Article Summary of Foreign, different, deviant, seclusive, and working class: anchors to an ethnic hierarchy in the Netherlands - Hagendoorn & Hraba - 1989

What are the key concepts of this article?

What are stereotypes?

Stereotypes are simplified mental images or generalizations about ethnic groups that have been studied in the social sciences for many years. Early research emphasized that stereotypes are limited and biased representations of these groups. However, more recent research in the cognitive tradition suggests that stereotyping is a normal cognitive process rather than a failure of rationality.

According to this view, stereotypes are essentially cognitive frameworks or schemas that categorize people into distinct types or categories. Once categorized, individuals tend to focus on the differences between members of different categories while emphasizing the similarities among members of the same category. This cognitive process is influenced by perceptual grouping and the assimilation/contrast effect.

Researchers have also explored other aspects of stereotypes, such as implicit personality theories and the decomposition of stereotypes into distinct components. Implicit personality theories refer to attributions and feelings associated with an ethnic group based on implicit beliefs about its members. Stereotypes can also be decomposed into subcategories or subtypes that vary across different individuals or groups.

Additionally, studies have examined the relative importance of case information and category stereotypes in judgments about individuals. Case information that contradicts an individual's ethnic stereotype is found to have more influence on judgments, whereas consistent information reinforces the stereotype. However, people tend to be cautious in revising stereotypes when faced with inconsistent information.

Overall, research on stereotypes in the cognitive tradition focuses on understanding the psychological processes involved. Stereotyping is seen as a rational cognitive process rather than a corruption of rationality. The content of stereotypes is believed to stem from various factors such as perceived correlations between outgroup saliency and deviant behavior, social comparison for positive social identity, and social attribution processes. Cultural transmission and biased assimilation of new evidence contribute to the persistence of stereotypes.

The impact of stereotypes on behavior is complex and influenced by interpersonal, situational, and societal factors. Behavioral intentions and actions toward outgroups are not solely determined by stereotypes, but rather mediated by various contextual factors. Researchers are interested in examining how ethnic stereotypes affect behavioral intentions, particularly regarding social distance and discrimination, based on different types of contact with outgroup members.

What is social distance?

The concept of social distance has been important in studying ethnic relations. It refers to the attitudes and behaviors that reflect the level of acceptance or rejection between different ethnic groups. Initially, social distance was seen as a measure of physical or ecological separation between groups. However, it has been conceptualized as an attitude by Park and Bogardus, who developed a scale to measure social distance.

Researchers have been tracking trends in social distance over time, examining the levels of discrimination and rejection towards outgroups. Two types of social distance are distinguished: the overall amount of social distance towards outgroups and the pattern of discrimination among different outgroups.

The pattern of discrimination among outgroups can indicate the existence of an ethnic hierarchy in a multicultural society. This hierarchy has both a form and content. The form is hierarchical, reflecting the differential distances between groups, and the content refers to the specific sequence of groups in the hierarchy.

In the Netherlands, there is a dominant ingroup, the Dutch, and several smaller ethnic outgroups, including Jews, South Moluccans, Surinamers, and immigrants from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. Research has shown that Dutch students tend to arrange these groups in a consensual ethnic hierarchy of social distance. European minorities are often ranked higher, followed by ex-colonial and Islamic minorities at the bottom. This hierarchy reflects the social representation of the status hierarchy of these ethnic minorities in Dutch society.

The current study aims to investigate whether respondents still share a similar hierarchy of ethnic groups in terms of social distance in the Netherlands. The researchers also aim to explore how stereotype dimensions influence the sequence of this ethnic hierarchy and affect the amount of social distance in different domains of contact. This is done with two experiments.

What can be learned from an experiment on ethnic hierarchy?

This experiment aimed to investigate social distance and the ethnic hierarchy among different ethnic groups in the Netherlands. The researchers conducted surveys among 145 first-year psychology students at the University of Nijmegen, as well as high school and vocational school students in Nijmegen, Leiden, and Amstelveen. The respondents completed a questionnaire that included statements about social distance towards various ethnic groups.

The social distance questions focused on different domains of contact, such as neighbors, work colleagues, schoolmates, friends, and potential marriage partners. The respondents were asked to rate their agreement or disagreement with each statement for each ethnic group. The researchers analyzed the data to measure the amount of social distance expressed towards each ethnic group and across different domains.

