gerteis, 2005; Plaut, 2010; Rattan & Ambady, 2013; Rosenthal & Levy, 2010). The mutual intergroup differentiation model is present in the ideology of multiculturalism as the minority cultures are preserved and respected in a broader context of one culturally diverse society.

Multiculturalism and tolerance go hand in hand. Applying a multiculturalist perspective by celebrating cultural diversity rather than rejecting it will result in a more tolerant attitude towards out-groups (Wolsko, Park, Judd, Wittenbrink & Kruglanski, 2000). Also, supporting the multiculturalist ideology is associated with higher tolerance towards ethnically or culturally different groups (Berry & Kalin, 1995; Rosenthal & Levy, 2010). Scholars argue that this ideology is the best way of managing intergroup relations in a culturally diverse society because it encourages the appreciation of differences and it does not threaten minorities having to disregard their own culture or beliefs (Roccas & Amit, 2011). Also, when people are better aware of the heterogeneous cultural and social positions within society, they are conductive to higher tolerance (Mummendey & Wenzel, 199: 167). People who internalize social diversity, they will in turn perceive their own identity as a mixture of different social identities and hold more tolerant views to deviating others (Rocca & Amit, 2011).

Debates on multiculturalism have been moved up on the liberal democratic political agenda, influencing election campaigns, party system change and policy outcomes (Ivarsflaten & Sniderman, 2017; Van Heerden, De Lange, Van Der Brug & Fennema, 2013). The new wave of immigrants and refugees in Europe has created more attention to the issue of minorities in society (Zunes, 2017). Similarly, the terrorist attacks in Europe by religious fundamentalists have resulted in raised levels of anti-immigrant sentiments (Kentmen-Cin & Erisen, 2016; Zunes, 2017). Studies concerning Western democracies show an opposition towards immigration and the policies that assist immigrants and minorities (Golder, 2016; Sides & Citrin, 2007; Sniderman, Hagendoorn & Prior, 2004). Also, a high level of prejudice and hostility towards minorities exist in Europe (Wright, Johnston, Citrin & Soroka, 2017; Statham, 2016; Strabac, Aalberg & Valenta, 2013). Meanwhile, support for nativist and far-right parties that aim for stricter immigration policies has increased (Golder, 2016; Muis & Immerzeel, 2017). These recent studies have highlighted the increasing hostile and intolerant social environment in Western democracies and Europe in

(13)

12 particular. Tolerance towards minorities has not been promoted due to the recent socio-political situation in Europe and this does not fare well for a multicultural society.

2.5 DUTCH TOLERANCE

The overall European trend seems to be reflected in the developments in The Netherlands (Breugelmans et al., 2009). Incidents linked to fundamentalist interpretations of Islam, such as the assassinations of Dutch populist politician Pim Fortuyn (2002) and movie director Theo van Gogh (2004) resulted in a deterioration of the majority’s attitude towards multiculturalism and minority rights (Breugelmans et al., 2009; Penninx, 2005). Some studies show that schools in The Netherlands and the Dutch labour market endorse discrimination (Koopmans, 2003; Vasta, 2007). Another early study of Breugelmans and Van de Vijver (2004) concluded that the Dutch did not necessarily perceived cultural diversity as a valuable asset of their society, but they also did not support exclusionist positions. Other studies on Dutch intergroup relations showed that the Dutch majority usually holds the Dutch minorities responsible for integrating and making an effort in adapting to the dominant ways of life in Dutch society (Breugelmans & Van de Vijver, 2004; Breugelmans et al., 2009; Vasta, 2007; Verkuyten & Thijs, 2002).

These studies are in stark contrast with the overall assumption of the Dutch majority (Gordijn, 2010). The Dutch are famous for being tolerant and the Dutch majority is to that effect convinced of possessing and also expressing tolerance (Gordijn, 2010). However, also an important element of Dutch culture is a strong desire for conformity – meaning, the minority must adjust to the dominant ways of the majority and not the other way around (Gordijn, 2010). Interestingly the first assumption supports the multiculturalist position that celebrates cultural diversity and tolerance towards minorities. Yet, the later indicates a support of assimilation that rejects cultural diversity and tolerance for minority cultures.

