Immig a ion
h ough he lens
o na ionals
and immig an s:
sel -in e es , solida i y,
au och hony and
mo al de e minan s
Alice Ramos
5.
114 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
a eu ope unde p essu e
Con empo a y Eu opean socie ies a e becoming mo e and mo e di e se, and
he e is no hing o sugges ha his endency will be e e sed. This di e si y
s ems la gely om he mig a o y dynamics cha ac e ising he wo ld oday.
Acco ding o he In e na ional Mig a ion Repo (Uni ed Na ions 2017, he
numbe o in e na ional mig an s wo ldwide has con inued o g ow apidly
o e he pas i een yea s, eaching 244 million in 2015. Du ing ecen
decades, hese luxes o people ha e been pa icula ly in ense in Eu ope,
which has wi nessed new con ex s and causes, one o which being con lic .
Acco ding o he In e na ional O ganiza ion o Mig a ion, 1,003,124 people
we e epo ed o ha e a i ed in he Eu opean Union ia he Medi e anean
in 2015 alone; on he way, 3,771 los hei li es o we e gi en as disappea ed.
F om G eece, a mass o men, women and child en s a ed a jou ney
c ossing Se bia, Slo enia, Hunga y and Aus ia, o a i e in o Ge many, he
p e e ed des ina ion. This mo emen became he isible side o he d ama
expe ienced by millions o people li ing unde in ahuman condi ions
caused by con lic and socio-economic inequali ies in coun ies like Sy ia,
I aq and A ghanis an.
Alongside his mo emen , he human capi al ligh caused by he economic
c isis ha a ec ed some Eu opean coun ies, oge he wi h he p e-c isis a i al
o many economic mig an s and hei depa u e du ing he c isis, in oduced
conside able changes in he social landscape, in luencing peoples’ li es, in a
way o ano he , wi h g ea e o lesse in ensi y. Be o e he e ugee mo emen s,
some Eu opean coun ies we e al eady expe iencing a new wa e o mig a o y
lows ha ha e sus ained economic g ow h and simul aneously con ibu ed o
changes in he pa e ns o cus oms, li e s yles, alues and eligions. This new
Eu opean scene y has igge ed ambi alen posi ions in he a i ude domain.
On he one hand, inclusi eness, mo i a ed by egali a ian alues, has become
mo e salien , nu u ing awa eness o he need o equali y and ai ness
whe he in he domain o public policies (e. g. equal sala ies o equal jobs;
equal ci il igh s o e e yone) o in ha o in e pe sonal ela ionships (e. g.
c iminalisa ion o domes ic iolence and sexual ha assmen ). The no ma i e
discou se o an i- acism and ole ance, he igh o human igh s, and he
demand o solida i y and collec i e ac ion in de ence o he needies has
become inc easingly impo an , eaching all sec o s o socie y and public
policies.
immig a ion h ough he lens o na ionals and immig an s 115
On he o he hand, hese diso ganised masses o people c ossing Eu ope ha e
gene a ed di e en kinds o ea and esis ance. In 2012, he G eek au ho i ies
cons uc ed a 12.5 km ence along i s bo de wi h Tu key. In he summe o
2015, Hunga y buil a ence on i s bo de s wi h Se bia and C oa ia o s op
mig an s en e ing Eu ope om G eece. The adi ional hos ing coun ies, like
Ge many o F ance, in ensi ied bo de checks o con ol mig an and e ugee
lows. These o icial ini ia i es, oge he wi h he in ensi ica ion o massi e
deadly e o is a acks since 2015 (e. g. Pa is-Ba aclan; B ussels-Ai po ;
Nice-Bas ille Day; Manches e A ena; Ba celona-Ramblas) and o he episodes
like he allegedly mass sexual assaul s in Cologne pe pe a ed by A ab men
du ing he 2015/2016 New Yea ’s E e celeb a ions, con ibu ed o he c ea ion
o a social iad linking immig a ion, e o ism and Islamism in peoples’ minds,
boos ing Islamophobia and eelings o h ea associa ed wi h immig an s and
e ugees. Appealing o conse a i e alues, ha p omo e he i ues o he
pas and he pu i y o na ional cul u e, in sum, he main enance o he s a us
quo, he ex eme igh wing discou se claims he need o implemen ing igh
es ic i e measu es in o de o p o ec na ional bo de s and cul u e om he
damaging in luence o immig an s.
