1

20.10.2013 WORK IN PROGRESS PLEASE NO ACADEMIC CITATIONS!

Close Encounters: Minority and Majority Experiences of

Discrimination and Intergroup Relations in Antwerp-Belgium

Ahu Alanya

Karen Phalet

Marc Swyngedouw

Veronique Vandezande

University of Leuven

In spite of persistent disadvantage, increasing numbers of second-generation youngsters are

highly qualified and civically engaged in today‟s European societies. High integration may

not protect them, however, from discrimination in daily intergroup encounters in school, at

work, or in the street. Starting from this so-called „paradox of integration‟, our study develops

an approach from intergroup relations between immigrant minorities and the host majority. Its

twofold aim was: (a) to distinguish minority and majority experiences of (reverse)

discrimination in socio-economic and civic domains, and (b) to relate these experiences to

uneven socio-economic and civic integration and perceived intergroup relations. Drawing on

TIES surveys („The Integration of the European Second generation‟) we compared the

Turkish and Moroccan second generation with the Belgian-origin majority in Antwerp-

Belgium. Most devalued Moroccan Belgians reported most discrimination, Turkish Belgians

significantly less, and majority Belgians least. In addition to socio-economic discrimination,

multi-group CFA revealed domain-specific experiences of civic discrimination in negative

intergroup contact with fellow citizens (e.g., in public space) and with authority (e.g., police).

Though mainly minorities experienced socio-economic discrimination, both minority and

majority reported significant (reverse) civic discrimination. Most discrimination was reported

by highly integrated (i.e., educated and reading newspapers) minority members who

perceived intergroup relations with majority Belgians in Antwerp as insecure or hostile.

2

INTRODUCTION

As the second generation of immigrant origin are integrating into European societies,

significant numbers are completing higher education and participating in politics or in public

life. From the perspective of intergroup relations, the integration of immigrant minorities is a

two-way process which requires mutual acceptance and accommodation between minority

and majority groups (Bourhis et al, 1997; Brown & Zagefka, 2010). In European migration

contexts, predominant majority representations of cultural diversity as a „threat‟ to their

economic interest and cultural identity complicate the societal integration of immigrant

minorities (Van Acker, 2011). As opportunities for intergroup contact between minority and

majority members in today‟s schools, at the workplace, and in public spaces have increased

dramatically, so have opportunities for negative contact experiences. Negative experiences

arise when minority members face disrespectful or discriminatory treatment from the majority

group, or conversely, when majority members feel that their interests or values are threatened

by the presence of minorities.

Against this background, the present research aims to improve our understanding of

second-generation discrimination experiences by contextualizing self-reported discrimination

in a number of ways. From an intergroup relations perspective, discrimination experiences

refer to domain-specific negative encounters between minority and majority group members.

Specifically, we will distinguish (a) between socio-economic and civic domains of

discrimination, (b) between minority and majority group perspectives on (reverse)

discrimination; and (c) within groups between different degrees of socio-economic and civic

integration and varying perceptions or evaluations of intergroup relations.

The paradox of integration. In line with predominant threat representations of immigrants in

media and public attitudes, we find that the presence of immigrant minorities in

neighborhoods or schools is indeed associated with more perceived threat by majority

members (Rink et al, 2008) and more frequent experiences of discrimination by minority

members (Baysu et al, 2013). This downside of integration is known as „the paradox of

integration‟ (Ten Teije et al, 2012), when societal integration exposes minority members to

negative experiences of personal discrimination, which may in turn fuel more general

perceptions of intergroup threat and hostility. In the words of a second-generation Moroccan

student: „I grew up in Antwerp but I have never felt at home here… Even well-meaning

3

comments such as … „I did not know there were Moroccans like you‟ … betray pervasive

bias and prejudice … in our city‟ (DM, May 2, 2013).

As this quote illustrates, experiences of discrimination are closely entwined with their

societal integration. Thus, comparative research with ethnic minority youth across Europe and

North-America reveals experienced discrimination as a major stressor in the process of

psychological acculturation and adjustment (Berry et al, 2007). Likewise, the socio-economic

integration of visible ethnic minorities in Canada did not protect them from feelings of

discrimination and disaffection (Reitz & Banerjee, 2009); and highly educated Muslims in the

Netherlands perceived more group discrimination and evaluated the majority group more

negatively than low-educated minority members (Ten Teije et al, 2013). Accordingly, we

make a distinction between the socio-economic integration of the second generation in

education and in the labor market on the one hand, and their civic integration in civil society

and in politics on the other hand. Socio-economic and civic integration can be dissociated.

The experience of discrimination. Existing empirical evidence of ethnic discrimination

pertains mainly to educational inequalities (Heath et al, 2008; for Belgium: Phalet et al, 2007)

and to ethnic exclusion in the labor market (Heath & Cheung, 2007; for Belgium: Phalet

2007). The (restricted) socio-economic integration of immigrant minorities has been

associated with actual discrimination indirectly, by way of statistical decomposition methods

(Blank et al, 2004; Holzer & Ludwig 2003; Yinger 1998: Altonji & Blank 1999; for Belgium:

Castelain-Kinet et al, 1998; Martens et al, 2005; Phalet, 2007; Phalet et al, 2011), as well as

directly, through quasi-experiments or so-called situation tests (Amadieu 2004; Zegers de

Beijl 2000). Adding to this literature, our study develops reliable and valid measures of self-

reported discrimination by immigrant minorities and tests their association with objective

indicators of socio-economic integration (education and employment). While the socio-

economic discrimination of immigrant minorities in Europe is well-documented, much less is

known about their discrimination experiences in the civic domain, such as when they

experience ethnic exclusion, harassment or disrespect from fellow citizens or from public

authorities. The latter domains account for significant portions of racist incidents reported by

minorities (Simon & Sabbagh, 2005; for Belgium: CGKR annual report 2012). Therefore, the

present study extends the scope of self-report measures beyond the socio-economic domain to

include also civic domains of discrimination.

In line with an approach from intergroup relations between immigrant minority and

majority groups, a unique strength of our study is the simultaneous analysis of both minority

4

and majority perspectives on discrimination. Majority members may experience so-called

„reverse discrimination‟ when immigrant minorities are seen to encroach upon majority

entitlements, for instance, to the better schools or jobs in the city, or when minorities are

outnumbering majority Belgians in „majority minority‟ neighborhoods. From an intergroup

relations approach, experiences of discrimination are tied up with unequal power hierarchies

between social groups in society, so that less powerful minority groups are generally less

protected from unfair or hostile treatment than the dominant majority group (i.e., group

position theory; cf. Blumer, 1958; Bobo, 1988). By implication, socio-economically

vulnerable or socio-politically disaffected majority members may experience reverse

discrimination, when the presence of minorities is seen to threaten their dominant group

position in the city.

Separate research lines in sociology and social psychology have documented minority

experiences of discrimination and majority prejudice in European societies (Phalet et al,

2013). As a consequence, majority perspectives are typically missing from research on

discrimination. The present study bridges both lines of inquiry into minority discrimination

and majority prejudice. When immigrant minorities are seen to threaten the economic interest

or the cultural identity of the majority, we argue that the integration of the second generation

risks to exacerbate (rather than reduce) intergroup discrimination and hostility. To put this

argument to an empirical test, his study includes minority as well as majority experiences of

(reverse) discrimination, as part of mutually reinforcing minority and majority perceptions of

intergroup hostility or threat.

