Do Ethnically Mixed Classrooms Promote Inclusive Attitudes Towards Immigrants
Everywhere? A Study Among Native Adolescents in 14 Western Countries
Abstract: This paper examines attitudes among 14-year-old native students in 14 Western countries to assess how out-group size, as measured by the proportion of first- and second-generation migrant children in a class, is related to inclusive views on immigrants. It develops three competing hypotheses: (1) higher proportions of immigrants contribute to inclusive views everywhere; (2) higher proportions have a negative effect on inclusive views everywhere; (3) the effect of out-group size depends on the ratio of first- to second-generation migrant children: the higher this ratio, the weaker the effect. It discovers that out-group size is positively related to inclusive views on immigrants in countries where second-generation outnumber first-generation migrant children (i.e. the old immigration states), and that there is no significant link with such views in countries where the reverse is the case (i.e. the new immigration states). The same regularity applies at the classroom level: in classes with more second than first generation students, out-group size enhances inclusive views while it shows no relationship to such views in classes with more first than second generation students. The results thus support the third hypothesis. The non-relation in contexts with many first generation students may well be a temporary phenomenon, however. Once immigrant communities have become more settled and integrated in the destination countries, positive effects of ethnic mixing could well emerge everywhere.
Key words: inter-group contact, inclusive attitudes, classroom ethnic composition, contact theory, conflict theory, ICCS study
Introduction
As Western societies have become increasingly diverse owing to immigration and cross-
border mobility, the question of how welcoming the native population is to newcomers has
become increasingly relevant. If the native population has exclusionary attitudes, the
integration of immigrants into the receiving society will be severely compromised, with
possible negative consequences for overall social cohesion. Governments call on schools to
cultivate the opposite of such attitudes among youngsters, i.e. tolerance and accommodating
views. One particular way in which schools are thought to promote such values is by having
an ethnically mixed intake. The idea that mixing contributes to tolerance is based on the
assumptions that (1) a culturally diverse environment provides more opportunities for cross-
cultural interaction (Blau, 1974) and that (2) under a given set of conditions such interaction
enhances intercultural understanding and mitigates unfounded negative opinions of the ethnic
other (Allport, 1954).
Remarkably, to my knowledge, despite the obvious social and political relevance of
this question for immigration countries, no study has explored whether the effect of mixed
schooling on attitudes towards immigrants is the same across many different national
contexts. Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) did address the topic of universality in their
comprehensive meta-analysis of no fewer than 700 studies from a wide variety of national
contexts. They found that interethnic contact was positively related to favourable out-group
attitudes in 90% of the studies they reviewed. However, one cannot simply assume on the
basis of this study that ethnically mixed schools will therefore also promote more tolerant
attitudes to immigrants everywhere, because the studies included in Pettigrew and Tropp’s
review assessed only the effect of actual intergroup contact (i.e. not that of mixed settings)
and mainly concerned interracial (Black–White) attitudes.
Most of the studies investigating the relationship between mixed schooling and out-
group attitudes have in fact been single-country studies. Interestingly, only two of
these, Dollase (2001) and Van Geel and Vedder (2010), found school
diversity to be positively related to favourable out-group attitudes. The
studies by Wagner et al (1989), Kokkonen et al (2010), Dejaeghere et al
(2012) and Bekhuis et al (2013) found no relationship between classroom
diversity and out-group attitudes, while Vervoort et al (2011) found that
diversity enhanced negative out-group attitudes. It would be premature to
conclude on the basis of this short review that the effect thus varies
across countries, since the single-country studies have used different
measures of school ethnic composition and interethnic attitudes. Two
studies have used similar measures cross-nationally. However, one of
these (Barber et al, 2010) has assessed the relationship only on the basis
of pooled international data and thus ignored the possibility of country-
specific effects, while the second study carried out separate analyses on
only three countries (Janmaat, 2012). The last-named study found
classroom diversity to be positively related to tolerant attitudes to
immigrants in Sweden and Germany but to show no significant link with
this outcome in England.
This article will assess the issue of universality more profoundly by
exploring how classroom ethnic composition is related to inclusive
attitudes to immigrants among native 13- and 14-year-old pupils in each
of 14 Western countries. These countries have all experienced
immigration recently and/or longer ago, which means the disposition of
the native population towards immigrants is relevant in all of them.
Inclusive attitudes refer to the belief that immigrants should have the same rights,
duties and opportunities as all other citizens, irrespective of their country of origin and ethno-
racial background. Given that this belief is generally considered to be a key civic virtue
underpinning liberal democracy (Putnam, 1993), enabling immigrants to participate in the
host society, its relevance can hardly be overstated. I consider inclusive beliefs about
immigrants to be a subset of positive out-group attitudes in the same way that tolerant
attitudes are. Although inclusive beliefs have been found to be strongly related to ethnic
tolerance (e.g. Scheepers et al, 2002), the two concepts need to be distinguished conceptually
as the notion of accepting the ethnic other as equal is a crucial component of inclusive beliefs
while it does not necessarily form part of ethnic tolerance. Examining these beliefs among
13- and 14-year-olds is important because they are developed during adolescence and become
relatively stable thereafter (Sears, 1990). The classroom is the context to focus on since this is
the environment in which adolescents spend a lot if not most of their time.
The following section develops three hypotheses on the generalisability of the effect
of mixed classes. Subsequently, the data source and variables of interest are explained. I close
by testing the hypotheses and discussing the main findings.
Classroom Ethnic Mix and Inclusive Views on Immigrants: Three Competing
Hypotheses
As this study primarily aims to assess whether the relationship between ethnically mixed
classrooms and inclusive attitudes is the same across different national contexts, it is
important to discuss why one might expect this relationship to be similar or to vary cross-
nationally. One reason for expecting it to be similar is the startling similarity of school
education across the Western world in terms of structure and content (Benavot et al, 1991).
Practically everywhere, school education is characterised by groups of 20–30 youngsters of
the same age being taught by a qualified adult in a confined area (classroom and school). This
commonality of conditions makes it plausible to propose that the effect of classroom ethnic
composition observed in one country can be generalised to other countries.