Besides he ins i u ional scena ios c ea ed by policy make s a ound he
issues aised by he p esence o immig an s and e ugees, he e is he o he
side o he coin – e e yday li e. Se le s a e o en dis inc om he popula ions
o ecei ing coun ies: hey ha e a di e en skin colou , hey speak
di e en languages and p o ess di e en eligions. Because o his, hey a e
ca ego ised as a speci ic “e hnic” o “ acial” g oup, di e en om he majo i y.
Independen ly o he laws egula ing hei in eg a ion in he hos ing coun ies,
inequali ies and injus ices a e s ill pa o hei daily social li e; and he idea
ha immig an s b ing mo e ouble han bene i s is sha ed by a signi ican
numbe o he na i e popula ion. The a i udes and belie s o he hos ing
popula ions ha e been deeply s udied om di e en pe spec i es based on
da a collec ed in ep esen a i e samples: he p edic o s and consequences o
openness/opposi ion o immig a ion (Hea h e al. 2018; Ramos, Pe ei a and
Vala 2018); he p e e ences in e ms o in eg a ion modali ies and immig an
cha ac e is ics (Bou his e al. 1997; Guimond, Sablonniè e and Nugie 2014;
Hea h e al. 2013; Peh son and G een 2010); he equency and quali y o
con ac wi h immig an s (Pe ig ew e al. 2011; Hews one e al. 2014); he
eelings o h ea associa ed wi h hei p esence (Ramos, Pe ei a and Vala
2016; G een 2009; Schneide 2008).
116 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
Howe e , as a as we know, no su ey based s udies ha e made mig an s
he main subjec o analysis and aimed a explo ing hei eelings, opinions and
a i udes ega ding he hos ing coun ies and hei mig a ion public policies.
Fo ha eason, his s udy cons i u es a comple ely new app oach using su ey
da a, namely he Eu opean Social Su ey Round 7, collec ed in 2014/15.
We will s a by discussing he ole ha alues play in he o ma ion o
a i udes in gene al and a i udes owa ds immig a ion pa icula ly. We will
hen p esen he heo e ical model unde analysis, which is looking a he “e”
side o immig an s and explo e hei a i udes owa ds new immig an s. Taking
in o accoun he di e si y o immig an s’ p o iles li ing in Eu opean coun ies,
h ee g oups a e conside ed – na ionals, immig an s om Eu opean coun ies,
and immig an s om non-Eu opean coun ies. Based on he li e a u e on he
de e minan s o opposi ion o immig a ion, ou hypo heses a e con as ed:
(1) o me immig an s a e mo e open o newcome s han he o he wo g oups
( he solida i y hypo hesis); (2) people li ing unde mo e agile socio-economic
condi ions a e mo e opposed o immig a ion ( he sel -in e es hypo hesis);
(3) long s anding immig an s de elop a sense o p imo-occupancy ha makes
hem ejec newcome s ( he au och hony hypo hesis); (4) alues, as mo al
guiding p inciples, con ibu e o e and abo e he o he h ee dimensions o
explain opposi ion/openness o immig a ion ( he mo ali y hypo hesis).
he ole o alues
Values a e impo an elemen s o people’s li es and, o ha eason, hey ha e
been a he o igin o mul iple e lexions, in a wide se o disciplines and om
di e se pe spec i es. Values a e meaning ul objec s o s udy o di e en a eas
o social esea ch: whe he s udying he o ganisa ion o a local communi y,
he ela ions be ween g oups o he unc ioning o social s uc u es, alues
can be conside ed as an impo an elemen in hei unde s anding. The
concep ualisa ion o alues as o ien a ions ha guide, jus i y o cla i y
a i udes, no ms and opinions, and consequen ly human ac ion, has achie ed a
conside able consensus among social scien is s. This pe spec i e has o ien ed
mul iple s udies on he ela ionship be ween alues, a i udes and indi idual
beha iou , and is a he o igin o some alue axonomies. In his chap e , we
will analyse he in luence o alues in opposi ion owa ds immig a ion using
he Human Values Model o Shalom Schwa z (1992).
immig a ion h ough he lens o na ionals and immig an s 117
F om a heo e ical poin o iew, Schwa z’s model (Schwa z and Bilsky
1987 and 1990; Schwa z 1992; Schwa z e al. 2012) is amed by Rokeach’s
wo k (1973) and can also be linked o ha o Ingleha (1997) and he
p inciple o belie cong uence de eloped by Rokeach and colleagues
(1960).