Look ahead. In a first step, our study will distinguish and compare minority and majority

experiences of (reverse) discrimination in socio-economic and civic domains. In a next step,

group- and domain-specific discrimination experiences will be related to uneven levels of

integration and to perceptions of intergroup context within minority and majority groups. The

analyses will draw on the TIES surveys („The Integration of the European Second

generation‟) of the Turkish and Moroccan second generation in Antwerp, and a comparison

group of majority Belgians in the same urban neighborhoods. All participants are young

adults (aged 18 to 35) who were born in Belgium. For more information on samples,

fieldwork procedures and data quality, we refer to the technical report (Swyngedouw, Phalet,

Baysu, Vandezande & Fleischmann, 2008). The paper is organized as follows. First, we argue

our theoretical expectations from the research literature. Next, we describe the research

context and groups in Antwerp and introduce our TIES survey data and measures. After

5

presenting our results, we conclude with some wider implications for improving intergroup

relations in European cities.

THEORETICAL EXPECTATIONS

Minority and Majority Experiences of Discrimination

For minority group members, experienced discrimination (ED) refers to their generally

disadvantaged position in society, so that they are more likely to become targets of unfair or

hoistile treatment in minority-majority encounters. In addition, also persons belonging to the

nominal majority may report feelings of discrimination when they feel threatened by the

minority population. In particular, when their dominant group position, and the attached

advantages and prerogatives are challenged by the presence of ethnic minorities; we refer to

the ensuing feelings of threat as experiences of “reverse discrimination”. Previous research

has shown that perceived group threat predicts resistance against ethnic minorities by

members of the national majority (Rink et al, 2008; Scheepers et al, 2002; Van Acker, 2011).

One example is the finding that majority inhabitants of multicultural cities such as Brussels

and Rotterdam report experiences of discrimination in specific domains where intergroup

competition is most keenly felt, such as access to social services, which is in line with

perceived welfare threat from immigrant minorities (De Rycke et al, 1999 in Brussels; Phalet

et al, 2000 in Rotterdam). For the majority group, experiences of discrimination thus refer to

situations where intergroup comparison or contact is seen to pose a threat to their dominant

group position (Blumer, 1958; Bobo, 1988).

Combining minority and majority perspectives, we conceive of experienced (reverse)

discrimination on both sides as part of „recursive cycles of threat‟ in negative intergroup

relations. For example, majority youth who endorsed more strongly a predominant threat

representation of immigrant minorities, reported more frequent negative experiences in daily

contacts with immigrant minorities in an ethnically mixed secondary school (Van Acker,

2011). From the side of minorities, more frequent experiences of personal discrimination had

similar negative consequences. Thus, personal discrimination experiences in school were

longitudinally related to school disengagement (Baysu et al, 2012). Thus, negative

experiences of intergroup contact may become self-enforcing through generalized negative

attitudes or feelings on both sides of the ethnic divide. The ensuing feelings of frustration and

anger on the side of immigrant minorities have also been associated with political unrest, such

as the urban riots that took place in several European capitals including Brussels (Vandezande

6

et al. 2011). In the eyes of the majority group, media images of political protest or street

violence by immigrant minorities are readily condemned as illegitimate claims making; and

they are adding to preexisting negative perceptions of intergroup conflict or threat (Kinder

and Sanders, 1996; Meeussen et al, 2011). In short, threat perceptions tend to become self-

enforcing through cumulative negative experiences of intergroup contact between immigrant

minority and majority groups.

Against this background, the present study includes both minority and majority group

perspectives on (reverse) discrimination. Our measure of experienced discrimination indicates

the self-reported frequency of personal discrimination in specific domains, differentiating

between systematic (regular) or incidental (less frequent) discrimination, or none. In line with

the power hierarchy between majority and minority groups in Belgian society, we hypothesize

that Turkish and Moroccan minorities will experience much more frequent discrimination

than the majority group. Moreover, we hypothesize that Moroccan Belgians will experience

most discrimination, because they are placed at the bottom end of a quasi-consensual „ethnic

hierarchy‟ of minority groups in society (Hagendoorn, 1995; Phalet & Gijsberts, 2010). While

both Turkish and Moroccan minorities are devalued in Belgium, Moroccans are the most

stigmatised minority as prototypical Muslims (religious prejudice) and alleged „Arabs‟ (racial

prejudice). Accordingly, Table 1 shows relative group evaluations of the majority and both

minority groups (as targets) by majority, Turkish and Moroccan Belgian respondents in the

TIES surveys. Group evaluations were rated on a „feeling thermometer‟ ranging from most

positive to most negative feelings. Taking into account universal „ingroup favoritism‟ (all

respondents like their in-group best), inter-group evaluations converge on the expected ethnic

hierarchy, with the Belgian majority group being most liked, the Turkish minority less, and

the Moroccan minority least.

7

Table 1. Relative Group Evaluations of Belgian majority and Turkish and Moroccan minority

groups by majority, Turkish and Moroccan participants (mean ratings from 0 = most negative to 100

= most positive feelings)

Belgians Turks Moroccans Intergroup

Evaluations†

Evaluations of

Belgians

79 (in-group)

73

70

72

Turks 62 79 (in-group) 63 63

Moroccans 55 51 74 (in-group) 53

† mean of the two out-group evaluations

Source: TIES BELGIUM 2007-2008, ISPO-CSCP, University of Leuven

Discrimination in Socio-economic and Civic Domains

Since discrimination has most often been studied as a possible explanation of socio-economic

disadvantage, it is habitually conceived in terms of mechanisms of exclusion in schools and

labor markets. As a consequence, experiences of discrimination outside of the socio-economic

realm of educational and occupational attainment have received much less attention. In most

research on ethnic discrimination, actual discrimination is derived from the unexplained

„ethnic penalties‟ on the socio-economic outcomes of immigrant minorities relative to the

majority reference group. Self-report measures of experienced discrimination are often

lacking and even when self-reported discrimination is included as a possible explanation of

actual disadvantage, it is usually restricted to single-item measures (Heath et al, 2013). In the

absence of empirical proof of reliable and valid measurement, it is commonly assumed that

experiences of personal discrimination are unidimensional. Reasoning from situated

intergroup encounters in different life domains, we challenge the unidiemnsional view and

argue instead that experiences of discrimination may well be domain-specific.

More precisely, we distinguish between socio-economic and civic intergroup contexts

of discrimination in line with distinct socio-economic and civic domains of immigrant

integration (Swyngedouw, Phalet & Deschouwer, 1999). Whereas socio-economic refers to

unequal access to socio-economic opportunities and resources, civic discrimination excludes

minority members from equal rights and due respect as fellow citizens in multicultural cities.

Discrimination in one domain does not necessarily spill over into other domains. For instance,

successful minority students may escape discrimination in school or at work, yet they may be

8

regular targets of identity checks by the police depending on where they live or where they go

out in the city. We conclude that both domains of experienced discrimination carry distinct

meanings of social disadvantage and disvaluation; and they have different pragmatic

consequences in the lives of the second generation.

As distinct from socio-economic discrimination, civic discrimination experiences have

been less researched to date. As a consequence of increasing diversity in today‟s civil society

and public institutions, however, especially in urban areas with high shares of ethnic minority

inhabitants, the social relations connecting fellow citizens have increasingly (also) become

intergroup relations. From an intergroup relations perspective, then, experiences of

discrimination may arise from negative intergroup contact in any social or institutional

context where minority and majority groups meet. We aim to explore the different meanings

of ED in civic domains, including hostile intergroup encounters in public spaces, in particular,

in ethnically diverse urban areas, and negative encounters with the police as representing

public authority, in particular when visible minorities are targeted for identity checks in their

neighbourhood or when going out (see Barnes, 2000, for a similar domain-specific approach

to racism in the US).