The next question is thus what the direction of this effect will be: do ethnically mixed
classrooms promote or undermine inclusive attitudes towards immigrants? The literature on
interethnic relations does not offer a conclusive answer. On the one hand, it leads one to
conjecture that mixed classrooms do indeed promote inclusive attitudes. This conjecture is
based on a number of theoretical propositions linking the explanatory condition to the
outcome in a stepwise fashion. The first two of these propositions have already been
mentioned. One concerns the idea that as a social context, particularly a well-bounded micro
one such as a school class, becomes more mixed, so the probability of intergroup contact
increases because of the proximity of members of the out-group (Blau, 1974). The second is
the main tenet of contact theory, which holds that as intergroup contact increases, so the in-
group becomes less prejudiced and develops more favourable attitudes to the out-group
(Allport, 1954). Third, it may be proposed that the micro setting of the classroom usually
meets the conditions that Allport considered vital for intergroup contact to have such positive
effects. These conditions are (1) equal status of the groups engaging in the contact, (2)
common goals, (3) intergroup cooperation, and (4) institutional support and monitoring. In a
classroom there is indeed equality of status among students (at least formally), the contact
often includes activities involving common goals and cooperation (such as team sports), and
the setting is closely supervised by a teacher, who is not likely to allow intolerant behaviour
and remarks (Kokkonen et al, 2010; Janmaat, 2012). Even if not all these conditions are met
in a classroom, intergroup contact is still likely to yield positive intergroup attitudes, as there
is increasing agreement nowadays that Allport’s conditions should be seen as facilitating
factors rather than as necessary conditions (Schlueter and Scheepers, 2010). Fourth, it has
been argued that interethnic contact fosters favourable attitudes not only towards those
members of the out-group directly involved in the interaction but also towards the entire out-
group, and the aforementioned meta-analysis of Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) has indeed found
evidence for this.
On the other hand, one may surmise that mixed classes foster exclusionary attitudes
towards immigrants. This is based on the assumption from conflict (or ethnic competition)
theory that the larger the proportion of the out-group in a given population is, the more the
dominant group will feel threatened in its privileged position, culturally and economically,
and consequently the more exclusionary and hostile it will become towards the out-group
(Blalock, 1967; Quillian, 1995; Schneider, 2008). Most of the research supporting this theory
examines the effect of ethnic composition at the level of countries (e.g. Quillian, 1995;
Schneider, 2008; Scheepers et al, 2002), i.e. macro social contexts in which different groups
can easily live separate lives with little cross-cultural interaction. That such interaction plays
a crucial mediating role has been demonstrated by Semyonov and Glikman (2008). They
found that, once levels of positive interethnic contact were taken into account, people living
in highly diverse neighbourhoods expressed more negative views on immigrants than people
living in homogeneous neighbourhoods. In other words, whether mixed settings foster or
diminish positive out-group attitudes depends on the level of actual intergroup contact: in
settings with little contact the outcome predicted by conflict theory occurs; in settings with
many contacts the outcome anticipated by contact theory emerges (Sturgis et al, 2011).
These findings and reflections lead to the expectation that the outcome predicted by
conflict theory would not occur in the classroom setting, since intercultural contact would
seem hard to avoid in this micro environment. Yet one cannot assume that intercultural
contact is a given in mixed classrooms, as Vermeij et al (2009) found that out-group contacts
did not increase (and in-group contacts did not reduce) as the class became more diverse in
terms of out-group size. Moreover, other studies of educational settings found that the
outcome predicted by conflict theory did occur. Researching student attitudes in the
Netherlands, Vervoort et al (2011), for instance, found that, in classrooms with high
proportions of minority students, ethnic-majority respondents reported more negative out-
group attitudes. In America, Forman (2003) found a curvilinear effect in that racial
prejudice among White students first declined and then rose again to the point of
surpassing initial levels of prejudice as the percentage of Black students in the class
increased. Negative outcomes of diversity have also been found for behaviour. Tolsma et
al (2013), for instance, found both intra- and inter-ethnic bullying to rise with
increasing levels of classroom ethnic diversity.
Combining the proposition on universal effects with the conjectures on the direction
of the effect, I arrive at the following contrasting hypotheses: (1) higher proportions of
immigrant students in class foster inclusive attitudes to immigrants among native students in
all national contexts; (2) higher proportions of immigrant students in class diminish inclusive
attitudes to immigrants among native students in all national contexts.
Yet the effect of mixed classes is unlikely to be only a function of educational
conditions and out-group size. It can be proposed that the composition of the population with
an immigrant background (with regard to history of settlement) also influences this effect.
More specifically, one may hypothesise that in countries where first-generation migrants
(greatly) outnumber second-generation ones (that is, countries that have only recently
attracted many immigrants), the link between mixed classes and inclusive views is weaker
than in countries where the opposite applies (Hypothesis 3a). This conjecture is based on
the assumption that the second generation is generally better integrated. Having been
raised in the country of destination second generation children have had many more
opportunities to learn the destination country language, to familiarize themselves with
that country’s culture and customs, and to interact with members of native majority
than first generation children (Estevez and Sampaio 2013). Research has demonstrated
that second generation children indeed have a better command of the destination
country language (Tubergen and Kalmijn 2005; OECD 2009) and have higher levels of
friendships with native majority children (Esser 2013). Others have found destination
language proficiency and interethnic friendships (or contacts with the native majority
more broadly) to be closely correlated (Wagner and Machleit 1986; Matinovic et al
2009), suggesting that destination language proficiency is crucial for contacts with the
majority or that the two are mutually reinforcing. Thus, the process predicted by
contact theory, i.e. that of interethnic contact reducing prejudice, is most likely to occur
in diverse contexts with many second generation children. This is all the more likely in
view of the finding that intense and high-quality forms of intergroup interaction, such
as interethnic friendships, are especially conducive to more favourable out-group
attitudes (Kao and Joyner, 2004). We may add that the same phenomenon should also
be visible at the classroom level, i.e. the more second generation relative to first
generation students there are in the classroom, the stronger the link between mixed classes
and inclusiveness (Hypothesis 3b), since micro-environments such as classrooms vary in
immigrant composition as well.