The concep ion o he model began wi h Schwa z and Bilsky s udies (1987
and 1990) and was based on he assump ion ha alues ep esen , as conscious
aims, h ee uni e sal needs o human exis ence o which all indi iduals and
socie ies ha e o espond: he needs o indi iduals as biological o ganisms;
he equisi es o coo dina ed social in e ac ion; and he su i al and wel a e
needs o g oups.
These h ee needs can be exp essed in 10 ypes o mo i a ional alues
sha ed by indi iduals, ega dless o hei cul u al con ex . They a e powe ,
achie emen , hedonism, s imula ion, sel -di ec ion, uni e salism, bene olence,
adi ion, con o mi y and secu i y. The ac ions in ol ed in achie ing each one
o hese alues ha e psychological and social consequences, which migh
be compa ible o incompa ible wi h he con inuing o o he ypes o alues.
Fo example, ac ions indica ing obedience (con o mi y) will end o con lic
wi h hose exp essing au onomy (achie emen ), bu will be compa ible wi h
ac ions conce ning social o de (secu i y). One o he inno a i e aspec s o
Schwa z’s model consis s o ep esen ing alues as elemen s o a ma ix o
con lic ing o compa ible ela ions. The g ea e he dis ance be ween wo
alues, he g ea e he deg ee o incompa ibili y be ween hei unde lying
mo i a ions (Figu e 5.1).
The analysis o he incompa ibili ies be ween alues led he au ho o
se hem in a bi-dimensional s uc u e made up o ou ypes o high-o de
alues o ming wo basic and bipola concep ual dimensions: one placing sel -
anscendence alues agains hose o sel -enhancemen ; and a second, placing
openness o change alues agains hose o conse a ion. The i s dimension
e lec s he con lic be ween accep ance o o he s as equals and he conce n
wi h hei well-being e sus he pu sui o indi idual success and dominion
o e o he s. The second dimension e lec s he con lic be ween he desi e
o in ellec ual au onomy, eedom o ac ion and o ien a ion owa ds change
e sus obedience, he p ese a ion o adi ional p ac ices and he p o ec ion
o s abili y.
Mo e ecen ly, a e inemen o he Schwa z model has pa i ioned he same
con inuum in o 19 mo e na owly de ined alues, wi h disce nible e ec s

118 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
(Schwa z e al. 2012). Howe e , o compa a i e easons, he Eu opean Social
Su ey s ill uses he ins umen measu ing he 10 alues model, he one we
will be using in ou analyses.
P e ious s udies ha e al eady shown ha hose endo sing he alues o
humani a ianism and egali a ianism sha e a g ea e conce n abou he mos
disad an aged g oups o socie y. They a e mo e sensi i e o he di icul ies
ha people belonging o hose g oups expe ience, mo e ecep i e o di e si y
(Leong and Wa d 2006) and less p ejudiced owa ds mino i ies (Bie na e al.
1996). This accep ance and conce n abou he “O he ” is speci ically mi o ed
in he Schwa z alue o uni e salism.
In con as , hose who hold conse a i e alues a e mo e likely o ejec
all ha may jeopa dise s abili y and con ol o e li e and o e he social
en i onmen (Rockeach 1960). Cohe en ly, hese indi iduals a e mo i a ed by
he main enance and p ese a ion o he s a us quo and by he supe io i y o
Theo e ical model o ela ions among mo i a ional ypes o alues, highe o de
alue ypes and bipola alue dimensions (Schwa z, 1992)
Figu e 5.1
conse a ion
openess
o change
sel - anscendence
sel -enhancemen
Uni e salism
Achie emen
Bene olence
Powe
Secu i y
T adi ion
Con o mi y
Sel -di ec ion
S imula ion
Hedonism
immig a ion h ough he lens o na ionals and immig an s 119
hei own cul u e, which in u n may suppo he ela i e ele a ion o whi es,
he e osexuals, males and so on, compa ed o o he g oups (Lambe and
Chas een 1997). This conse a i e iew o socie y is e lec ed in he Schwa z
conse a ion alues.