To examine domain-specific experiences of discrimination, our study uses extensive

measures of the self-reported frequencies of discrimination in different life domains where

intergroup encounters may happen. Looking beyond the much studied socio-economic domain

of discrimination in education and in the labour market, our measure also covers intergroup

encounters in the civic domain in the broadest possible sense, including formal intergroup

encounters with public authorities or institutions, as well as informal encounters in civil

society or public space (e.g., FRA 2007; Russell, Quinn, King, O‟Riain & McGinnity 2008;

Feagin 1991). Since discrimination has most often been studied as a possible explanation of

socio-economic disadvantage, it is habitually conceived in terms of mechanisms of exclusion

in schools and labor markets. As a consequence, experiences of discrimination outside of the

socio-economic realm of educational and occupational attainment have received much less

attention.

Using multi-group confirmatory factor analysis to estimate the underlying structure of

discrimination experiences in the different groups, we examine whether experienced

discrimination are organised around specific domains (multidimensional hypothesis).

Specifically, we refer to socio-economic discrimination when discrimination experiences refer

to the disadvantaged socio-economic position of minorities and when discriminatory

treatment is attributed to decision makers or procedures in schools or in the labour market. A

9

distinct civic domain of discrimination consists of negative intergroup experiences in private

encounters with other citizens in public space and leisure time, e.g., when using public

transport or when going out, as well as institutional encounters with public authority who

represent formal authority, rules or procedures, such as the police or the municipality.

This multidimensional conceptualisation and measurement of experienced

discrimination allows us to validate the quantity and quality of discrimination experiences

across the different groups, and to differentiate further between more or less frequent

discrimination experiences in different life domains within each group. Thus, we will explore

whether civic discrimination experiences are more reciprocal across minority and majority

groups than socio-economic discrimination, which is much more frequently reported by

minorities than by Belgian majority members. We expect this because ethnic discrimination in

access to employment and on school is generally seen and often accepted as one of the causes

for the more disadvantaged position of minorities on the labour market. This has also been

confirmed by studies (Martens e.a. 2005, Castelain-Kinet e.a. 1998).

Who experiences more discrimination? Socio-economic and civic integration and perceived

intergroup relations in the city

While there is a well-established literature on the salience of ED as an explanatory factor,

particularly how it both reflects and shapes integration of immigrants (i.e. Phalet and

Swyngedouw, 2003; Jasinskaja-Lahti et al, 2006; Reitz and Banerjee, 2009), there are few

survey studies of second-generation that focus on the factors that influence ED. Most research

on ED has focused almost exclusively on the impact of the ED on various outcomes including

educational achievement, labour market participation, health and well-being. To be sure, some

studies also looked at associates of ED. Such studies have most often investigated the effects

of individual characteristics on ED such as gender, education or psychological variables ( e.g.

Phinney et al., 1998; Eccleston and Major, 2006). For instance, there is a near consensus on

the potential effect of gender on experienced discrimination while the direction of the effect is

context dependent. Education, on the other hand, is most often associated with experienced

discrimination in the frame of “integration paradox” (Dixon et al. 2010, Tolsma et al. 2012,

Doorn et al. 2012) which suggests that experienced discrimination increases with higher

educational achievement. Although these studies contribute to a better understanding of what

feeds the feelings of discrimination among immigrants, they most often have limitations in

terms of data, and they hardly go beyond examination of sociodemographic associates of

10

experienced discrimination ignoring its dimensionality and its association with perceptions

about the inter-group context.

We analyse which people, within the ethnic groups, experience more discrimination. To

this end, we explore three kinds of factors: Socio-economic attainment (employment status,

educational qualification), gender, perceived local and inter-group context1 (increased

violence, loss of income, share of ingroup in neighbourhood, and perceived friendliness) and

civic involvement (following the local news). These factors can contribute to ED in several

ways. Both „objective‟ disadvantage and the more subjective assessment of it can contribute

to feelings of exclusion and deprivation (Blumer 1958); they can trigger feelings of being the

victim of discrimination. Furthermore, it can also imply a lack of resources to avoid or change

discriminatory contexts and events. For example, Wimmer (2000) argues that especially the

expectation that living conditions will deteriorate in the future might have a serious impact on

ED. Concerning the perception of intergroup context, we will study two aspects. We

hypothesize that higher shares of ingroup in the direct living environments of people will

decrease the probability of ED: there first needs to be an occasion in which discrimination can

occur, before discrimination can actually take place (even in the perceptions of people).

In addition, we hypothesize that the more negative persons evaluate interethnic contacts

in Antwerp/ in Belgium in general, the more likely they will be to interpret their own

experiences with out-groups as discrimination particularly in the public spaces. These

negative perceptions of intergroup relations in general offer as a frame in which their own

experiences can be imagined to be part of a collective and unjust group condition. In the same

vein civic involvement, measured as actively following the local news, can increase the

probability that minorities frame their negative experiences in a broader frame of collective

and unjust relations. Civic involvement might activate frames through which ethnic minorities

can interpret negative experiences as discrimination against oneself and potentially use them

as a means to collective action against such practices. For people of the Belgian origin

majority, we do not think that following the local news has a substantive effect since the

„mainstream‟ civic sphere does not offer them the right frames for „majority discrimination‟

(which is mainly seen as a minority problem).

1 We want to remark that the predictors are not „purely‟ exogenous causes of ED, but can also be endogenous,

since they can (partially) be the result of past experiences of ED.

11

THE CONTEXT OF THE STUDY

We focus on the case of Antwerp, the biggest unilingual city in Flanders and the second

biggest city of Belgium which has received a relatively large share of Turkish and Moroccan

immigrants since the early 1970s. Table 2 shows the numbers of the Moroccan and Turkish

origin groups in Antwerp. Together, they make up 10% of the total population. Nevertheless,

the official statistics on the basis of nationality hugely under-represent the second generation,

which is here defined by the criterion of having at least one parent with a foreign place of

birth.

As a world port, Antwerp has developed an industrial economy and attracted many low-

skilled workers, who were hit hard by a late yet brutal post-industrial transition. As labor

migrants, Turkish and Moroccan workers in Antwerp were originally recruited from the less

developed regions of Turkey and Morocco with generally very low levels of literacy and

schooling. As a consequence, they were disproportionately affected by the shrinking of the

industrial sector, which resulted in high rates of unemployment and economic inactivity

among the first generation.

Table 2. Turkish and Moroccan origin population and Belgian Reference Population in Antwerp

(2007)

Nationality criterion

Place of birth parents

criterion

N % N %

Belgian origin 402470 86,4% 342116 73,5%

Moroccan origin 11797 2,5% 34751 7,5%

Turkish origin 4242 0,09% 11215 2,4%

TOTAL 465596 100% 465596 100%

Source: DSPA 2007 (www.dspa.be), author‟s calculations

Apart from its economic make-up and its difficult transition to a post-industrial labor market,

there is another reason why Antwerp is a critical case for the study of discrimination: its

highly salient, polarised and politicised „ethnic divides‟ separating immigrant and host

communities. Ethnic divisions are due – at least in part - to the electoral success of the anti-

immigrant party Vlaams Belang (Hino, 2007; Swyngedouw & Van Craen, 2001/2). Over the

last decade, the large and steadily increasing electorate of the party (i.e., 35% of the votes in

http://www.dspa.be/

12

Antwerp as against 25% in Flanders at large in the last regional elections in 2004) has

dominated public policies and debates over issues of immigration and integration in line with

the rise of extreme-right in other parts of Europe. While the discourse of the Vlaams Belang

excludes ethnic minorities, it offers a frame to the host majority that blames ethnic minorities

for social problems. Furthermore, local media coverage of Vlaams Belang, offensive party

slogans and posters depicting Muslims as a threat (such as pictures of minarets rising above

the cathedral) as well as party‟s call for a forced repatriation of immigrants have led to higher

awareness among ethnic minority groups making them vulnerable to feelings of being

discriminated. All these make Antwerp an interesting case for studying ED.