This paradox of Dutch culture is the foundation for this research into the level of tolerance of the Dutch majority towards minorities in Dutch society. Rather than researching the endorsement of multiculturalism or pro-immigration policies, the line of interest in this thesis are the ‘real’ attitudes of the Dutch majority towards minority. These real attitudes will affect the social harmony of the Dutch society since intergroup tolerance is critical for living together in a culturally diverse society (Verkutyen & Yogeeswaran, 2017). So, what can account for the paradox in Dutch culture that in one way supports cultural diversity but at the same time rejects this diversity? I assume it is rooted in a likewise assumption of Jackman (1978), suggesting that the abstract idea of tolerance might echo support but not when this idea becomes more concrete and people have to apply the idea to their daily behaviour and attitude.

(14)

13

3. THEORETICAL ARGUMENT

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The theoretical argument primarily illustrates the different theories that are used to explain the variation in the level of tolerance within the Dutch majority. First, I introduce the principle theory this research is based on, namely: construal level theory. Second, the important mechanisms that help explain the influence of the construal level theory on the attitudes of the Dutch majority towards the ethnic minorities in The Netherlands. Lastly, the moderating factors and alternative explanations are discussed to account for possible deviating results in the conducted experiment.

3.2 CONSTRUAL LEVEL THEORY

The paradox in Dutch culture has sparked an interest in the variation of support for values in their abstract form and in their concrete form. Construal theories used in social psychology can help explain this different perception towards the same value, idea or principle.

Construal level theory suggests that any action, idea or value can be construed at different levels of abstraction (Förster, 2009; Freitas, Gollwitzer & Trope, 2004; Levy, Freitas & Salovey, 2002; McCrea, Wieber & Myers, 2012; Trope & Liberman, 2010). A high-level, or abstract, construal focuses on why something is done, thus the goal or purpose of a certain action or idea (Freitas et al., 2004; Trope & Liberman, 2010). A low-level, or concrete, construal focuses on how something is done, thus the specific actions and necessary steps (Freitas et al., 2004; Trope & Liberman, 2010). These different levels can be illustrated with the action of writing a master thesis. When construing this action in an abstract way it highlights the purpose, namely: you want to obtain a master’s degree, or a well-paid job when you go a level higher. Construing the same action in a concrete way will focus on the fact that you have to do empirical research and write a theoretical argument.

Studies using construal level theory suggest that people can be manipulated into a certain construal level ‘mind-set’, may that be the abstract or concrete mind-set (Freitas et al., 2004; McCrea et al., 2012; Trope & Liberman, 2010). Empirical studies have also determined that these different mind-sets systematically affect people’s judgments, attitudes and behaviours (Förster, 2009; Freitas et al., 2004; Levy et al., 2002; McCrea et al., 2012; Trope & Liberman, 2010). These studies in the field of social psychology have focused on the effect of construal level mind-sets on cognitive decision-making and information processing (Critcher & Ferguson, 2011; Henderson, 2013; Malkoc, Zauberman & Bettman, 2010), self-control (Freitas et al., 2004; Fujita & Roberts, 2010), prejudice and social stereotyping (McCrea et al., 2012; Yogeeswaran & Dagupta, 2014), and psychological and social distance (Förster, 2009; Levy et al., 2002; Stephan, Liberman & Trope,

(15)

14 2011; Trope & Liberman, 2010). Although some topics relate to intolerant behaviour, social scientist have yet to research the effect on construal level mind-set on the level of tolerance towards ethnic and cultural minorities. This thesis builds forth on the theoretical considerations and research designs of these previous studies to research the effect of construal level mind-sets on the level of tolerance. More specifically, it will determine whether an abstract or concrete construal of multiculturalism, that warrants intergroup tolerance, affects the level of tolerance of the Dutch majority towards minorities.

This line of research shows similarities with political science literature on the ‘principle-implementation-gap’ which explains that people sometimes support abstract principles while at the same time oppose concrete policies that help to achieve that same goal (Dixon, Durheim & Tredoux, 2007). Thus, the principle-implementation gap is interested in attitudes towards principles and the corresponding political policies (Dixon, Durheim & Tredoux, 2007). The set-out research in this thesis is complementary but slightly different. Namely, the interest of this research is not if people endorse the policy of multiculturalism but the effect of the different construal level mind-sets on tolerance towards minorities. This thesis argues that these different construal level mind-sets, manipulated by the construal of multiculturalism, will have different effects on the level of tolerance of the Dutch majority towards minorities.