The results showed that there was variation in the social distance expressed towards different ethnic groups. Overall, respondents showed the most social distance towards Moroccans, Turks, South Moluccans, Surinamers, Spaniards, Jews, and English, in descending order. The domain of marriage showed the highest level of social distance, followed by neighbors, colleagues, schoolmates, and friends.

The study also examined whether the respondents had a hierarchical conception of ethnic groups in the Netherlands. The majority of respondents (80%) demonstrated a hierarchical view, indicating that they discriminated among ethnic groups in terms of social distance. The content of the ethnic hierarchy was determined through scalogram analysis, which revealed a consistent group sequence. European groups were placed at the top, followed by former colonial groups, and Islamic groups were positioned at the bottom.

However, there were slight variations in the content of the ethnic hierarchy based on different domains of contact and ethnic representatives. For example, the positions of Spanish and Surinamers in the hierarchy shifted slightly in some cases, and South Moluccans were placed at the bottom in certain domains. These variations might be influenced by factors such as language use, European favoritism, or the specific circumstances and history of South Moluccans in the Netherlands.

What can be learned from an experiment on stereotypes?

The second experiment aimed to investigate the stereotypes held by students in the Netherlands regarding ethnic minorities in the country. The study utilized a two-part procedure: first, a pilot study was conducted to identify the stereotypes, and then a survey was administered to measure the attribution of these stereotypes to different ethnic groups.

In the pilot study, 280 secondary and high school students were asked to list stereotypes associated with ethnic groups in the Netherlands. A pool of 151 stereotypes was obtained based on the responses. The researchers selected stereotypes that were mentioned by at least 15% of the students for any one ethnic group and by 10% across all groups. Additionally, some stereotypes frequently mentioned in previous research were included.

The subsequent survey included 48 selected stereotypes presented as statements about ethnic groups. The same group of students from the pilot study responded to the survey. They were asked to indicate the extent to which they attributed each stereotype to male, female, or unspecified members of seven ethnic groups. The responses were measured on a scale from 1 (all members) to 6 (none), with a "don't know" option available for each stereotype.

The results of the study were analyzed using discriminant analysis and other statistical techniques. The researchers identified six stereotype dimensions that distinguished among the seven ethnic groups: dark and macho, foreign appearance, different culture, deviance, seclusiveness, and working class. Each dimension represented a set of stereotypes that were correlated within that dimension. For example, the dark and macho dimension included attributions of patriarchal family relations and dark skin color at one end and egalitarian family patterns and white skin color at the other.

The analysis also examined the commonality of these dimensions across different ethnic groups and the linear trends in attribution across the ethnic hierarchy. The results showed that the attribution of certain stereotype dimensions increased for groups lower in the ethnic hierarchy. For example, the stereotypes related to foreign appearance, different culture, and working class were more strongly attributed to ethnic groups lower in the hierarchy. On the other hand, the stereotypes related to deviance and seclusiveness were associated with groups at both extremes of the hierarchy.

The study also investigated the association between stereotype dimensions, social distance, and the ethnic hierarchy. Analyses were conducted to assess how stereotype dimensions influenced social distance intentions in various domains of contact (e.g., marriage, neighbors, friends). The results showed that certain stereotype dimensions, such as foreign appearance, different culture, deviance, seclusiveness, and working class, were associated with greater social distance towards ethnic groups in most domains of contact. However, the dimension of dark and macho did not show a significant association with social distance.

What is the conclusion of this study?

In this study, a shared ethnic hierarchy among minority groups in the Netherlands was found. The ethnic hierarchy allows discrimination among outgroups even when overall discrimination is low. The study examined group stereotypes related to social distance and the ethnic hierarchy. Stereotypes were reduced to six dimensions for seven ethnic groups. These dimensions affected social distance and discrimination among outgroups. Some dimensions unfolded the ethnic hierarchy by developing negative evaluations when attributed to a significant percentage of outgroup members or when combined with other negatively evaluated dimensions. Seclusiveness and deviance were important dimensions for maintaining social distance and unfolding the hierarchy. Social stereotypes had a broader impact on discrimination than cultural stereotypes, but both played a role. Stereotype effects were most prominent in domains such as marriage, neighbors, and colleagues.

The analysis revealed that the Dutch ingroup was distinguished by foreign appearance, while deviance and working class distinguished the English and Jews. Stereotypes anchor the ethnic hierarchy by transforming the unfamiliar into something known and relate to Dutch institutions and values. Racial differences played a minor role in the process, with cultural standards being more influential. The study suggests studying stereotypes that unfold hierarchies among multiple outgroups in different contact domains to understand social representations in a multi-ethnic society.