DATA AND MEASURES

In this paper, we focus on personal experiences of discrimination, which are narrowly defined

as experiences of „unfair or hostile treatment because of one‟s origin or background‟. We

examine the lived personal experience of discrimination among the second generation of

immigrant origin, as compared to same-age native origin inhabitants of diverse urban

neighborhoods using data from the Belgian TIES surveys 2007-2008 of the Turkish and

Moroccan second generation in Antwerp and a native comparison group in the same

ethnically diverse urban neighborhoods (Swyngedouw, Phalet, Baysu, Vandezande &

Fleischmann, 2008). The TIES survey of Antwerp was conducted using Computer Assisted

Personal Interviewing (CAPI) in 2007/8. The population considered for this survey is the

residents of the City of Antwerp between the age of 18 and 35 who were born in Belgium and

have at least one parent who was born in Turkey or Morocco. Belgian origin respondents are

selected in the same neighbourhoods as the second generation Turks and Moroccans to

increase the probability of intergroup contact and partly match the living conditions of the

populations under study. A total of 973 respondents were interviewed: 358 Turks, 312

Moroccans, and 303 natives.

The dependent variable, “experienced discrimination” is measured by 7 items with five-

point scales ranging from never to frequently. Three items measured discrimination in the

socio-economic realm: “As a secondary school student, how often did you personally

experience hostility or unfair treatment because of your origin or background?". Similar

questions are posed on other topics and realms including looking for a job, on the street or in

public transports, in the neighbourhood and when going out in dancing‟s, cafés, or restaurants,

and in encounters with the police.

13

Socio-economic background is measured as (1) employment status (unemployed, employed,

student, inactive: other) and (2) educational qualifications (tertiary education, lower than

tertiary education). Perceived socio-economic threat is measured as (1) perceived loss of

income (“I am afraid that my living conditions, such as my income and work, will become

worse in the near future"); (2) increase in violence (“violence and vandalism will increase in

our society”), answers are recorded on a five point scale ranging from totally disagree to

totally agree; and (3) share of ingroup was measured with a 7-point likert scale item asking “If

you now think of all the people living in your neighborhood, how many of them are of

[Turkish/ Moroccan/Belgian] origin? (Answer choices were almost none, less than 25%,

approximately 25%, approximately half, approximately 75%, more than 75%, almost

everybody).

Evaluation of the quality of intergroup contact is measured with the item: “In general, to

what extent would you describe the relationship between people of Belgian origin and people

of [Turkish/Moroccan] origin in Antwerp as friendly?" Answers are ranging from not friendly

at all to very friendly on a five point scale. Lastly, local news followership was measured with

the item “Do you sometimes follow the news about Antwerp‟s local politics in the

newspapers, television, radio, or on the Internet?”, for which answers ranged between never

to frequently.

RESULTS

Experienced Discrimination Across Different Life Domains

Descriptive findings comparing differences in ED across groups and life domains confirm our

hypothesis that Belgian majority experience the least and the Moroccan minority experience

the most discrimination in Antwerp; indeed this pattern is one of the most striking finding (see

Figure 1). In almost all domains of life the Moroccan second generation members report more

discrimination than both the Turkish second generation and the Belgian origin majority. The

latter always experiences the least discrimination because of origin or background of the three

groups studied, and the Turkish group takes a middle-position. This is consistent with

expectations based on the „ethnic hierarchy‟ in Table 1.

In general most (incidental and systematic) discrimination is experienced in civic realm

of life where minorities and majority members cross each other on the street or in public

transport. For the Belgian and the Moroccan origin group this domain comes in the first place,

14

and for Turks in the second. Another domain in civic realm where ED is more common is

“going out” for the Belgians and Moroccans. To a lesser extent, but we also see a high share

reports systematic discrimination amongst Turks (almost 10%) in this domain. Furthermore,

the share of Moroccan origin groups that report systematic discrimination while going out is

extremely high (almost 25%). Although “going out” does not have the highest mean level of

discrimination, it is clear that certain shares of the two minorities under study report very high

incidences of discrimination while going out. For example, the Structural Equation Model that

follows will show that males are significantly more likely to perceive discrimination in this

domain.

Looking at levels of ED in socio-economic realm, we see that it is an important locus of

discrimination for minority groups, and less so for the Belgian origin group. Mean levels of

ED show that the Turkish origin group experience most discrimination when looking for work

and they also report high levels of discrimination at school. Conversely, people of Belgian

origin mention lower levels of ED in socio-economic realm. This also becomes apparent in

Figure 1, in which we see no or very few Belgian origin respondents reporting systematic

discrimination, and only few reporting incidental discrimination. The differences with the

second generation groups are largest in the three the socio-economic domains (i.e. looking for

work, at work and at school). This is in line with the hypothesis that socio-economic realm

will be more relevant for the minorities than for the majority, because of the focus on this

realm in public debates and recognition of ED as one of the causes for the more

disadvantaged position of minorities on the labour market.

15

Figure 1. Percentages Systematic, Incidental, No Experiences of Discrimination by Group and Domain

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

belg

ian

turk

ish

mo

roccan

belg

ian

turk

ish

mo

roccan

belg

ian

turk

ish

mo

roccan

belg

ian

turk

ish

mo

roccan

belg

ian

turk

ish

mo

roccan

belg

ian

turk

ish

mo

roccan

belg

ian

turk

ish

mo

roccan

street/public

transport

in neighborhood going out encounters with

police

looking for a job at the

workplace

at school

systematic

incidental

never

Source: TIES BELGIUM 2007-2008, ISPO-CSCP, University of Leuven

16

Experienced Discrimination in socioeconomic and civic realms

To explore communality between different domains of experienced discrimination and reduce

measurement error in the subsequent analysis by having multiple indicators, we constructed

latent factor models using Mplus software (version 6.0, Muthén & Muthén, 2010). We had

seven manifest „indicator‟ variables as listed in Appendix: ED at school, ED on the street or in

public transport, ED in the neighbourhood, ED when going out, ED in encounters with the

police, ED at the workplace and ED when looking for a job. We expected to find latent factors

of ED corresponding to discrimination experiences in socio-economic and civic realms.

First, we tested the hypothesis that all variables in confirmatory factor analysis

constitute one latent factor. This single factor would stand for the generalised experience of

being treated unfairly in society because of origin or background. Such a model would mean

that the level of discrimination experienced in different domains of life can vary, but that

these experiences „vary together‟. This one-dimensional model clearly did not fit, and this is

true for all the groups under study. We used the conventional fit indices to evaluate the

general fit of the model, more specifically we used CFI ≥ 0.90 and RMSEA < 0.06 (Hu and

Bentler, 1999). Apart from the bad general fit of the model, in all groups we encountered high

and problematic modification indices.

Based on theoretical expectations, we constructed separate multiple group structural

equation models (MGSEMs) for socio-economic and civic realms. As we expected, domains

of ED in socio-economic realm (at workplace, looking for a job, school) were highly

correlated. In fact, ED at school was also highly correlated with ED in civic realm.

Nevertheless, we did not run a common MGSEM for socio-economic and civic realms since

latent variables were highly correlated, a considerable number of respondents had not looked

for a job or worked previously (TIES project surveyed second generation immigrants of age

18-35 years old) and because we expected that ED in those realms have different associations

with socio-demographic and inter-group context variables. Therefore we constructed separate

multiple group structural equation models (MGSEMs) for socio-economic and civic realms to

avoid estimation difficulties. Figure 2 shows the common unstandardised measurement

models for the two realms for all groups.

17

Figure 2: Multi-group Measurement models for ED in civic and socio-economic realms (unstandardized parameter estimates)

.