In short, while the first two hypotheses propose similar effects across countries,
the third expects the effect of mixed classes to depend on the characteristics of the
immigrant population both at the country and classroom level. I am aware that the
effect of diversity on inclusive attitudes may be shaped by other factors as well, such as
the political climate of the country of destination and the distance between the culture
of the majority and those of immigrant groups. Space constraints and data limitations
prevented me from exploring these factors in greater detail. Should the cross-national
pattern of findings not correspond to any of those predicted by the aforementioned
hypotheses, then such factors are likely to have played a role.
Data, Variables and Methods
Data source
For the current study I use data from the 2009 International Civic and Citizenship Education
Study (ICCS). The ICCS study collected data on the civic attitudes and competences of Grade
8 students (ages 13 and 14) in 38 countries worldwide. In each participating country between
1,700 and 4,500 students from 66 to 196 schools were surveyed in a nationally representative
sample. Following a two-stage stratified cluster design, the study first randomly selected the
schools on the basis of probability proportional to size and then selected one whole classroom
in each school (Schulz et al, 2010). All the students in this classroom were surveyed.
I selected the samples from 14 Western states as data for the current study. The choice
was restricted to Western states because these states have recently and/or historically
experienced immigration.1 The selection further only includes states where first- and second-
generation migrant children together numbered at least 2.5% of the respondents.2 Table 1 lists
the 14 selected countries and shows the proportions of native, first- and second-generation
migrant children as well as the total number of respondents in each country. The percentage of
migrant children (of first and second generation combined) ranges cross-nationally between
27.4 (Switzerland) and 7.1 (Italy). The countries also vary considerably in the relative
weighting of the first- and second-generation students, which makes the selection of countries
ideal for testing Hypothesis 3. Some countries have four times as many first- as second-
generation students (Cyprus, Italy, Spain and Ireland), reflecting the sudden and recent shift
from emigration to immigration countries that these states have experienced. Others have
almost or more than twice as many second- as first-generation students (Switzerland, Austria,
Sweden and the Netherlands), indicating that they have attracted immigrants for some time.
Table 1 about here
Dependent variable – inclusive views on immigrants
1 I decided not to include post-communist states in the selection of countries due to the specific migration histories of these countries. Most of the second generation migrant children in these countries have parents who migrated within the borders of the same state (that is when the state they are now residing in formed part of a larger state), which means they cannot be considered international migrants. 2 This cut-off point was established because in near-to homogenous countries the number of classrooms with higher proportions of immigrant children is insufficient to allow one to make reliable statements on the effect of immigrant proportion.
To measure inclusive attitudes to immigrants I devised a scale similar to the one developed by
the ICCS experts. It is based on the same five items as the one in the ICCS database and
shows the same high levels of internal coherence (with Cronbach’s alphas ranging
between .74 and .89 cross-nationally). The items are as follows:
‘How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about immigrants?’
Immigrants should have the opportunity to continue speaking their own language;
Immigrant children should have the same opportunities for education that other
children in the country have;
Immigrants who live in a country for several years should have the opportunity to vote
in its elections;
Immigrants should have the opportunity to maintain their own customs and lifestyle;
Immigrants should have all the same rights that everyone else in the country has.
< 1– strongly disagree; 2 – disagree; 3 – agree; 4 – strongly agree >
The scale was constructed by taking the mean of the responses to the five items. As a result,
the scale has values ranging between 1 (maximum exclusionary views) and 4 (maximum
inclusive views), with a midpoint of 2.5 denoting neutral attitudes to immigrants. The
advantage of this scale is that it enables one to interpret the values in both a relative and an
absolute sense, while the ICCS scale, which has values standardised to an international mean
of 50, allows for only a relative interpretation. The scale is an individual-level variable.
Independent variables
The main variable of interest is immigrant proportion, a class-level variable representing the
share of first- and second-generation migrant children in the class. The key decision in the
construction of this variable was whether to include the second generation in the out-group.
This was not an easy decision to make, as the ICCS did not ask respondents whom they
considered to be ‘immigrants’ when they posed the aforementioned five questions.
Consequently, it was not possible to determine whether native students included only first-
generation migrant children (i.e. immigrants in the proper sense of the word) or also second-
generation migrants in their understanding of ‘immigrants’. This is a handicap because one
should ideally know where the in-group draws the boundary between itself and the out-group
before developing a variable reflecting out-group size.
The widespread use of denigrating terms such as Pakis, Les Beurres and Ausländer,
which stigmatise immigrants and their offspring, suggests that second and possibly third
generations are still seen as ‘immigrants’ by many members of the native majority. Others,
however, might well understand the concept of immigrants in the official way, i.e. as
referring only to first-generation migrants. From the perspective of the second generation,
too, it is not clear where the boundary lies, given the propensity of many second-generation
children to develop hybrid identities combining feelings of attachment to their country of
birth with those towards the country of origin of their parents (Berry et al, 2006; Faas, 2009).
To get some idea of where the boundary between the in- and the out-group is drawn, I
assessed the mean values of inclusive attitudes for the native group and the two immigrant
groups (see Table 2). The results show that both the first- and the second-generation migrants
are significantly more inclusive in their views on immigrants than the native students across
the board (only in two countries is the difference from native students not significant for
second-generation ones). From the perspective of first-generation students this makes good
sense. Being immigrants themselves, they would in essence have consented to being placed
in a subordinate position relative to the native group if they had expressed exclusionary views
on immigrants. More revealing is that the second generation also hold more accommodating
views. In 10 of the 14 states their mean values are closer to those of the first generation than
to those of the native group, and in eight states their inclusive views are equal to or even
surpass those of the first generation. This suggests that not only the first- but also the second-
generation students have identified (or at least shown sympathy) with the group of people –
immigrants – they were asked to state their views on. It gives us a clue that the boundary
between the in- and the out-group lies between the native group on the one hand and the first
and second generation on the other. I therefore decided to include second-generation migrant
children in the out-group when constructing the immigrant proportion variable.