3.3 PERCEIVED IDENTITY THREAT

This thesis thus hypothesizes that the different construal level mind-sets affect the Dutch majority’s level of tolerance. The argued reason for this effect is through the mechanism of perceived threat to national identity. Literature on intergroup relations argue that threat to the group identity is one of the greatest obstacles to social harmony (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000). The psychological process of perceived threat is then appropriate to consider in the effect of the different construal mind-sets on the level of tolerance towards culturally different minorities. Social identity theory and social-geographic impact theory will help to gain a better understanding of why the abstract and concrete construal of multiculturalism may cause variation in perceived levels of threat within the majority and thus the attitude of the majority towards minorities.

As illustrated in chapter 2, the social identity theory is a prominent theory in research into intergroup relations and therefore logical to incorporate in this theoretical argument. The theory describes how people are motivated to identify themselves in categories and maintain a clear distinction between the in-group and the out-group where they perceive their own group as positively distinctive from all other groups (Hogg & Abrams, 1993; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000; Rodriquez & Gurin, 1990; Rubin & Hewstone, 1998; Tjafel, 1982; Turner, 1982). This process

(16)

15 strengthened by ‘in-group projection’ where people are more likely to perceive their in-group within a larger superordinate group as more prototypical relative from any other group (Wenzel et al., 2007). An example is that the American majority perceive the general American nationality in terms of their own cultural and ethnic characteristics and consequently view deviant minorities as ‘less’ American (Yogeeswaran & Dasgupta, 2010). A same tendency is apparent in The Netherlands; Dutch citizens with a different ethnic and cultural background feel as if they are perceived as less Dutch by members of the prototypical Dutch in-group (Gordijn, 2010; Visser-Vogel, De Kock, Bakker & Bernard, 2018.).

Group identity functions as a categorization tool that makes people sensitive to anything that can harm their group (Noll, Poppe & Verkuyten, 2010). The more people identify with their distinctive in-group, the more likely they are to be concerned about the group interests and consider it of utmost important to preserve their own culture (Noll, Poppe & Verkuyten, 2010). Intergroup relations are consequently dependent on different factors, but the most critical factor is the threat other groups pose to the distinctiveness and identity of the in-group (Frølund Thomsen, 2012; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000; Jetten, Spears & Manstead, 1997; Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999). These threats to identity are defined as symbolic social threats and can be induced by the perception that the intergroup boundaries are blurring (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000). The perceived threat to culture of the Dutch majority is argued to explain the effect of the construal level mind-set on the level of tolerance towards minorities.

The link between construal theory and perceived threat can be forged with the help of social-geographical impact theory relating to psychological and social distance between groups in society. The social-geographical impact theory of Ryan Enos (2017) similarly suggests that attitudes and behaviours are greatly affected by group identities. Further he explains that not every group is affected the same way since size, proximity and the degree of segregation influences the perceived salience of group categories and thus the intergroup boundaries (Enos, 2017). The more salient a group, the more likely attitudes and behaviours towards this group will have ‘group-based bias’ (Enos, 2017: 12). In other words, the more salient the intergroup boundaries the more threatening the out-groups are to the ingroup identity. The threat emanating from these out-groups can be reduced by using the same logic; namely, making the intergroup boundaries less salient by focussing on intergroup similarities instead of differences (Levy et al., 2002). Construal level theory can help blur these social distinctions (Levy et al., 2002; Liberman & Trope, 2010; Stephan et al., 2011). An abstract construal level creates a greater perceived psychological distance between the self and the construed object this creates an expanded mental horizon and a focus on the high-level similarities rather than the detailed differences (Liberman & Trope, 2010; Stephan et al., 2011).

(17)

16 Perceiving similarity between the in-group and the out-group will cause less perceived threat to the in-group identity and will elicit more positive intergroup attitudes as the groups are assumed to share the same goals (Levy et al., 2002). This notion can be traced back to the earlier discussed common ingroup identity model that proposes a shared goal to emphasize a superordinate identity making the subgroup identities less salient and thus less threatening (Gaertner et al., 1994; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000; Wenzel et al., 2007). Similar to the theory that you can construe actions in abstract versus concrete terms, people can construe groups in the same way (Levy et al., 2002). An abstract construal level mindset will enforce a greater psychological distance; hence people focus on the shared goal of the different groups and thus on the intergroup similarities making the intergroup boundaries less salient. The opposite applies for a concrete mind-set corresponding to a smaller psychological distance that make people focus on the low-level details and thus the intergroup differences, increasing the salience of the intergroup boundaries.