0.54†

1.83

1.00Street

Neighbourhood

Goingout

Police

Public

Authority

1.00

0.71

Chi-square= 33.978, df=23, p-value=0.065, RMSEA=0.038

Model 1: ED in civic realm Model 2: ED in socio-economic realm

1.17

1.31

1.00

Chi-square=9.67, df=16, p-value=0.883, RMSEA=0

School

Looking for a job

Workplace

Soci-economic

† Factor covariance was not restrained to be equal across groups. It was 0.54 for minority groups and 0.45 for Belgian.s†† Both models are estimated using Weighted Least Squares for Categorical Variables. Muthén, B. (1984)

18

We found a fitting latent structure in civic realm in the data in line with our theoretical

assumptions (See Model 1 in Figure 2). This latent structure achieved full measurement

equivalence (equal loadings and thresholds) across the three groups: Belgian majority and

Turkish and Moroccan Minority groups. First latent concept in this model is indicated by ED

on the street or in public transport and ED in the neighbourhood. This is consistent with our

hypothesis and can be considered as ED in public space. As we initially expected, going out

was not a part of this latent factor, and it goes together with ED in encounters with the police.

The communality lies in the authority that can be exercised in these contexts, for example,

screening of people by night club bouncers. Discrimination by night club bouncers and other

street level discrimination are frequently reported to CGKR, the official anti-discrimination

authority in Belgium. This kind of discrimination is known to be targeted exclusively towards

men. It is a specific factor which implies conflicts and critical incidents with public/private

order and authority. We labelled this dimension Authority. This model showed significant

mean differences between Belgian majority and minority groups in public space. In addition

Moroccan were more likely to experience discrimination in contacts with the authorities.

We also achieved full measurement invariance for the socio-economic realm with three

indicators ED while looking for a job, ED at workplace and ED at school. (See Model 2 in

Figure 2), with good model fit. Similar to the civic realm minority groups were significantly

higher mean levels of ED in the socio-economic realm.

Predictors of ED in socio-economic and civic realms

Now that we sketched some „group‟ profiles and respective latent structures of ED in civic

and socio-economic realms, we want to explore the variability within the groups: which

people experience discrimination? Because we reached full measurement invariance both

realms of ED, next we added covariates to the models. All the variables were introduced in

the model at the same time, so the effects are controlled for all the other variables in the

model. The standardised within group effects can be found in Table 3 and Table 4. Below we

discuss the predictors of ED starting with the socio-economic domain.

Within the EU, Belgium stands out as one of the countries with the largest gap in

unemployment between natives and immigrants. Particularly in Flanders, unemployment rate

is considerably higher for men of immigrant origin (27%) compared to native Belgians (5%);

female unemployment rate is systematically slightly higher than the male while the gap

between immigrants and natives remains large, 29% vs. 6% for immigrant and native women

19

respectively (VDAB Studiedienst, 2009). We suggest that socio-economic realm is essential

to understand ED in Belgium and discrimination in this realm is more likely to spill over to

other domains. Below we investigate which individuals within groups are most affected by

these disparities and feel most discriminated.

In general, variables in our model were more predictive of ED among minority groups

than the majority group in the socio-economic domain. The only significant effect for the

Belgian origin group was that of education which protected native Belgians against ED:

higher educated Belgians were less likely to feel discriminated. This is compatible with the

Ethnic Competition Theory; those with higher educational achievement perceive less threat

from the increasing competition. Alternatively, native Belgians with higher educational

attainment may have lower number of immigrants at workplace and may have more job

security guarding them against feelings of being discriminated. One way or another, the more

educated the native Belgians, the less likely they are to feel discriminated against due to their

origin. This effect was absent for the minority groups in our case.

In the minority groups, on the other hand, we found several strong effects among which

gender and local news media followership were common to both groups. Moroccan and

Turkish men were more likely to feel discriminated than women in the socio-economic

domain, namely while looking for a job or at workplace. Similarly, local news followership

increased ED among the second generation Turks and Moroccans. The strong effect for local

news followership was no surprise given the media coverage of extreme right political

discourse and the disadvantage of immigrants in the labour market.

In addition to gender and local news followership, one other predictor was important for

Turkish group: being unemployed increased ED substantively (standardized coefficient equal

to 0.40). This is in line with the hypothesis that disadvantage on the labour market is

positively related to ED, and mainly to discrimination experienced in the socio-economic

realm (the effect of unemployment was absent for Turks in civic dimensions, see Table 4). For

Moroccans, on the other hand, being a student was a more important predictor of ED in the

socioeconomic domain. The reason why the effect of being a student is strong for Moroccans

and absent for Turks in the socioeconomic domain might be that Moroccans are shown to be

more ambitious with their school careers compared to Turks in the Belgian case (Neels and

Stoop, 2000). They are also more likely to have higher percentage of native Belgians at school

and workplace or have contact with native Belgians while looking for jobs or internships. For

example, Turks tend to rely more on their ethnic network for jobs and they are more likely to

20

run their own business such as restaurants (e.g. kebap shops) where again Turks make up the

majority of co-workers and the clients (Phalet & Heath 2010).

21

Table 3: Predicting Experienced Discrimination in Civic and Socio-economic Dimensions for Second Generation Turks and

Moroccans (standardized model estimates)

Turkish Second Generation Moroccan Second Generation

Socio-

economic

Civic:

Public space

Civic:

Authority

Socio-

economic

Civic:

Public space

Civic:

Authority

Gender Women -0.29** ns -0.58**

-0.37** -0.22** -

0.67**

Socio-economic integration

Unemployed 0.40** ns ns

ns ns ns

Inactive: student ns ns ns

0.21** 0.21* -.14*

Inactive: other ns -0.14* -0.19**

ns ns ns

Higher educ ns ns ns

ns ns ns

Civic integration Read news 0.25** 0.19** 0.13*

ns ns ns

Perceived threat

Safety threat 0.19* 0.21** ns

ns 0.19* ns

Economic threat ns ns 0.13* 0.22* ns ns

Local group size Rel group size ns ns ns 0.20* ns

Intergroup conflict Perc. hostility 0.17* 0.32** 0.21**

0.20* 0.30** 0.26**

*: p = 0.05 **: p

22

Table 4: Predicting Experienced Discrimination in Civic and Socio-economic Dimensions for native Belgians (standardized model estimates)

Socioecon

omic

Civic:

Public space

Civic:

Authority

Gender Women ns ns -0.324

Socio-economic

integration

Unemployed 0.26** ns ns

Inactive: student ns 0.15 ns

Inactive: other ns ns ns

Higher educ -0.22* ns ns

Civic integration Read news ns ns ns

Perceived threat

Safety threat ns ns 0.18

Economic threat ns ns ns

Local group size Rel group size ns -0.16 ns

Intergroup conflict Perc. hostility ns ns ns

*: p = 0.05 **: p

23

We found similar but a more complex picture than outlined for the socio-economic realm

when we turned to ED in civic dimension. As expected gender remained as an important

predictor for the minority groups, especially when looking at ED related to encounters with

the police or when going out. The problem of ED in going out and in encounters with the

police is a very specific male problem, particularly for the Moroccan men. Being male was an

important predictor of ED also for the Belgian majority group in the civic dimensions.

Overall it appears from Table 3 and Table 4 that minority and majority groups shared

only one other predictor of ED in addition to gender: fear of increase in violence in society. In

line with Wimmer (2000) we hypothesized that the expectation that living conditions will

become worse in the future has a positive impact on ED. This is confirmed: we found that the

more pessimistic people are about their future living conditions, the more likely they are to

experience personal discrimination towards them. For both minorities, being afraid of future

violence in society and being worried about their own future living context had a significant

influence on the extent of discrimination that they perceive towards them. Notably, this effect

was even larger for the Belgian origin majority.

Not surprisingly, perceived friendliness of group relations had the strongest effect in the

civic dimension following gender for the minority groups. We hypothesized that if people

consider group relations to be of bad quality, they would be more inclined to frame their own

experiences accordingly and would be more likely to report higher levels of discrimination.