In he con ex o immig a ion s udies, Schwa z’s model has been b oadly
es ed (Da ido and Meuleman 2012; Ramos, Pe ei a and Vala 2016).
None heless, hey only add ess he opinions o na ionals (o o he o al
samples wi hou dis inc ion). The main conclusions o hese s udies show
a gene al endency o he alues o sel - anscendence (and speci ically
uni e salism) o gene a e mo e open a i udes owa ds immig an s and
immig a ion policies, wi h he alues o conse a ion ac ing in he opposi e
way, p omo ing highe le els o opposi ion o he ecep ion o immig an s
and mo e es ic i e policies ega ding immig an s’ ci il igh s. In his ega d,
we canno expec a speci ic associa ion be ween conse a ion alues and
opposi ion o immig a ion in he case o immig an s and, o ha eason, we
do no pu o wa d any co esponden hypo hesis. O he s udies ha e also
shown ha alues a e mo e ele an o explain a i udes owa ds immig a ion
han o he dimensions ha a e o en p esen ed as he main igge s, such as
na ionals’ social and economic ulne abili y (Ramos and Vala 2009).
Based on hese empi ical indings, we p opose he ollowing hypo heses1:
h4 The highe he endo semen o uni e salism, he lowe he opposi ion
owa ds immig an s exp essed by na ionals and immig an s;
h5 The highe he exp ession o conse a ion alues, he highe he
opposi ion owa ds immig a ion exp essed by na ionals.
Mos immig an s lea ing hei coun y in sea ch o a be e li e a e
p edisposed o emain in he new coun y o a long pe iod (o pe manen ly)
and mo i a ed o imp o e hei economic si ua ion. F om his combina ion o
cha ac e is ics, we may assume ha immig an s a i e in a new coun y wi h
a se o expec a ions ha hey wish o ul il. Acco ding o Bone a and F ieze
(2001), hose who emig a e end o ha e a s onge achie emen mo i a ion
han indi iduals ha p e e o emain in hei own coun y. Howe e , we
1 Fo heo e ical easons, he a iables measu ing he impac o alues on opposi ion owa ds
immig a ion will be in oduced in he model a e he a iables measu ing he solida i y and au och hony
hypo heses and, o ha eason, hey a e numbe ed H4, H5 and H6.
120 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
ha e no empi ical o heo e ical a gumen s o p e iew an associa ion be ween
mo i a ion o achie emen and opposi ion o immig a ion in he case o
immig an s.
Finally, we expec alues o ha e an explana o y powe o e and abo e
si ua ional a iables (age, educa ion, poli ical o ien a ion and eligiosi y),
sel -in e es indica o s (subjec i e income, employmen s a us and leng h o
sojou n) (h6-mo ali y hypo hesis).
he immig an s’ pe spec i e
As men ioned abo e, he main objec i e o his chap e is o li a co ne o he
eil and unde s and how immig an s see he en ance o o he immig an s,
as well as he ex en o which hei a i udes di e om hose o na ionals.
Immig an s a e no a homogeneous g oup – de i ing om coun ies wi h
di e en immig a ion policies and di e en socie al con ex s, hey a e
mo i a ed by di e en ambi ions. Dis inc i e mo i a ions can unde lie hei
expec a ions: a job, a be e income, ca ee imp o emen , joining he amily,
o unning om con lic and inequali ies. These a e undoub edly impo an
c i e ia o ake in o accoun in a sociological app oach and in u u e s udies.
Howe e , he na u e o his i s s udy is explo a o y and, o ha eason,
compa isons be ween coun ies o be ween di e en ca ego ies o immig an s
will no be add essed. Immig an s will be analysed om he poin o iew
o wha hey all ha e in common: indi iduals li ing in a coun y whe e hey
we e no bo n no b ough up and ha , wi h he excep ions s emming om
he b ain d ain phenomenon, o en come om lowe socio-economic classes,
ending o occupy a low ank in he s a us hie a chy o he hos ing socie y.