Combining the assumed tolerance of the Dutch majority with these theories makes several hypotheses for the research in this thesis:

First, the differential construal level mind-sets, induced by construing multiculturalism in an abstract or concrete way, will affect the level of tolerance of the Dutch majority towards minorities compared to the level of tolerance of the control group.

Second, the level of perceived threat to the cultural identity of the Dutch majority is the main mechanism that explains the effect of the construal level mind-sets to the level of tolerance of the Dutch majority towards minorities.

More specifically, the abstract construal manipulation will highlight the high-level goal of multiculturalism. I hypothesize that the abstract mind-set will create a high-level perception and thus greater psychological distance and less salient intergroup boundaries and differences. This will result in less perceived threat to the Dutch majority’s identity and will therefore lead to more tolerant attitudes towards minorities.

The concrete construal manipulation will emphasize the detailed steps and actions that are necessary to achieve multiculturalism. I hypothesize that the concrete mind-set will create a low-level perception and thus a smaller psychological distance and more salient boundaries between the in-group and the out-group identity. This will result in increased perceived threat to the Dutch majority’s identity and will therefore lead to less tolerant attitudes towards minorities.

(18)

17

3.4 INTERACTION EFFECTS

It is possible that the effect of the different construal level mind-sets on the level of tolerance towards minorities is moderated by other factors. In other words, assuming that the Dutch majority considers themselves as tolerant it could happen that the concrete mind-set does not induce less tolerant attitudes as hypothesized. Considering the literature on tolerance and intergroup relations it could be possible that political orientation – associated with the individual prioritization of values – and the level of intergroup contact will moderate the effect of the construal level mind-sets on tolerance of the Dutch majority.

Studies based on the attitudes of the American majority show that conservatives tend to express relatively greater opposition towards diversity, affirmative action and immigration compared to liberals (Citrin, Sears & Muste, 2001; Renya, Henry, Korfmacher & Tucker, 2006; Sidanius, Pratto & Bobo, 1996). Americans who identify themselves as liberal boost support for multiculturalism and are more likely to support inclusive immigration policies and immigration rights (Citrin et al., 2001). The possible variation could thus be grounded in ideological political orientation or individual value priorities (Roccas & Amit, 2011). Liberals are possibly less sensitive to the different construal levels, since a multicultural ideology fits in their general ideological orientation and will have, a priori, a more tolerant attitude towards minorities. In contrast, conservatives will be more likely to be affected by the concrete construal as it will describe the actions needed to achieve multiculturalism, highlighting the differences between the cultural norms of the majority and the minority and thus evoking perceived threat to their national identity. An abstract construal of tolerance will likely generate less threat among conservatives as this construal emphasizes the general goals of multiculturalism without specifying concrete and personal implications to their actions.

Another interaction effect is the level of intergroup contact. Although the discrepant findings on the contact theory it must still be considered in this research. Contact theory hypothesizes that intergroup contact will create a source of mutual acceptance and reduces perceived intergroup threat, negative attitudes and could increase tolerance towards minority outgroups (Allport, 1954; Dovidio et al., 2003; Pettigrew, 1997). Arguably, people with regular contact with minority cultures are less affected by the construal level mind-set as since they will be more tolerant towards minorities due to their personal experiences. People who are assigned to the concrete mind-set manipulation and have increased intergroup contact would then be less affected by this manipulation and still articulate tolerance towards minorities and people assigned to the abstract mind-set will not necessarily have increased levels of tolerance due to the manipulation.

(19)

18

4. RESEARCH DESIGN

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter will discuss the research design of the conducted research in this thesis. The research is comprised out of a survey-embedded experiment that is distributed online, and follow-up semi-structured interviews. First the method in general will be discussed, such as the justification why this method but also the implications of this particular method. Then, I will discuss the challenges and implications of data collection via an online survey with a convenience sample. Finally, this chapter explains the operationalisation of the research in further detail. This also includes the explanation of the manipulations used in the experiment and justifications for the different questions in the survey.

4.2 CASE SELECTION

This research focuses on the Dutch case as the paradox in the Dutch culture inspired writing this thesis. In order to bring focus to the posed questions in the survey experiment I chose to specify the questions that assess the level of tolerance of the Dutch majority to one particular minority group residing in The Netherlands. The minority group should originate from a non-western country as it will be less likely that the Dutch majority perceives a great similarity between the culture of the majority and the culture of the non-western minority. An ethnic minority originating from a western country could mean an agreement in liberal norms embedded in their culture and will therefore have less impact on the Dutch majority culture.