This indeed seems to be the case; we found that the extent to which people report

discrimination to their group in general and the extent to which they characterise intergroup

relations as unfriendly increases the extent of ED towards themselves. Although it may seem

as given that ED would be correlated with perceived friendliness, we did not find a similar

effect in the socio-economic domain and for the Belgian origin group. Also common to both

minority groups is the effect of being a student; students seem to experience more

discrimination in the civic dimension (school, street, and neighbourhood). This may be in

most part due to do interactions with peers at school as well as the representatives of authority

in the institutions such as teachers.

For Turks, one consistent finding across all realms of ED was the effect local news

followership. The more closely the Turkish minority followed local news, the more they felt

discriminated. This finding can stimulate further research into which media outlets the

Turkish minority use and analysis of the content in these media outlets. Also particular to the

Turkish group, we found that worry about loss of personal income in the future increases ED

24

while going out or in encounters with the police. Lastly, for the Turkish group, being retired,

homemaker or not able to work (category inactive: other) decreases ED significantly in the

civic dimension. The strong effect of being inactive on ED in controls may be in part due not

going out so much or having fewer encounters with the police. For Moroccans, on the other

hand, apart from the common predictors with the Turkish group including the positive effect

of being male, student, fear of violence and negative effect of perceived friendliness of groups

relations on PD, we did not find other significant effects.

An interesting finding for the Belgian origin group was the effect of perceived

percentage of ingroup in the neighbourhood. In general, the bigger the share of ingroup

members persons perceive in their direct living environment (neighbourhood), the less likely

they are to perceive discrimination from other groups. This is related to the lower likelihood

of - possibly negative – contacts as well as lower threat perceptions. We found this effect for

the Belgian origin group in civic dimension, but not for the minority groups. In addition to

having a higher share of ingroup in the neighbourhood, having tertiary education also

decreased experiences of discrimination due to origin among the Belgian majority: people

with a diploma of a college or university experience significantly less discrimination.

Notably, this was not the case for neither of the minority groups. This can be interpreted in

terms of the notion of the so-called “integration-paradox” implying that people who are more

integrated are also more sensitive to phenomena of exclusion (Buijs, Demant & Hamdy 2006

in Slootman en Tillie 2006). Although we do not find this pattern for education, we find a

strong effect of local news media followership on ED which is in line with this notion. Lastly,

being unemployed predicts higher levels of ED among the Belgian origin group in the civic

dimension; which is again not found among the minority groups.

25

CONCLUSION

The primary implication of our results is that integration is a dynamic two-way process by

which immigrants are incorporated into a host society and the way host society adapts as it

incorporates its immigrant population. In spite of persisting socio-economic disparities (part

of) 2nd generation is increasingly integrated in the civic domain; they are educated, following

local news and participate in politics. Against this background, ED in civic dimension can be

seen as the downside of civic integration in less welcoming group contexts such as the city of

Antwerp. Along those lines, civic discrimination is experienced most by the discontented

within both Turkish and Moroccan minority groups in Antwerp: students, unemployed, active

citizens who read local news and who define intergroup relations as illegitimate and perceive

future threat to social order.

Majority experiences of civic discrimination, on the other hand, are rather reactive. In

Blumerian (1958) terms they are triggered by a sense of group position and perceptions of

“outgroup encroachment”. Especially the economically vulnerable segments of majority

group (low educated, inactive others= „peripherals‟) experience the increasing numbers

(decreasing share of ingroup in the neighbourhood) of minorities in their city and

neighbourhood as a threat (increase of violence in society). Also, combined minority and

majority perspectives suggest „recursive cycles of threat‟ in intergroup relations so that the

civic integration of the 2nd

generation exacerbates inter-group conflict and gives rise to

mutually enforcing minority and majority experiences of civic discrimination in the multi-

cultural city.

Research on discrimination experiences of second generation has become even more

crucial in the face of immigrant youth riots in several European countries such as France, UK,

Belgium and more recently Sweden. Studying second generation is distinct from studying

first generation immigrants. Despite being born in the country, second generation may be

exposed to higher levels of discrimination than their parents which may lead to

marginalization and feelings of not belonging within the society (Abouguendia and Noels,

2001). We tried to provide more insight into experiences of second generation Turks and

Moroccans in Antwerp-Belgium, which are indicative of long-term prospects of integration

and the groups which are more likely to be at risk of marginalization. However, more research

is needed into experiences of second and third generation immigrants at different levels

(individual, inter-group, societal) to have a more profound view of the effect of experienced

26

personal discrimination and to provide more comprehensive and innovative input for public

policies particularly regarding minority and majority relations that help foster positive

intergroup relations and make boundaries between minority and majority populations more

permeable.

References

Abouguendia, M., and K. Noels. 2001. “General and Acculturation-related Daily Hassles and

Psychological Adjustment in First- and Second generation South Asian Immigrants to

Canada.” International Journal of Psychology 36, 3, p. 163-173.

Alba, R. (2005) “Bright vs. blurred boundaries: Second-generation assimilation and exclusion

in France, Germany, and the United States” Ethnic and racial studies, vol. 28, no. 1, pp20-49.

Altonji, J. & Blank, R. (1999) “Race and gender in the labor market”. In Ashenfelter, O. &

Card, D. (eds) Handbook of labor economics, volume 3, Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Amadieu, J. (2004) Enquête “testing” sur CV, Adia/ Paris I – Observatoire des

discriminations.

Asparouhov T. and Muthen B. (2010)”Multiple Imputation with Mplus”, Technical Report.

Version 2

Barnes, Annie (2000) Everyday Racism: A book for all Americans, Naperville, Ill. :

Sourcebooks.

Baysu, G., Phalet, K. and Brown, R. (2013), “Relative group size and minority school

success: The role of intergroup friendship and discrimination experiences”. British Journal of

Social Psychology. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12035

Blank, R., Dabady, M. & Citro, C. (2004) Measuring racial discrimination, Washington D.C.:

The national academies press.

Blumer, H. (1958) Race prejudice as a sense of group position, Pacific Sociological Review,

1, pp3-7.

Branscombe, N., Schmitt, M. & Harvey, R. (1999) “Perceiving pervasive discrimination

among African Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being”, Journal of

personality and social psychology, vol. 77, no. 1, pp135-149.

Bobo, L. (1988) “Group conflict, prejudice, and the paradox of contemporary racial attitudes”.

In Katz, P.A. and Taylor, D.A. (eds.) Eliminating racism: profiles in controversy, New York:

Plenum.

Buijs, F., Demant, F. & Hamdi, A. (2006) Strijders van eigen bodem. Radicale en

democratische moslims in Nederland, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. In Slootman,

27

M. & Tillie, J. (2006) Processen van radicalisering. Waarom sommige Amsterdamse moslims

radicaal worden, Amsterdam: Instituut voor Migratie- en Etnische Studies.

Cantisani, G. en Poulain, N. (2006) “Statistics on population with usual residence”. In

Poulain, M., Perrin, N. en Singleton, A. (red.) THESIM Towards Harmonised European

Statistics on International Migration, Louvain-La-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.

Castelain-Kinet, F., Es-Safi, L., Feld, S. & Lannoy, F. (1998) “Results in the Walloon

region”. In Arrijn, P., Feld, S. & Nayer, A. (1998) “Discrimination in access to employment

on grounds of foreign origin: the case of Belgium” International migration papers, 23,

Geneva, ILO

De Rycke, K, Swyngedouw, M. & Phalet, K. (1999) “De subjectieve ervaring van

discriminatie”. In Swyngedouw, M., Phalet, K. & Deschouwer, K. (eds.) Minderheden in

Brussel, Brussel: VUB Press.