Table 2 about here
As some research has found non-linear effects (e.g. Dollase, 2001; Forman, 2003), the
variable was transformed into a categorical variable to enable an assessment of the effect of
various levels of immigrant share vis-à-vis the reference category (100% native students).
The other categories are low levels (0.1–15%), medium levels (15.1–50%) and high levels
(50.1–99%) of immigrant share. I created these categories with unequal range because
immigrant proportion is skewed towards the homogeneous end. Table 3, which presents the
distribution of students across the four categories, clearly shows this. For example, despite
their narrow ranges, the categories of 100%-native and low-level-immigrant-share constitute
the largest in terms of number of students enrolled in two and ten countries respectively. Only
in the two countries with the highest proportion of immigrants (Switzerland and New
Zealand) is the medium-level category the largest group.
Table 3 about here
The other independent variable of interest is immigrant composition. This country-level
variable represents the ratio of the number of first- to the number of second-generation
migrant students. It has a minimum of .47 (Switzerland: the first-generation group is twice as
small as the second generation) and a maximum of 6.93 (Ireland: the first-generation group is
seven times the size of the second generation).
I used five control variables at the individual and the classroom level to assess
whether the link between immigrant proportion and inclusive views is genuine and not a
reflection of other influences. The individual-level variables included gender, social
background, cultural resources and civic knowledge. Social background was measured by
means of the highest education level obtained by one of the parents. Cultural resources were
tapped with the number of books at home. Civic knowledge was captured with a ready-made
composite measure in the ICCS database (the variable NWLCIV). This measure is based on
79 items testing student knowledge in four areas: civic society, civic principles, civic
participation and civic identities (Schulz et al, 2011). The four individual-level control
variables have been shown to be strongly related to a wide range of civic attitudes including
views on immigrants (see, for instance, Scheepers et al 1992; Galston, 2001; Schultz et al,
2010). The classroom-level control variable is classroom social status, which is the class
average of social background. Many studies, particularly those examining neighbourhood
characteristics, have highlighted the independent effect that the social status of the
environment has on a range of civic outcomes (e.g. Letki, 2008; Oliver and Mandelberg,
2000).
Method of analysis
Given the nested structure of the data – with individuals nested in classes, and classes
nested in countries (considering the one class per school sample) - and the fact that the
independent variables are pitched at different levels, I used multilevel analysis (MLA) to
explore the relationships between immigrant proportion and inclusive views on immigrants.
When data is nested, MLA provides for a more accurate estimation of the effects of
contextual variables than conventional multiple regression techniques (Snijders and Bosker,
1999). The mixed-methods option in SPSS was used to construct two-level random
intercept models (individuals and classes) and a three-level random slope model with
interaction effects (individuals, classes and countries). These models were based on native
students only. All independent variables in the MLA models were grand-mean-centred.
Results
Table 4 shows how immigrant proportion is linked to inclusive views on immigrants in each
of the 14 countries (based on 14 country-specific two-level multilevel models). These
relationships have all been controlled for by the variables listed in the notes below the table.
The countries have been ranked in descending order according to immigrant composition
(Column 8). While significant positive relations emerge in seven countries, significant
negative links can be observed in just one country (Italy). There is thus much more evidence
for mixed classrooms fostering inclusive views than for their doing the opposite. The medium
category of immigrant proportion shows a significant positive link with the outcome in five
countries. In other words, in these countries the native students in classrooms with medium
proportions of immigrants are significantly more inclusive in their attitudes than the native
students in all-native classrooms (the reference category). Interestingly, these countries form
quite a diverse group in terms of demographics, political traditions and migrant integration
policies, including states such as, England, Switzerland and Sweden. In eight countries the
link is not significant, while in only one country is it significantly negative. High proportions
of immigrants (see Column 6) also appear to be conducive to inclusive views, judging by the
highly significant positive relations in five countries. The category is unrelated to the
outcome in nine countries. In contrast, small proportions of immigrants do not seem to make
much of a difference, as this category demonstrates only a (barely) significant positive
relationship in two countries.
Table 4 about here
These results are clearly not consistent with the second hypothesis, which expects higher
shares of immigrants to have a negative effect on inclusive attitudes. Not only do positive
relationships far outnumber negative ones, but it is actually at higher shares of immigrants
(the categories ‘medium’ and ‘high’) that immigrant proportion is related positively to
inclusive attitudes. The first hypothesis, which anticipated that immigrant proportion would
produce a positive effect across the board, is supported regarding the direction of the effect
but not regarding its universality, given the non-relationship in half of the countries. Looking
more closely at this group of countries where no or a negative relationship is found, it appears
that it includes all those in which there are more first- than second-generation immigrant
students (Ireland, Spain, Greece, Cyprus, Italy and New Zealand – see Column 8). This
lends strong support to Hypothesis 3a, which predicted that the effect of immigrant
proportion would be weaker in contexts where the former outnumber the latter.
This hypothesis is also confirmed by a three-level random slope multilevel
analysis on the pooled data including immigrant composition as a country level
variable, immigrant proportion (as a continuous measure) at the classroom level3 and
an interaction term for immigrant composition and immigrant proportion (see Table 5).
The main effect of immigrant proportion is positive and significant (b = 0.031; p =
0.032), while the interaction term shows a significant negative relationship (b = -0.016; p
= 0.022). This means that the more first relative to second generation migrant children
there are in a country, the weaker is the positive effect of immigrant proportion on
inclusive attitudes, which is consistent with Hypothesis 3a. Interestingly, the cross-
national variation in the effect of immigrant proportion is not significant (b = 0.0016; p
= 0.091), while it is significant in a model without the interaction term (b = 0.0026; p =
0.043) (not shown in table). Hence, the main reason why the effect of immigrant
proportion differs across countries is immigrant composition. Once immigrant
composition is taken into account, countries no longer show significant differences in
the effect of immigrant proportion on inclusive attitudes, indicating that this effect is
not strongly influenced by other conditions which vary across countries such as political
climate, cultural distance with the native majority, etc.
Table 5 about here
3 This continuous measure is the percentage of children in the class who are first or second generation migrants (see also the footnote under Table 5).