The four largest ethnic minority groups in the Netherlands originating from non-western countries are the Turkish, Moroccan, Surinamese, and Antillean minority groups1. The Turkish groups is chosen as the focus group for this survey since it is the biggest minority group in The Netherland and is a familiar group to the Dutch majority.

4.3 METHOD

A quantitative method is used for the research in this thesis in the form of a survey-embedded experiment and semi-structured short follow-up interviews.

The survey includes a classical experimental design with two treatment groups and one control group. The manipulation in this research is a thought-listing experiment based on the study of Freitas et al. (2004). The manipulation construes multiculturalism in two different ways, evoking either an abstract mind-set or a concrete mind-set. After the manipulation the two treatment groups

(20)

19 answer the same questions as the control group related to perceived threat to identity and their (in)tolerant attitudes. The scores corresponding to the respondents’ level of tolerance and perceived threat are compared between the three different groups.

The respondents in the treatment group receive the practical question if they are interested in a short follow-up interview in the month of June. Approximately a month after data collection through the survey has ended, eight of these interested respondents will be contacted for a semi-structured interview via telephone. The interviews should determine if the measured effects in the survey data are temporary effects due to the recent manipulation or if the manipulation has caused a real attitude change and self-reflection after the survey.

The reason for using a quantitative method for this research is to gather as much information as possible by collecting data of a bigger sample than is possible with qualitative methods. Also, quantitative data can determine if the measured effects within the sample are statistically significant. The semi-structured interviews are to gain insights in the impact of the experiment on real attitudes and if people have engaged in self-reflection relating to their own attitudes and behaviour towards minorities in The Netherlands.

4.3.1 Online survey experiment

This research applies an online survey method to collect the required data. The reason for choosing this particular method was to gather more data of a larger sample than is possible with qualitative research methods. Considering the timeframe of this research project, distributing surveys is the best possible way to gather as much information as possible on the Dutch majority. Generally, online survey research, or web experiment methods, have several advantages compared to the classic survey or (laboratory) experiment methods.

One advantage of online distribution of a survey experiment is that it offers easier access to a demographically diverse participant population or people who would be difficult to reach through other channels (Reips, 2000; Wright, 2005). Also, distributing the survey via the internet enables people to speak more freely compared to face-to-face survey (Wright, 2005). Especially considering that some respondents might hold intolerant attitudes towards minorities they are probably less hesitant to express those attitudes via an anonymous web survey.

Bringing the experiment to the participant instead of the other way around such as in laboratory experiments is also an advantage of online survey experiments as this will benefit the ‘voluntariness of participation’ (Reips, 2000: 91).

(21)

20 Another advantage is that the statistical power of the research is enhanced with the ability to access a larger sample of respondents (Reips, 2000). Survey data is also easy to analyse and ensures greater internal and external validation and reliability (Reips, 2000).

Finally, and not unimportant regarding the context of this research, distributing survey experiments via internet may save costs, time and administration (Reips, 2000; Wright, 2005). Online surveys allow for the collection of data in a relatively short amount of time despite the possible geographic distances of the respondents (Wright, 2005). Costs are reduced since there is no need for a laboratory space or paper formats (Wright, 2005).

4.3.2 Data collection

The survey experiment is built with the online survey software Qualtrics and then distributed online via an anonymous link in emails, on social media platforms and student platforms that fill in surveys for credits.

Regarding the object of this research the Dutch majority should be represented in the sample. The best way to eventually achieve a correct reflection of the Dutch majority is to select a sample using a random selection method, also known as a probability sample (Bryman, 2012). However, the preparation of a probability sample is very time consuming and difficult in the time set for this research project. Therefore, a non-probability sample is used to conduct the survey experiment. Using such a sample implies that some groups in the population are more likely to be selected than others thus not accurately mirror the target population (Bryman, 2012). More specifically, a convenience sample is used for this survey experiment which is essentially a sample that is available to the researcher (Bryman, 2012).