Dion, K. L. (2001). The Social Psychology of Perceived Prejudice and Discrimination.

Canadian Psychology, 43 (1), 1-10.

Dixon J., Durrheim K., Tredoux C., Tropp L., Beverly C., and Eaton L. (2010) “A Pardox of

Integration? Interracial contact, Prejudice reduction, and perceptions of Racial discrimination”

Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 66, No.2, pp. 401-406.

Doorn M., Scheepers P., Dagevos J. (2012) “Explaining the Integration Paradox Among

Small Immigrant Groups in the Netherlands” International Migration and IntegrationDOI

10.10007/s121134-012-0244-6.

Eccleston, C. P., Major, B. N. (2006). Attributions to discrimination and self-esteem: The

role of group identification and appraisals. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9(2),

147-162.

Feagin, J. (1991) “The Continuing Significance of Race: Antiblack Discrimination in Public

Places”, American Sociological review, vol. 56, no. 1, pp101-116.

FRA (2007) “Report on Racism and Xenophobia in the Member States of the EU”, TK-AK-

07-002-EN-C

Fuegen, K. & Biernat, M. (2000) „Defining discrimination in the personal/ group

discrimination discrepancy“, Sex roles, Vol. 43, nrs. 5/6, pp285-310.

Gijsberts, M. (2005) “Opvattingen van autochtonen en allochtonen over de multi-etnische

samenleving”. In Jaarrapport integratie, Den Haag: SCP, WODC, CBS, pp189-205.

Hagendoorn, L. (1995) “Intergroup biases in multiple group systems: The perception of

ethnic hierarchies”. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social

Psychology, Vol. 6 (pp. 199-228). London, UK: Wiley

Heath, A. and Cheung, S. (2006) Ethnic penalties in the labour market: Employers and

discrimination, Department for Work and Pensions Research Report No 341.

28

Heath, A. & Cheung, S.-Y. (2007) (Eds). Unequal chances: Ethnic minorities in Western

labor markets. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Heath, A. & Li, Y. (2007) Measuring the size of the employer contribution to the ethnic

minority employment gap, paper for the national employment panel.

Heath, A., Rothon, C., & Kilpi, E. (2008). The Second Generation in Western Europe:

Education, unemployment and occupational attainment. Annual Review of Sociology.

Hewstone, M. & Brown, R. (Eds.) (1986). Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters.

Oxford: Blackwell.

Hino, A. (2007) “Kenmerken van stemgedrag op 'nieuwe partijen'. Agalev en Vlaams Blok”.

In Swyngedouw, M., Billiet, J. & Goeminne, B. ( eds.) De kiezer onderzocht. De verkiezingen

van 2003 en 2004 in Vlaanderen, Leuven: Universitaire pers Leuven.

Holzer, H. & Ludwig, J. (2003) “Measuring discrimination in education: Are methodologies

from labor and markets useful?” Teachers College Record, vol. 105, no. 6, pp1147–1178.

Hu, L. & Bentler, P. (1999) “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:

Conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural equation modeling, vol. 6, no. 1,

pp1-55.

Jacobs, D. & Rea, A. (2006) "Construction et importation des classements ethniques.

Allochtones et immigrés aux Pays-Bas et en Belgique". Revue Européenne des Migrations

Internationales, Vol. 21 , Nr. 2 , pp 35-59.

Muthén, B. (1984). A general structural equation model with dichotomous, ordered

categorical, and continuous latent variable indicators. Psychometrika, 49, 115-132.

Muthén, L.K. and Muthén, B.O. (1998-2010). Mplus User's Guide

Kasinitz, P., Mollenkopf, J., Waters, M. & Holdaway, J. (2008) Inheriting the City: The

Children of Immigrants Come of Age, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Martens, A., Ouali, N., Van de maele, M., Vertommen, S., Dryon, P. en Verhoeven, H. (2005)

Etnische discriminatie op de arbeidsmarkt in het Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest, Brussel:

Brussels observatorium van de arbeidsmarkt en kwalificaties.

Merton, R. K. and A. S. Kitt (1950) “Contributions to the theory of reference group

behavior”. Merton, R. and Lazarsfeld, P (eds.) New York: The Free Press, pp. 40–105.

Meuleman, B., Davidov, E. and Billiet, J. (2009) Changing Attitudes toward Immigration in

Europe, 2002-2007: A Dynamic Group Conflict Theory Approach. Social Science Research

38(2): 352-365.

29

Neels, K. and Stoop, R. (2000) “Reassessing the Ethnic Gap. Employment of Younger Turks

and Moroccans in Belgium” in: R. Lesthaeghe (Ed.), Communities and Generations: Turkish

and Moroccan Populations in Belgium, Brussel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 279 – 320.

Pettigrew, T. (2002) “Conclusion”. In Walker, I. & Smith, H. (ed.) Relative deprivation :

specification, development, and integration, Cambridge: Cambridge University press.

Phalet, K. and Swyngedouw, M. (2003). Measuring immigrant integration: the case of

Belgium. Studi Emigrazione, 40 (152), 773-803.

Phalet, K. (2007). Down and out: The children of immigrant workers in the Belgian labor

market. In A. Heath & S-Y. Cheung (Eds), Unequal chances. Oxford University Press.

Phalet, K., Deboosere, P. and Bastiaenssen, V. (2007), “Old and new inequalities in

educational Attainment”, in Ethnicities, vol. 7, no. 3, pp390-415.

Phalet, K., van Lotringen, C. & Entzinger, H. (2000) Islam in de multiculturele samenleving:

Opvattingen van jongeren in Rotterdam, Commissioned by: ERCOMER Reports, Utrecht.

Phinney, J. S., Madden, T., Santos, L. J. (2006). Psychological Variables as Predictors of

Perceived Ethnic Discrimination Among Minority and Immigrant Adolescents. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 28(11), 937-953.

Postmes, T., Branscombe, N., Spears, R., & Young, H. (1999) “Comparative processes in

personal and group judgments: Resolving the discrepancy”, Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 76, 320-338.

Reitz, J. & Bannerjee, R. (2007) “Racial inequality, social cohesion, and policy issues in

Canada.” In Banting, K., Courchene, T.J. & Seidle, L. (Eds.) Belonging, Diversity,

Recognition and Shared Citizenship in Canada, Montreal: Institute for Research on Public

Policy.

Rink, N., Phalet, K. and Swyngedouw, M. (2008) “The effects of immigrant population size,

unemployment, and individual characteristics on voting for the Vlaams Blok in Flanders

1991-1999” European Sociological Review, doi:10.1093/esr/jcn028, pp1-14.

Russell, H., Quinn, .E, King, O‟Riain, R. and McGinnity, F. (2008) The experience of

discrimination in Ireland, Dublin: Brunswick press.

Rustenbach, E. (2010) Sources of Negative Attitudes toward Immigrants in Europe: A

Multilevel Analysis. International Migration Review 44(1): 53-77.

Scheepers, P., Gijsberts, M. & 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 (1), 17-34.

Schmitt, M.T., Spears, R., & Branscombe, N.R. (2003). Constructing a minority group

identity out of shared rejection: The case of international students. European Journal of

Social Psychology, 33, 1-12.

30

Semyonov, M., Raijman, R. and Gorodzeisky, A. (2006) The Rise of Anti-Foreigner

Sentiment in European Societies, 1988-2000. American Sociological Review Vol. 71(No. 3):

426-449.

Silberman, R., Alba, R. & Fournier, I. (2007) “Segmented assimilation in France?

Discrimination in the labour market against the second generation”, Ethnic and racial studies,

vol. 30, nr 1., pp1-27.

Simon, P. & Sabbagh, D. (2005) (Eds). Measuring discrimination. International Social

Science Journal, 183.