Does the same regularity apply to the micro-level of the classroom? In other words, is
diversity more effective in enhancing native students’ inclusive attitudes in classrooms
where second generation outnumber first generation migrant children (Hypothesis 3b)?
I investigated this question by splitting the pooled sample in two groups – one in which
1st generation outnumbered 2nd generation children in the classroom and one in which
the reverse was the case – and by conducting a two-level MLA on each of these groups
(see Table 6).4 We see that immigrant proportion, neither as a continuous measure nor
as a categorical one, shows any relation to inclusive attitudes in the group of classrooms
where 1st generation children outnumber 2nd generation ones (Models 1 and 2). In
contrast, it does show a strong positive link with inclusiveness in the classrooms where
there are more 2nd than 1st generation children (Models 3 and 4). What is more, the
strongest link can be seen at the highest level of out-group size (i.e. at 50.1 – 99%
immigrant children in the classroom) (Model 4). These results are in agreement with
Hypothesis 3a as they show that immigrant composition also makes a difference at the
micro-level in terms of modifying the effect of immigrant proportion on inclusive
attitudes.
Table 6 about here
Limitations
Some remarks and qualifications need to be made with regard to the current study. First, I
could not explore some of the causal mechanisms presumed to drive the effect of mixed
4 I opted for this approach rather than a single MLA including classroom immigrant composition and classroom immigrant proportion as main effects and an interaction term for both because the latter approach caused multicollinearity problems between the two main effects.
classes on out-group attitudes since ICCS does not have items tapping interethnic contact,
proficiency in the language of the destination country or perceived threat. Yet I would
argue that this drawback has not been a major impediment, as the primary objective of this
study was to assess the cross-national generalisability of the effect of mixed classes, not to
explore the causal reasoning linking mixed classes to (positive or negative) out-group
attitudes. A second and more serious point concerned the difficulty of demarcating the in-
and the out-group, which has been identified as a problem by others as well (e.g. Van Geel
and Vedder, 2010; Vervoort et al, 2011). Both contact and ethnic competition theory assume
that clear in- and out-groups can be identified and that these groups constitute mutually
exclusive categories. However, we know from the literature on majority and minority ethnic
identities that the process of identity formation among young people is characterised by
hybridity, complementarity, nestedness and contextuality (Tizard and Phoenix, 2002; Faas,
2009). This substantially complicates the notion of ‘intercultural’ contact and requires us to
take the salience and degree of belonging to particular identities into account, which should
be a task for future research.
Finally, as with all research relying on cross-sectional data, the analyses of this study
could prove only association, not the direction of causality. This is potentially a serious
problem as one could imagine that mixed settings are a consequence rather than a cause of
inclusive views on immigrants. They are a consequence if children with parents who are
more open-minded about immigrants in the first place self-select into mixed classes, or
(which is more likely) if parents with anti-immigrant attitudes enrol their children in all-
native classrooms. Although a selection bias can be partly eliminated by controlling for
individual background variables (as I have done), and is likely to be minimal in societies with
restricted school choice (Kokkonen et al, 2010), one cannot rule out the possibility that some
self-selection has occurred.
Discussion and conclusion
In the current age of austerity, which is likely to enhance in-group favouritism among native
groups (Hoskins et al, 2012), it becomes all the more important to assess what schools can do
to promote inclusion and tolerance. On the whole, the results of this study are welcome news
for the advocates of desegregation, as they suggest that ethnically mixed schools are well
positioned to promote inclusive out-group attitudes among native students. This positive
effect of ethnic mixing may well be powerful enough to override the influence of context-
specific factors, as the current study observed such positive effects in seven countries varying
widely in population size, political traditions and ethno-linguistic composition. True, no
effect of ethnic mixing was found in half of the countries examined. Yet, aside from Flanders
and New Zealand, these countries are all new immigration states which have never
experienced large inflows of migrants before. The immigrant children in these countries
are mostly of the first generation and are thus unlikely to have developed a good
command of the destination country language and/or to have established many contacts
and friendships with native majority youth yet. These circumstances are likely to
hamper the ability of diverse settings to foster inclusive out-group attitudes among
native majority children. Although I could not assess the steps in this causal reasoning,
as the data source used does not have suitable measures of intergroup contact and
language proficiency, the finding that out-group size contributes to inclusiveness in
settings where second generation children outnumber first generation ones (both at the
country and classroom level) does point in this direction. This finding, moreover,
suggests that the non-relationship between out-group size and inclusive attitudes in the
new immigration countries is only a temporary phenomenon: once immigrants become
settled and produce offspring, this non-relationship is likely to turn into a positive one.
In old immigration states with established immigrant communities the positive effect of
mixed schooling on inclusive attitudes could therefore well be universal.
The results of this study are clearly not in agreement with the hypothesis based on
conflict theory, which assumed out-group size to be negatively related to favourable out-
group attitudes. Aside from Italy, no country showed this relationship. In a sense these
findings are not wholly unexpected, since conflict theory is mostly supported by studies
examining the effects of ethnic diversity in macro social environments where intergroup
contact need not occur. By contrast, in the very micro setting of classrooms, the social
context of the current study, interethnic contact can hardly be avoided, and it should therefore
not surprise us that the findings are more consistent with contact theory.
Another strong indication that the mechanism proposed by conflict theory does not
apply (i.e. that of out-group size triggering a sense of threat among the in-group, which in
turn triggers hostile attitudes towards the out-group) is that positive effects of mixed settings
were found at medium and high levels of immigrant proportion in the classroom. Apparently,
native students forming only a small majority or even a minority in a class were not
intimidated by the presence of immigrant peers, or at least not to the extent that it would
prevent them from expressing more inclusive views on immigrants than native students in all-
native classrooms. Interestingly, this finding also suggests that the problem in making ethnic
mixing ‘work’ is not too much out-group presence but too little. Possibly, in view of the
tendency of homophily to shape interaction (Blau, 1974; Moody, 2001), native students in
low-diversity classrooms can still avoid contact with immigrant peers while this is no longer
possible at higher levels of immigrant presence. Low heterogeneity levels have been found to
be ineffective by others. Dollase (2001), for instance, found that the incidence of hostile
attitudes towards foreigners among native German students dropped significantly only when
proportions of foreign students in schools exceeded 10%.