In heo y, immig an s may sha e mul iple iden i ies: hey a e immig an s
om he poin o iew o na ionals, emig an s om hei own poin o iew,
and hey can also ake he place o na ionals when i comes o e alua ing he
bene i s/disad an ages o ecei ing new immig an s. In his chap e , we will look
a immig an s h ough he lens o hei “e” side; i. e. as emig an s, and compa e
hei a i udes owa ds immig a ion wi h hose o na ionals. Independen ly
o he public immig a ion policies, basically in eg a i e, and ega dless o he
deg ee o iden i ica ion wi h he majo i y, emig an s ans o m hei cu en
spaces o esidence by “placing” hei iden i ies; i. e. by inse ing hei belonging
in o neighbou hoods and c ea ing local ies (Eh kamp 2010). By doing his,
immig a ion h ough he lens o na ionals and immig an s 121
immig an s engage wi h he hos ing socie y on hei own e ms and may
e en ually become membe s o he hos o ecei ing socie y wi h espec o
new se le s. The bounda ies be ween majo i y and mino i y g oups become
blu ed and, acco ding o Hu nik’s model (1986), immig an s may p omo e
accul u a i e s a egies (high iden i ica ion wi h he ing oup and he ou g oup).
Mo eo e , belonging is no only de ined by g oup bounda ies; i can also be
exp essed h ough “claims o p imo-occupancy o a e i o y” (Ma ino ic and
Ve kuy en 2013). The concep o au och hony is well known in an h opology,
bu i s applica ion o p ejudice explana o y models is new. A i ing somewhe e
i s can gene a e sel -e iden no ions o owne ship ha may in u n be used o
exclude newcome s om access o igh s and powe (Geschie e 2009). A simila
e ec was con i med by Ma ino ic and Ve kuy en (2013), who iden i ied
au och hony as a unique and ele an p edic o o p ejudice, mainly among
hose who ea ha hei en i lemen s a e being challenged by newcome s.
These e lec ions lead us o p opose he eme gence o a double iden i ica ion
wi h di e en impac s on he a i udes immig an s de elop owa ds
newcome s: as emig an s, and due o hei own expe ience, he iden i ica ion
wi h newcome s may esul in mo e open and inclusi e a i udes; as membe s
o he communi y ha ha e gained hei own “place’, hey may sha e some o he
na ionals’ conce ns and mani es less open a i udes. Fo ins ance, immig an
opposi ion o newcome s may be d i en by sel -in e es mo i a ions due o a
pe cei ed un a ou able economic posi ion o by eelings o p imo-occupancy
en i lemen s.
The da a we will analyse was collec ed using ques ionnai es designed o
measu e he a i udes o he majo i y owa ds immig a ion and, he e o e, we
do no ha e a i udinal indica o s speci ically designed o immig an s. We
know ha hey we e no bo n in he coun y o esidence and how long hey
ha e li ed he e. Based on he assump ion ha hose who ha e been in he
coun y o longe pe iods may see newcome s as a challenge, we will use
sojou n as an indica o o au och hony.
Th ee hypo heses a e d awn om hese conside a ions: h1 – Im mig an s a e
mo e open o immig a ion han na ionals (solida i y hypo hesis); h2 – Those
li ing unde mo e agile social and economic ci cums ances a e less open
o immig a ion (sel -in e es hypo hesis); h3 – The longe he immig an s’
p esence in he hos ing coun y, he less open hey a e o immig a ion
(au och hony hypo hesis). These h ee hypo heses will be con as ed wi h he
mo ali y hypo hesis, p e iously p esen ed.