Slootman, M. & Tillie, J. (2006) Processen van radicalisering. Waarom sommige

Amsterdamse moslims radicaal worden, Amsterdam: Instituut voor Migratie- en Etnische

Studies.

Steele, M. C. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotype shape intellectual identity and

performance. American Psychologist, 52 (6), 613-629.

Swyngedouw, M., Phalet, K., Baysu, G., Vandezande, V. and Fleischmann, F. (2008)

Trajectories and experiences of Turkish, Moroccan and native Belgians in Antwerp and

Brussels: Codebook and Technical Report of the TIES Surveys 2007-2008 Belgium. Leuven:

ISPO & CSCP, University of Leuven.

Swyngedouw, M, Phalet, K. and Deschouwer, K. (eds; 1999) Minderheden in Brussel,

Brussel: VUBPress.

Swyngedouw, M. & Van Craen, M. (2001/2) “Vlaams Blok en de natiestaat. Het rechts-

radicale Vlaams-nationalisme onder de loep“, Fédéralisme Régionalisme, Volume 2 : 2001-

2002 - Extrême droite et fédéralisme.

Taylor, D., Wright, S., Moghaddam, F. & Lalonde , R. (1990) “The personal group

discrimination discrepancy: perceiving my group, but not myself, to be a target for

discrimination, Personality and social psychology bulletin, 16, pp254-262.

Ter Wal, J. & Verkuyten, M. (eds.; 2000) Comparative perspectives on racism, Alderschot:

Ashgate.

Wimmer, A. (2000) “Racism in nationalised states: A framework for comparative research”.

In Ter Wal, J. & Verkuyten, M. (eds.) Comparative perspectives on racism, Alderschot:

Ashgate.

Wrench, J (2008) “Research and indicators of discrimination in employment: problems of

comparability”, Transnational Seminar Which indicators for measuring racism and

discrimination in European cities? The European Coalition of Cities against Racism

(UNESCO), Liège, 16 – 17 May, 2008

VDAB Studiedienst – 2009 “Allochtonen op de Vlaamse arbeidsmarkt”

https://www.vdab.be/trends/kik/doc/KiK_Allochtonen200903.pdf

http://popups.ulg.ac.be/federalisme/sommaire.php?id=180http://popups.ulg.ac.be/federalisme/sommaire.php?id=180https://www.vdab.be/trends/kik/doc/KiK_Allochtonen200903.pdf

31

Yinger, J. (1998) “Evidence on discrimination in consumer markets” The journal of economic

perspectives, vol. 12, no. 2, pp23-40.

Zegers de Beijl, R. (ed. 2000) Documenting discrimination against migrant workers in the

labour market: A comparative study of four European countries, Geneva: International labour

organisation.

MPI Global City Migration Map: http://www.migrationinformation.org/datahub/gcmm.cfm

European Commission (2011). Cities of tomorrow: challenges, visions, ways forward. EC,

Directorate General for Regional Policy.

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/conferences/citiesoftomorrow/index_en.cfm

Eurobarometer Migrant Integration Aggregate Report, May 2011

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/quali/ql_5969_migrant_en.pdf

EU-MIDIS Survey http://fra.europa.eu/en/project/2011/eu-midis-european-union-

minorities-and-discrimination-survey

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/conferences/citiesoftomorrow/index_en.cfmhttp://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/quali/ql_5969_migrant_en.pdfhttp://fra.europa.eu/en/project/2011/eu-midis-european-union-minorities-and-discrimination-surveyhttp://fra.europa.eu/en/project/2011/eu-midis-european-union-minorities-and-discrimination-survey

32

APPENDIX II

Measures of Experienced Discrimination

EXPERIENCED DISCRIMINATION

In the socio-economic realm.

As a secondary school student, how often did you personally experience hostility or unfair

treatment because of your origin or background?

Never – Rarely – Occasionally – Regularly - Frequently

When looking for a job, currently or in the past, how often have you personally experienced

hostility or unfair treatment because of your origin?

Never – Rarely – Occasionally – Regularly - Frequently

At your workplace, , currently or in the past, how often have you personally experienced

hostility or unfair treatment because of your origin?

In social life

Here are some situations or places. How often did you experience hostility or unfair treatment

because of your origin or background in these situations?

a. On the street or in public transports

b. In your neighborhood

c. When going out or in dancing‟s, cafés, or restaurants

Never – Rarely – Occasionally – Regularly – Frequently

In the institutional realm

Here are some situations or places. How often did you experience hostility or unfair treatment

because of your origin or background in these situations?

In encounters with the police

Never – Rarely – Occasionally – Regularly - Frequently

33

Predictors of Experienced Discrimination

SOCIO-ECONOMIC BACKGROUND

Socio-economic attainment

Employment Status

Unemployed

Inactive: students

Inactive: other

[Reference category: employed]

Educational Qualifications

Tertiary education

[Reference category: lower than tertiary education]

Perceived threat (fear of demotion)

Increased violence

I am afraid that in the near future violence and vandalism will increase in our society

Totally agree – Agree - Neither agree nor disagree – Disagree - Totally disagree [recoded

conversely]

Loss of income

I am afraid that my living conditions, such as my income and work, will become worse in the

near future

Totally agree – Agree - Neither agree nor disagree – Disagree - Totally disagree [recoded

conversely]

PERCEIVED INTERGROUP CONTEXT

Share of the in-/ out-group in different domains of life.

34

If you now think of all the people living in your neighbourhood, how many of them are of [in-

group: Turkish/ Moroccan/ Belgian] origin?

Almost everybody - More than 75% - Approximately 75 % - Approximately half -

Approximately 25 % - Less than 25 % - Almost none [recoded conversely]

Evaluation of the quality of intergroup contact.

In general, to what extent would you describe the relationship between people of Belgian origin

and people of [Turkish/Moroccan] origin in Antwerp as friendly?

Not friendly at all - Not so friendly – Indifferent – Friendly - Very friendly [recoded conversely]

In general, how often do you think that the following groups experience hostility or unfair

treatment in Belgium because of their origin or background? (in-group: Belgians/ Turks/ Moroccans)

Never – Rarely – Occasionally – Regularly - Frequently

CIVIC INVOLVEMENT

Following the local news.

Do you sometimes follow the topics listed below in the newspapers, television, radio, or on the

Internet? The news about Antwerp local politics

Never – Rarely – Occasionally – Regularly - Frequently

TIES BELGIUM 2007-2008, ISPO-CSCP, University of Leuven

APPENDIX II

Sample

For the second generations we used a simple random sample of persons from a full sampling

frame. For the Belgian origin group, we used a stratified sample: we selected them in neighbourhoods

proportionate to the number of second generation Turks and Moroccans (from 18 – 35 years) living in

that neighbourhood.

Table 4. Interviews in Antwerp

Men Women Total

35

Belgian 158 145 303

Turkish 178 180 358

Morocca

n

118 194 312

Total 454 519 973

Response

Table 5. Overall response rate in Antwerp

Num

ber

Overall response

rate

Cooperation

rate

Interviewed 966 58,44% 71,40%

Refusal 343 20,75% 25,35%

Not reached 290 17,54% NA

Illness 10 0,60% NA

Language problems 14 0,85% 1,03%

Other* 30 1,81% 2,22%

SUBTOTAL 1.653 100,00% 100,00%

Does not belong to sample

frame 289 NA NA

TOTAL 1.942 100,00% 100,00%

For the Belgian origin comparison group the overall response rate was 55,76% and the

cooperation rate 69,61. For the Turkish group the overall response rate 63,48% was and the

cooperation rate 75,05%. For the Moroccan group the overall response rate was 55,9% and the

cooperation rate 69,21%

Source. TIES BELGIUM 2007-2008, ISPO-CSCP, University of Leuven