In sum, this study suggests that policy makers should consider ethnic mixing as a
strategy to promote more inclusive out-group attitudes among the native majority. They
should not expect immediate results, however, in schools with many first-generation
immigrant students. Neither should they expect a minimal presence of immigrant students in
class to do the job.
References
Allport, G. (1954) The Nature of Prejudice, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Barber, C., Torney-Purta, J. and Fennelly, K. (2010). Adolescents’ Attitudes Toward
Immigrants’ Rights and Nationalism in 25 Countries. Unpublished paper available at
http://www.iea-irc.org/index.php?id=cived_and_iccs, accessed 20 May 2012.
Bekhuis, H., Ruiter, S. and Coenders, M. (2013). Xenophobia among Youngsters: The Effect
of Interethnic Contact, European Sociological Review, 29, 229–242.
Benavot, A., Cha, Y.-K., Kamens, D., Meyer, J.W., and Wong, S.Y. (1991). Knowledge for
the Masses: world models and national curricula, 1920–1986. American Sociological
Review, 56, 85–100.
Berry, J.W., Phinney, J.S., Sam, D.L. and Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant Youth in Cultural
Transition: Acculturation, Identity and Adaptation Across National Contexts. New York:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Blalock, H. M. (1967) Toward a theory of minority-group relations, New York: John Wiley
& Sons.
Blau, P.M. (1974). Parameters of Social Structure. American Sociological Review, 39, 615–
35.
Dejaeghere, Y., Hooghe, M. and Claes, E. (2012). Do Ethnically Diverse Schools Reduce
Ethnocentrism? A Two-Year Panel Study Among Majority Group Late Adolescents in
Belgian Schools. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36, 108–117.
Dollase, R. (2001). Die Multikulturelle Schulklasse – oder: Wann ist der Ausländeranteil zu
hoch? Zeitschrift für Politische Psychologie, 9, 113–26.
Duncan, G.J. and Raudenbusch, S.W. (1999) Assessing the effects of context in studies of
child and youth development, Educational Psychologist, 34, 29–41.
Esser, H. (2013). The Integration of Second Generation Immigrants in Germany: An
Explanation of Cultural Differences. In: R.S. Sigel and M. Hoskin (eds.), Education for
Democratic Citizenship: A Challenge for Multi-Ethnic Societies. New York: Lawrence
Erlbaum, 45-70.
Esteves, A. and Sampaio, D. (2013). Language Proficiency among Immigrants and the
Establishment of Interethnic Relations: A Comparative Analysis of Bilbao, Lisbon and
Rotterdam, Finisterra, XLVIII, 96, 65-88.
Faas, D. (2009) Reconsidering Identity: The Ethnic and Political Dimensions of Hybridity
Among Majority and Turkish Youth in Germany and England, British Journal of
Sociology, 60, (2), 299–320.
Forman, T. (2003). From Pet to Threat? Minority Concentration, School Racial Context and
White Youths’ Racial Attitudes. Dept of Sociology, University of Illinois at Chicago.
Unpublished manuscript.
Galston, W. (2001). ‘Political Knowledge, Political Engagement and Civic Education,’
Annual Review of Political Science, 4, 217–234.
Hoskins, B., Kerr, D., Abs, H. J., Janmaat, J. G., Morrison, J., Ridley, R., and Sizmur, J.
(2012). Participatory Citizenship in the European Union: Analytic Report. Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/citizenship/pdf/report2_analytic_report.pdf
Janmaat, J.G. (2012). The Effect of Classroom Diversity on Tolerance and Participation in
England, Sweden and Germany, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 38, 21–39.
Kao, G., and Joyner, K. (2004). Do race and ethnicity matter among friends? Activities
among interracial, interethnic, and intraethnic adolescent friends. The Sociological
Quarterly, 45, 557–573.
Kokkonen, A. Esaiasson, P. Gilljam, M. (2010). Ethnic Diversity and Democratic
Citizenship: Evidence from a Social Laboratory, Scandinavian Political Studies, 33, 331–
335.
Letki, N. (2008) Does diversity erode social cohesion? Social capital and race in British
neighbourhoods, Political Studies, 21, 109–123.
Martinovic, B., van Tubergen, F. and Maas, I. (2009). Dynamics of Interethnic Contact: A
Panel Study of Immigrants in the Netherlands, European Sociological Review, 25, 303-
18.
Moody, J. (2001). Race, School Integration, and Friendship Segregation in America.
American Journal of Sociology, 107, 679–716.
OECD (2009). PISA 2009 Results: Overcoming Social Background; Equity in Learning
Opportunities and Outcomes; Volume II. Paris: OECD.
Oliver, J.E. and Mandelberg, T. (2000) Reconsidering the environmental determinants of
white racial attitudes, American Journal of Political Science, 44, 574–89.
Pettigrew, T.F. (1998). Intergroup Contact Theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–85.
Pettigrew, T.F. and Tropp, L.R. (2006). A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783.
Putnam, R. (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Quillian, L. (1995) Prejudice as a Response to Perceived Group Threat: Population
Composition and Anti-Immigrant and Racial Prejudice in Europe, American Sociological
Review, 60, 586–611.
Scheepers, P., Felling, A., & Peters, J. (1992). Anomie, Authoritarianism and Ethnocentrism:
Update of a Classic Theme and an Empirical Test. Politics and the Individual, 2, 43-60.
Scheepers, P. Gijsberts, M. and Coenders, M. (2002). Ethnic Exclusionism in European
Countries: Public Opposition to Civil Rights for Legal Migrants as a Response to
Perceived Ethnic Threat, European Sociological Review, 18, 17–34.
Schlueter, E. and Scheepers, P. (2010). The Relationship between Outgroup Size and Anti-
Outgroup Attitudes: A Theoretical Synthesis and Empirical Test of Group Threat- and
Intergroup Contact Theory, Social Science Research, 39, 285–295.