Distribution on social media platforms such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter and platforms for dissertation surveys will rely on the level of exposure and if respondents are willing to partake in the experiment. I posted the anonymous link to the survey on various student platforms with different expected political orientation – such as a student platform for political science students, history students, public administration students, Crisis and Security Management students, the Facebook group of Middle Eastern studies, of the youth organisation of Forum for Democracy (FVD – a new right-wing populist political party). To increase the reach of this survey I have asked people to share the link with their Dutch friends and relatives. The survey is also posted on various online platforms that generates survey participants by exchanging credits for filling in other people’s surveys. To further kickstart the data collection I sent out the anonymous link via email to my direct Dutch acquaintances, friends and family, again asking them to circulate this survey to their Dutch acquaintances and relatives. One could argue that this form of distribution is a form of

(22)

21 snowball sampling, where the researchers makes initial contact with a small group of people who are relevant to the research and then use their social contacts to spread the survey (Bryman, 2012).

Although convenience sampling and snowball sampling is not an ideal section method, it is not unacceptable and even frequently used in social sciences (Bryman, 2012). Convenience samples are particularly of great use to map out assumed theoretical hypotheses, but the data will not allow the generation of definitive findings because it cannot be generalized to the entire population (Bryman, 2012). This and some other limitation encountered in the research design of this study should be considered when interpretation the results of the survey experiment.

4.3.3 Limitations

Although there are a lot of advantages of using the online survey experiment, there also are some limitations to this method and overall research design.

Namely, online distributed surveys can have the disadvantage of unknowingly registering multiple submissions (Reips, 2000). Since the survey is distributed through an anonymous link on social media and other online platforms there is no registration if people have participated twice in the research thus recording the same respondent as two different responses. Also, the respondents engage in a self-completion survey without any guidance or control for their surroundings, meaning a lack of experimental control (Reips, 2000). Respondents do not receive any further explanation or clarification when they might struggle with some of the tasks or questions in the experiment. Struggling with the survey could be problematic since people could be demotivated to continue the experiment and prematurely end the survey. This relates to another disadvantage of online surveys namely, the change of dropout (Reips, 2000). The data collection through online surveys heavily depends on the merit of people and their willingness to fill in the survey, complete it, and to share it among their connections. Participating in such a survey takes part of their own time and yields no social pressure to complete the experiment or focus on the asked questions.

Aside from general disadvantages of the online survey method this research already encountered some errors and limitations that must be taken into account.

One major limitation to the conducted research relates to the external validity of the results. To be able generalize the findings to the entire population it is necessary to have a representative sample of the Dutch majority members (Bryman, 2012). When a population is heterogeneous, such as the Dutch majority in The Netherlands, a large sample is necessary to reflect all intragroup variations. The implication is that the greater the heterogeneity of a population the larger a research sample will need to be (Bryman, 2012). Considering the heterogeneity of the Dutch majority the sample size is too small to make any real generalizations to this population. The sample size relates

(23)

22 to the earlier mentioned dropout disadvantage of the online survey method. The survey experiment is long for people who are assigned to the treatment groups and it warrants some thinking from the respondents. As the results will also present, a lot of the respondents that were selected to do the thought-listing experiment quit right after the experiment and did not answer the needed questions measuring their level of perceived threat to national identity and their level of tolerance. The unfinished surveys are invalid and must be taken out of the analysis. This has caused an uneven distribution of respondents in the three different research groups. The most likely reason why around 41% of the respondents who stared the survey have prematurely ended their participation is that they either did not understand the given task or were of opinion that it took too much time and effort.

This research has a non-probability sample as a convenience sampling method is used. A convenience sample also makes it virtually impossible to generalize the findings because we cannot know if this sample is representative (Bryman, 2012). Probably some units in the population are more likely to take the survey than others. For instance, younger people are more active on social media and are therefore more likely to have seen the anonymous link to the survey experiment.

Finally, also important to note is that this research is focussed on case of The Netherlands. Therefore, generalizing the results to other cases might be difficult. The research was motivated by the notion that Dutch people have internalized the idea that the principle of tolerance is a cornerstone of their culture. It is still possible to use this research design to conduct this research in another case, provided that they change the majority and minority case examples in the surveys. Overall the results presented in this thesis are applicable to the tolerant attitudes and threat perception of the Dutch majority even though these results are not without limitations.

4.4 OPERATIONALISATION

This research uses parts of the research design developed by Freitas et al. (2004) that studied the effect of construal theory on the anticipation of other’s self-regulation. This design is applied because it would make people think on their own instead of being guided by a different ‘framing’ of the concept of multiculturalism that would steer the direction by specific prompts as positive and negative phrasing. This particular design is also used in other studies that make use of the construal level theory (Fujita, Trope, Liberman & Levin-Sagi, 2006; Luguri, Napier & Dovidio, 2012; McCrea et al., 2012). Using the thought experiment made up by Freitas et al. (2004) will introduce the manipulation more directly as it activates the cognitive procedures or mind-sets associated with the abstract and concrete construal (Fujita et al., 2006).