128 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
P edic o s o opposi ion o immig a ion in Eu opean coun ies
(S anda dised coe icien s)
na ionals
(n = 33522)
immig an s
Eu opean coun ies
(n = 2259)
Non-Eu opean coun ies
(n = 1258)
Gende .010 .013 -.024
Age .092*** .098** .126**
Educa ion -.123*** -.052 -.035
Religiosi y -.073*** -.031 -.019
Le - igh .100*** .122*** .035
Adj. R2.091 .081 .055
Subjec i e income -.157*** -.159*** -.034
Unemploymen -.010 -.030 .005
R2 change .035*** .035*** .003
Adj R2.125 .118 .055
Sejou n .052 .111**
R2 change .001 .003*
Adj R2.118 .058
Uni e salism -.245*** -.157*** -.156***
Achie emen .022*** -.023 .093**
Secu i y .143*** .120*** .045
Conse a ion .049*** .134*** .073
T adi ion .039*** -.001 .057
R2 change .092*** .061*** .043***
Adj R2.217 .177 .097
** p < .01; *** p < .001.
Le -Righ (0 le o 10 igh ); Gende (Woman=1); Educa ion (0 o 30 yea s o schooling); Unemploymen
(Unemployed=1); Subjec i e Income (1 lowe o 4 highe ); Age (15 o 90).
Table 5.2

immig a ion h ough he lens o na ionals and immig an s 129
he solida i y hypo hesis ( o me immig an s a e mo e open o newcome s o
empa hic easons); he sel -in e es hypo hesis (people in mo e agile socio-
economic si ua ions oppose immig a ion mo e); he au och hony hypo hesis
(long s anding immig an s de elop a sense o p imo-occupancy ha makes
hem ejec newcome s); and he mo ali y hypo hesis (as li e guiding
p inciples, alues con ibu e o e and abo e he o he h ee hypo heses o
explain opposi ion/openness o immig a ion).
The i s impo an conclusion ha can be d awn om his s udy is ha
immig an s a e no a homogeneous g oup and he socio-cul u al speci ici ies
ha di ide hem need dis inc i e models o in e p e hei a i udes owa ds
immig a ion. The di e ences ound be ween immig an s om Eu opean
and om non-Eu opean coun ies is an example. The impac o sojou n, o
ins ance, is an i ele an aspec o he o me , bu one o he main p edic o s
o opposi ion o immig a ion om he la e .
Ano he impo an aspec is ela ed o how undamen al common a iables
a e in unde s anding such a i udes. Fo ins ance educa ion has been seen as
a key ac o o explain a i udes and igh p ejudice. Howe e , educa ion only
appea s as a signi ican p edic o o openness o he g oup o na ionals (and
immig an s a e no less educa ed ha na ionals; on he con a y). Is educa ion,
by i sel , eally impo an ? O is i he lea ning o no ma i i y and co ec ness
(social, poli ical, mo al…) ha educa ion b ings ha is di e en among he
o igins o he h ee g oups? In o he wo ds, is his an e ec o educa ion, o
one o social desi abili y? We ha e no da a o disen angle hese ela ionships,
bu his is ce ainly one impo an issue o cla i y in he u u e.
Blaming immig an s o aking jobs om na ionals is also a equen ly
hea d claim. Howe e , ou indings show ha being unemployed is no ela ed
o mo e es ic i e p e e ences in any o he g oups. This is pa icula ly ele an
conside ing ha he unemploymen a e o immig an s om non-Eu opean
coun ies is wice as high as ha o he o he wo g oups.
Finally, he s udy con i ms he ole played by alues in o ming a i udes
owa ds immig a ion. Se e al s udies on he impac o alues ha e epo ed
a posi i e e ec o uni e salism and a nega i e e ec o conse a ion alues
(secu i y, adi ion and con o mism) on opposi ion owa ds immig a ion.
Uni e salism is he alue ha s ongly mo i a es people o accep
immig an s and o de elop p e e ences o mo e inclusi e immig a ion
policies, and his inding was ep oduced o he h ee g oups conside ed
in ou s udy. Conse a ion alues, in con as , aim bo h a indi idual and
130 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
social p o ec ion, as well as main aining he s a us quo: goals ha may be
h ea ened by he p esence o cul u ally di e si ied g oups, ha ing no ms
and cus oms ha con lic wi h hose o he na i e popula ion. Ou indings
d aw a en ion o he impo ance ha hese alues play in he o ming o
na ionals’ and Eu opean-immig an s’ a i udes o newcome s, bu no o
non-Eu opean immig an s. One can a gue ha na ionals and immig an s
om Eu opean coun ies sha e a cul u al he i age: a an uppe le el hey
bo h ha e o igins and li e in Eu ope. Non-Eu opean immig an s may ha e
no eason o eel he need o p o ec ing he cul u e o he Eu opean coun y
whe e hey a e li ing and so, al hough hey p aise adi ion and con o mi y
as much as e e yone else, hese alues a e no mobilised in o ming opinions
abou he en ance o newcome s.