Schneider, S. L. (2008). Anti-Immigrant Attitudes in Europe: Outgroup Size and Perceived
Ethnic Threat, European Sociological Review, 24, (1), 53–67.
Schulz, W., J. Ainly, J. Fraillon, D. Kerr and B. Losito (2010). ICCS 2009 International
Report: The Civic Knowledge, Attitudes and Engagement Among Lower Secondary School
Students in 38 Countries. Amsterdam: IEA.
Schulz, W., Ainly, J. and Fraillon, J. (eds) (2011) ICCS Technical Report. Amsterdam: IEA.
Sears, D. O. (1990). Whither Political Socialization Research? The Question of Persistence.
In: Ichilov, O. (Ed.), Political Socialization, Citizenship Education and Democracy. New
York: Teachers College Press, 69–97.
Semyonov, M. and Glikman, A. (2009). Ethnic Residential Segregation, Social Contacts, and
Anti-Minority Attitudes in European Societies, European Sociological Review, 25, 693–
708.
Snijders, T. and Bosker, R.J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and
advanced multilevel modelling, London: Sage Publications.
Sturgis, P., Brunton-Smith, I., Read, S. and Allum, N. (2011). ‘Does Ethnic Diversity Erode
Trust? Putnam’s “Hunkering Down” Thesis Reconsidered’, British Journal of Political
Science, 41, 57–82.
Tizard, B. and Phoenix, A. (2002). Black, White or Mixed Race? Race and Racism in the
Lives of Young People of Mixed Parentage, London: Routledge.
Tolsma, J., van Deurzen, I. and Veenstra, R. (2013). Who is Bullying Whom in Ethnically
Diverse Primary Schools? Social Networks, 35, 51-61.
Torney-Purta, J. (2002) The school’s role in developing civic engagement: a study of
adolescents in twenty-eight countries, Applied Developmental Science, 6, 203–212.
Van Geel, M., Vedder, P. (2010). Multicultural Attitudes among Adolescents: The Role of
Ethnic Diversity in the Classroom, Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14, 549–
558.
Van Tubergen, F. and Kalmijn, M. (2005). Destination-Language Proficiency in Cross-
National Perspective: A Study of Immigrant Groups in Nine Western Countries,
American Journal of Sociology, 110, 1412-57.
Vermeij, L., Van Duijn, M.A.J., and Baerveldt, C. (2009). Ethnic Segregation in Context:
Social Discrimination among Native Dutch Pupils and Their Ethnic Minority Classmates.
Social Networks, 31, 230–9.
Vervoort, M. H.M., Scholte, R.H.J., Scheepers, P.L.H. (2011). Ethnic Composition of School
Classes, Majority–Minority Friendships, and Adolescents’ Intergroup Attitudes in the
Netherlands, Journal of Adolescence, 34, 257–267.
Wagner, U. and Machleit, U. (1986). Gastarbeiter in the Federal Republic of Germany:
Contact between Germans and Migrant Populations. In: Hewstone, M. (Eds.). Contact
and Conflict in Intergroup Encounters. Oxford: Blackwell, 59–78.
Wagner, U., Hewstone, M. and Machleit U. (1989). Contact and Prejudice between Germans
and Turks. Human Relations, 42, 561–74.
Table 1. The composition of the student population by immigration background
Native Second- First- Total students generation generation number (%) migrant migrant of
studentsa studentsa students (%) (%) (N)
Switzerland 72.6 18.6 8.8 2,924New Zealand 73.4 9.2 17.4 3,979Austria 79.1 14.0 6.9 3,385Sweden 83.0 11.3 5.7 3,464England 85.9 8.6 5.5 2,916Ireland 88.0 1.5 10.5 3,355Spain 88.2 2.3 9.5 3,309Norway 88.7 6.6 4.7 3,013Netherlands 89.2 7.1 3.7 1,964Greece 89.5 3.7 6.8 3,153Flanders (Belgium) 90.2 5.4 4.4 2,968Denmark 91.5 5.4 3.1 4,508Italy 92.8 1.5 5.6 3,366Cyprus 92.9 1.0 6.1 3,194a First-generation migrant students are children who have been born in the country of origin. Second-generation immigrant students are children who have been born in the receiving country but whose parents (both of them) were born in the country of origin.
Table 2. Inclusive views on immigrants by immigration background
Native Second- First- students generation generation
(mean) migrant migrant students students (mean) (mean)
Greece 3.2 3.4** 3.4***Sweden 3.1 3.7*** 3.7***Norway 3.1 3.5*** 3.5***Spain 3.1 3.3* 3.5***New Zealand 3.1 3.4*** 3.5***Ireland 3.1 3.2 3.5***Cyprus 3.1 3.1 3.3***Italy 3.0 3.3* 3.5***Denmark 3.0 3.4*** 3.4***Switzerland 3.0 3.3*** 3.4***Austria 2.9 3.4*** 3.3***Flanders (Belgium) 2.9 3.3*** 3.3***England 2.8 3.3*** 3.3***NetherlandsTotal
2.83.0
3.3***3.4***
3.3***3.4***
* P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001. The significance levels concern the difference of the mean of each of the two immigrant groups from that of the native students.
Note: The scale ranges from 1 [minimum inclusive views] to 4 [maximum inclusive views]. The value 2.5 is the midpoint representing neither exclusionary nor inclusive views.
Table 3. Distribution of students across the four categories of immigrant proportion (by percentage)
100% native
Low(0.1–15%Immigrant)
Medium(15.1–50%Immigrant)
High(50.1–99%Immigrant)
Switzerland 8.6 22.4 59.8 9.1New Zealand 15.6 27.0 46.0 11.4Austria 11.4 49.9 30.4 8.3Sweden 25.7 38.6 23.5 12.2England 29.6 41.3 21.7 7.4Ireland 18.1 56.1 23.9 1.9Spain 28.7 41.3 27.8 2.2Norway 29.3 50.7 16.4 3.6Netherlands 19.8 55.4 20.6 4.1Greece 20.4 53.6 25.7 0.3Flanders (B) 40.1 34.9 21.0 4.1Denmark 33.1 46.2 17.1 3.6Italy 42.2 41.9 15.2 0.6Cyprus 21.7 61.6 16.0 0.7
Table 4. The relation between classroom immigrant proportion and inclusive views on immigrants: the results of 14 country-specific multilevel analyses.