(24)

23 This research design is often used in sociology and psychology studies related to all kinds of topics but not on tolerance specifically. This research builds on this design by incorporating the mechanisms of perceived threat to identity and by asserting the impact of the different construal level mind-sets on the level of tolerance of the Dutch majority. Especially the case of The Netherlands is interesting as it would find if the level of abstraction can account for the fact that many Dutch people think they are tolerant, but also desire a level of conformity in their society. 4.4.1 Procedure

Respondents were found through online platforms and asked to complete a survey regarding ethnic minorities in The Netherlands. After they provide consent, respondents receive a short question block that will assess their demographic information, such as age, gender, ethnic background, living situation (big city) and political orientation.

Within the experiment there are three groups; one control group without manipulation, which will provide the baseline measurements, a second group with the ‘abstract’ manipulation and a third group with the ‘concrete’ manipulation. After the first demographic questions the respondents will be randomly assigned to one of the three different groups.

Participants that are randomly assigned to two treatment groups are asked to complete a short thought-listing exercise before they proceed with the same multiple-choice questions as the control group, concluding with the question indicating their perceived level of tolerance and their understanding of this concept.

The thought-listing exercise is the manipulation in this research. Respondents in the treatment groups can either be selected to do the abstract manipulation (group 2) or the concrete manipulation (group3). First a brief description of multiculturalism is provided, then respondents are asked to shortly indicate why multiculturalism is important (group 2) or how multiculturalism can be achieved (group 3). The though-listing experiment is introduced with an unrelated example. After this example participants are either asked to generate reasons for multiculturalism (group 2) or strategies for multiculturalism (group 3). After the though-listing task the respondents complete questions that assess the perceived threat to identity and their attitudes towards the Dutch-Turkish minority. In the final section of the survey, respondents in the two treatment groups are asked about their perceived level of tolerance towards minorities and their understanding of tolerance.

The control group is not exposed to the though-listing experiment and the survey flow of the control group is also slightly different. After the demographic information questions, the respondents of the control group are asked about their perceived level of tolerance towards minorities and their understanding of the concept of tolerance. These questions are last in the survey

(25)

24 flow of the other two groups, but the control group has to answer these free from any possible effect of the other questions in the survey. The respondents of the control group will then proceed to the multiple-choice questions that assess perceived threat to identity and their tolerance in the same order as the other two experiment groups.

4.4.2 Thought-listing experiment

The thought-listing task is the manipulation in this experiment to find if a different construal of multiculturalism will affect the level of tolerance of the Dutch majority. The people who are randomly assigned to one of the two treatment groups are first provided with a description of multiculturalism. The description is guided by the one provided by Yogeeswaran and Dagupta (2014). The given description in the survey was in Dutch, but I translated it into English here (the original script is in the Appendix): “With continuously increasing diverse populations in countries such as The Netherlands, figuring out how to manage intergroup relations among diverse ethnic groups has become a topic of national interest. Multiculturalism is one way of managing this growing diversity by calling for the recognition of cultural differences and sometimes the celebration of these differences”.

After this description the respondents will continue with the thought experiment focused on an abstract way of thinking or a concrete way of thinking. These different survey flows will be discussed in further detail below.

Abstract manipulation

Respondents assigned to the abstract manipulation are asked to write a few lines on the broad goals of multiculturalism and why one might engage in it, irrespective of their support for it.

After this they will be introduced to the thought-listing task with an example as provided by Freitas et al. (2004). The example used in the survey has been altered to mirror the researcher’s situation. Yet the overall explanation of the experiment is taken from Freitas (2004:743).

For the abstract manipulation, this introduction is as followed (translated to English): “For everything we do, there always is a reason why we do it. Moreover, we often can trace the causes of our behaviour back to broad life-goals that we have. For example, you distribute a survey. Why are you doing this? Perhaps you need to satisfy a course requirement. Why are you satisfying this requirement? Probably to earn your master’s degree. Why do you want to earn that degree? Perhaps you want to find a good job, or to educate yourself. And maybe you want to educate yourself to find a good job because you feel that doing so will bring you happiness in life. Research suggests that engaging in thought exercises like that above, in which one thinks about someone’s actions relate to one’s ultimate life goals, can improve life satisfaction. In this experiment, we are

(26)

25 testing such a technique. This thought exercise is intended to focus your attention on why you do the things you do. For this thought experiment please consider the following activity: ‘achieving multiculturalism in the Netherlands’”.