As s a ed a he opening o his chap e , ou in en ion is o s a illing a oid
in he li e a u e on a i udes owa ds immig a ion, and look a immig an s as
subjec s ins ead o objec s. Many ques ions ha e been aised, a ew answe ed,
bu he loo is open o wha we belie e is a e ile line o esea ch.
____________________________________
alice amos
Ins i u o de Ciências Sociais, Uni e sidade de Lisboa
A . P o . Aníbal Be encou 9 — 1600-036 Lisboa, Po ugal
[email p o ec ed]
o cid.o g/0000-0001-9512-0571
____________________________________
immig a ion h ough he lens o na ionals and immig an s 131
Indica o s o basic alues and unde lying mo i a ions (Schwa z 1992)
ypes o
mo i a ional
alues
objec i es and speci ic alues
ha hey ep esen
indica o s
(a man…/a woman…)
Uni e salism
Unde s anding, ecogni ion, ole ance
and p o ec ion o he well-being o o he s
and o na u e.
1 − …who hinks i ’s impo an o e e yone o be ea ed equally. Belie ing ha e e yone should ha e he same oppo uni ies in li e.
2 − … o whom i ’s impo an o lis en o people who a e di e en om onesel . E en when disag eeing wi h someone, he e’s s ill he
desi e o unde s and ha pe son.
Bene olence P ese a ion and aluing o he well-being
o people whom you o en mee .
1 − … o whom i ’s impo an o help hose a ound us. He/She enjoys looking a e hei well-being.
2 − … o whom i ’s impo an o be loyal o iends. He/She is e y commi ed o hose hey a e close o.
Secu i y Secu i y, ha mony and s abili y in socie y,
ela ionships and wi hin onesel .
1 − …who gi es impo ance o li ing in a place whe e people eel sa e. Any hing ha can pu his/he secu i y a isk is a oided.
2 − … o whom i ’s impo an ha he Go e nmen gua an ees his/he secu i y, agains all h ea s. A s ong S a e is needed, so i can
de end i s ci izens.
T adi ion
Respec , in ol emen and accep ance
o he cus oms and ideas ha adi ional
cul u e and eligion ha e p o ided.
1 − … o whom i ’s impo an o be humble and modes . He/She ies no o a ac a en ion.
2 − …who gi es impo ance o adi ion. E e y hing is done in acco dance wi h eligion and amily.
Con o mi y
Res ic ion o ac ions, inclina ions and
impulses likely o ha m o he s and iola e
expec a ions o social no ms.
1 − …who hinks ha people should do as hey’ e old. People should always ollow he ules e en when no one is wa ching.
2 − … o whom i ’s impo an always o beha e p ope ly. Doing hings o he s would say we e w ong mus be a oided.
Powe Social s a us and p es ige, con ol and
dominion o e o he people and esou ces.
1 − … o whom i ’s impo an o be ich. He/She wan s o ha e a lo o money and expensi e hings.
2 − … o whom i ’s impo an o ha e o he people’s espec . He/She wan s people o do wha he/she says.
Achie emen Pe sonal success h ough he demons a ion
o compe ence, acco ding o social pa e ns.
1 − …who gi es a lo o impo ance o being able o show his/he abili ies. He/She wan s people o admi e wha he/she does.
2 − … o whom i ’s impo an o be success ul. He/She likes o he people’s ecogni ion.
S imula ion Exci a ion, no el y and challenge in li e. 1 − …who likes su p ises and is always looking o do new hings. He/She hinks i ’s impo an o do lo s o di e en hings in li e.
2 − who’s looking o ad en u e and likes aking isks. He/She wan s o ha e a li e ull o emo ions.
Hedonism Pleasu e and senso ial g a i ica ion o
onesel .
1 − … o whom i ’s impo an o ha e a good ime. He/She likes o look a e him/he sel .