Low Medium High Immigrant (0.1–15% immigrants) (15.1–50% immigrants) (50.1–99% immigrants) composition
(ratio 1st / 2nd b t ratio b t ratio b t ratio generation)
Switzerland 0.027 0.98 0.052* 2.33 0.050** 2.87 0.47Austria 0.045 1.78 0.045 1.93 0.067*** 3.64 0.49Sweden 0.032 1.50 0.083*** 3.87 0.063*** 3.73 0.50Netherlands 0.065* 2.45 0.076** 2.74 0.032 1.05 0.52Denmark 0.026* 2.13 0.066*** 4.45 0.065*** 3.62 0.57England 0.003 0.11 0.053* 2.12 0.001 0.41 0.64Norway 0.001 0.38 0.039 1.82 0.064** 2.59 0.71Flanders (B) -0.018 -1.08 0.035 1.85 0.039 1.63 0.81Greece -0.010 -0.57 -0.015 -0.84 -0.061 -0.56 1.84New Zealand -0.021 -1.07 0.001 0.04 -0.001 -0.44 1.89Italy -0.041* -2.10 -0.084*** -3.57 -0.099 -1.79 3.73Spain -0.020 -0.99 -0.025 -1.30 0.001 0.41 4.13Cyprus -0.016 -0.85 -0.017 -0.76 -0.016 -0.31 6.10Ireland 0.016 0.93 0.018 1.04 -0.024 -0.93 6.93
* P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001.
NB: Each of the 14 models represents a two-level random intercept multilevel linear regression analysis including gender, social background, cultural resources, civic knowledge and classroom social status as control variables. The table only shows the coefficients of the categories of low, medium and high proportions of immigrants in the classroom. The reference category is 100% native students. The full results of these analyses can be obtained from the author on request.
Table 5. The relation between classroom immigrant proportion and inclusive views on immigrants: the results of a three-level multilevel analysis on the pooled data.
b t ratio Degrees of freedom
Intercept 3.010*** 103.14 12
Immigrant composition (L3) a 0.023 1.70 12Immigrant proportion (L2 - random effect) b 0.031* 2.50 10Classroom social status (L2) a 0.009 1.67 2391Gender (1-boy; 2-girl) (L1) a 0.190*** 29.57 34151Cultural resources (L1) 0.034*** 9.41 34400Social background (L1) 0.023*** 6.00 33301Civic knowledge (L1) 0.011*** 31.84 33350Immigrant composition x immigrant proportion b -0.016* -2.64 12
Cross-national variance in the intercept 0.0113* 2.38Cross-national variance in the slope of immigrant proportion
0.0016 1.69
Cross-classroom variance in the intercept 0.0172*** 14.24
* P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001.
a L3 = country level variable; L2 = classroom level variable; L1 = individual level variable.
b Allowing the slope of immigrant proportion to vary across countries means that the classroom level variable of immigrant proportion and the interaction effect with immigrant composition are treated as country-level variables and are thus based on the degrees of freedom (N) associated with that level. As the number of observations is so small at this level, I decided to use the continuous measure of immigrant proportion rather than the categorical one (as using the latter would result in too many interaction terms in relation to the degrees of freedom). Immigrant proportion and the interaction effect turn out to be statistically significant even when based on such a small number of observations.
Note: An analysis of the empty model (not shown in the table) reveals that the classroom level captures 7.4% of the total variance in inclusive attitudes. According to Duncan and Raudenbusch’s (1999) rule of thumb, this proportion represents a medium to large effect size, indicating that there is every reason to examine the impact of classroom-level variables such as immigrant proportion. The country level captures 3.3% of the total variance. The model shown in the table explains 8.8%, 41.5% and 16.5% of the variance at the individual, classroom and country level, respectively.
Table 6. The link between immigrant proportion and inclusive views on immigrants in two groups of classrooms differing in immigrant composition (results of four two-level multilevel analyses).
Classrooms where first- Classrooms where second- generation students outnumber generation students outnumber second-generation ones (Models 1 & 2) first-generation ones (Models 3 & 4)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
b t ratio b t ratio b t ratio b t ratioIntercept 3.049*** 383.16 3.048*** 377.29 3.003*** 307.41 3.006*** 303.57
Immigrant proportion (continuous) (L2) 0.014 1.31 0.059*** 5.81Immigrant proportion (categorical) (L2) Low (0.1–15% immigrants) (ref cat) a
Medium (15.1–50% immigrants) 0.008 1.07 0.028** 3.30 High (50.1–99% immigrants) 0.011 1.11 0.040*** 4.79Classroom social status (L2) 0.023** 2.74 0.023** 2.72 0.044*** 4.16 0.042*** 3.90Gender (1-boy; 2-girl) (L1) 0.182*** 17.12 0.182*** 17.12 0.194*** 15.41 0.194*** 15.42Cultural resources (L1) 0.039*** 6.79 0.039*** 6.78 0.029*** 4.06 0.029*** 4.07Social background (L1) 0.014* 2.32 0.014* 2.33 0.032*** 4.04 0.033*** 4.07Civic knowledge (L1) 0.011*** 19.58 0.011*** 19.59 0.011*** 15.84 0.011*** 15.86
Level 1 explained variance (%) b 7.0 7.0 8.1 8.1Level 2 explained variance (%) b 31.2 31.2 35.4 34.4N Level 1 (individuals) a 12787 12787 9055 9055N Level 2 (classrooms) a 960 960 862 862
* P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001.a The number of observations at the individual and classroom level is reduced because of the exclusion of the all-native classrooms from the models. For this reason the reference category of the categorical measure of immigrant proportion was changed to ‘low’.b Analysis of the empty model shows that the classroom level captures 8.5% and 9.8% of the total variance in inclusive attitudes in Models 1&2 and Models 3&4, respectively.
32