After the introduction the respondents return to multiculturalism and are asked to generate two reasons why multiculturalism is pursued in Dutch society and also asked two consecutive ‘why’ questions, guiding their thinking in an increasingly abstract direction. This means filling out the left side of the diagram (see figure 1).

Figure 1 – Thought-listing diagram

Concrete manipulation

Respondents assigned to the abstract manipulation are asked to write a few lines on how multiculturalism can be practiced in contemporary Dutch society and offer related strategies that would help achieve the goal of multiculturalism. Again, irrespective of their support for multiculturalism.

After participants have completed this task they will be introduced to the thought-listing task in the same way as the other group. Also, for this introduction the example used in the survey has been altered to mirror the researcher’s situation. Yet, the overall explanation of the experiment is taken from Freitas (20014: 743).

(27)

26 For the concrete manipulation this introduction is as followed (translated to English): “For everything we do, there always is a process of how we do it. Moreover, we often can follow our broad life-goals down to our very specific behavior. For example, like most people, you probably hope to find happiness in life. How can you do this? Perhaps by finding a good job, or being educated, can help. How do you do these things? Maybe by earning a master’s degree. How do you do that? Perhaps by satisfying the course requirements of a certain course. How do you satisfy those? In some cases, like this researcher, you distribute a survey to collect data. Research suggests that engaging in thought exercises like that above, in which one thinks about how one’s ultimate life goals can be expressed through specific actions, can improve people’s life satisfaction. In this experiment, we are testing such a technique. This though exercise is intended to focus your attention on how you do the things you do. For this though exercise, please consider the following activity: ‘achieving multiculturalism in The Netherlands’”.

After the introduction, respondents return to multiculturalism and are asked to list two specific strategies by which multiculturalism can be pursued, regardless of their support. For the two strategies the respondents are asked a two consecutive ‘how’ questions. In other words, with every step that could be taken to implement multiculturalism another ‘how’ question is asked, guiding their thinking in an increasingly concrete direction. Meaning, they have to fill out the right side of the diagram (see figure 1).

4.4.3 Psychological distance

The following question blocks are asked to every participant, irrespective of what treatment group they are in. The first block includes questions that measure if the respondents could identify with the ethnic minority in question. First, it was asked if the respondents could identify with ethnic minorities in general. Then, it was asked if the respondents could identify with the Turkish minority in particular. The objective of this block is to find any remarkable findings in the descriptive analysis. If a majority of the respondents suddenly identify with minorities and the Turkish minority in particular the theoretical argument would not be relevant.

Expected is that overall, people do not identify with the minorities and that a concrete manipulation makes this even more unlikely.

4.4.4 Threat to identity

The perceived level of threat to identity, the Dutch majority culture, is argued to be a primary mechanism for the effect of the construal level mind-sets on the level of tolerance of the Dutch majority. Therefore, this level of perceived threat must be measured in the survey.

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

Mogelijke extra opbrengsten wegens minder biggensterfte door betere overlegmogelijkhe- den, vlotter berig worden van de zeugen door- dat de zeugen elkaar stimuleren en meer

De factoren die het meeste invloed lijken uit te oefenen op de uitvoering van het rolstoelenbeleid zijn: starheid, flexibiliteit en het beleidsnetwerk van de gemeenten,

The SPECTACOLOR (Screening Patients for Efficient Clinical Trial Access in COLORectal cancer) study is a new programme of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of

The theory that seems to fit best, from the equity market point of view, is the theory from Ramalingegowda and Yu (2012) because long- term institutional investors demand

The subsequent three sections perform the Monte Carlo experiment of this study set out in section 3.1, but with the t-test replaced by the χ 2 -test provided by Caner and Kock

There are various ways an IOTA user may be forced to reuse addresses, possibly without even knowing it.. wallets or other software that uses the IOTA API, may force a user to

Furthermore, we have derived pairwise fluctuation terms for the velocities of the fluid blobs using the Fokker-Planck equation, which have been alternatively derived using the

He also analyses the customs of vari- ous people in South Africa in order to point out distinctive features of "communal" tenure regimes in South Africa, based on