2 − …who’s looking o ake e e y oppo uni y o ha e un. I ’s impo an o do hings ha gi e him/he pleasu e.
Sel -di ec ion Independen hinking and ac ion, choice,
c ea i i y and explo a ion.
1 − …who gi es impo ance o ha ing new ideas and being c ea i e. He/She likes doing hings in his/he own way.
2 − … o whom i ’s impo an o make his/he own decisions abou wha o do. He/She likes o be ee and independen o o he s.
Appendix 5.1
132 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
conse a ion
openness o change
sel - anscendence
sel -enhancemen
Uni e salism
Achie emen
Bene olence
Powe
Secu i y
T adi ion
Con o mi y
Sel -di ec ion
S imula ion
Hedonism
Appendix 5.2
conse a ion
openness o change
sel - anscendence
sel -enhancemen
Uni e salism
Achie emen
Bene olence
Powe
Secu i y T adi ion
Con o mi y
Sel -di ec ion S imula ion
Hedonism
S uc u e and salience o Schwa z’s alues – na ionals, immig an s om
Eu opean coun ies and immig an s om non-Eu opean coun ies
Appendix 5.2.1 — Values s uc u e – Na ionals (Mul idimensional Scaling – P oxcal; Tucke
coe icien o cong uence = .980)
Appendix 5.2.2 — Values s uc u e – Immig an s om Eu opean coun ies (Mul idimensional
Scaling – P oxcal; Tucke coe icien o cong uence = .981)
immig a ion h ough he lens o na ionals and immig an s 133
Appendix 5.2.3 — Values s uc u e – Immig an s om non-Eu opean coun ies (Mul idimensional
Scaling – P oxcal; Tucke coe icien o cong uence = .978)
Appendix 5.2.4 — Impo ance a ibu ed o he en basic alues by g oup (cen ed means)
Na i es
-1,2 -1 -0,8 -0,6 -0,4 -0,2 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8
Bene olence
Uni e salism
Secu i y
Sel -di ec ion
T adi ion
Con o mi y
Hedonism
Achie emen
S imula ion
Powe
Immig an s om non-Eu opean coun ies
Immig an s om Eu opean coun ies
conse a ion
openness o change
sel - anscendence
sel -enhancemen
Uni e salism
Achie emen
Bene olence
Powe
Secu i y T adi ion
Con o mi y
Sel -di ec ion S imula ion
Hedonism

134 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
e e ences
bie na , M., e al. 1996. “Values and p ejudice: Towa d unde s anding he impac o Ame ican
alues on ou g oup a i udes”. In The On a io Symposium on Pe sonali y and Social
Psychology. The Psychology o Values: The On a io Symposium, ol. 8, eds. C. Seligman, J.
M. Olson and M. P. Zanna. Hillsdale, nj, us: Law ence E lbaum Associa es, Inc., 153-189.
bone a, B. S., I. H. F ieze. 2001. “Towa d a concep o a mig an pe sonali y”. Jou nal o Social
Issues, 57: 477-491. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00224.
bou his, R. Y., e al. 1997. “Towa ds an in e ac i e accul u a ion model: a social psychological
app oach”. In e na ional Jou nal o Psychology, 32: 369-386. doi: 10.1080/002075997400629.
ceuppens, B., P. Geschie e. 2005. “Au och hony: local o global? New modes in he s uggle
o e ci izenship and belonging in A ica and Eu ope”. Annual Re iew o An h opology,
34 (1): 385-407.
da ido , E. 2010. “Tes ing o compa abili y o human alues ac oss coun ies and ime
wi h he hi d ound o he Eu opean Social Su ey”. In e na ional Jou nal o Compa a i e
Sociology, 51 (3): 171-191.
da ido , E., B. Meuleman. 2012. “Explaining a i udes owa ds immig a ion policies in
Eu opean coun ies: he ole o human alues”. Jou nal o E hnic and Mig a ion S udies,
38 (5): 757-775.
geschie e, P. 2009. “The Pe ils o Belonging”. Au och hony, Ci izenship and Exclusion in
A ica and Eu ope. Chicago & London: The Uni e si y P ess o Chicago.
g een, E. G. T. 2009. “Who can en e ? A mul ile el analysis on public suppo o immig a ion
c i e ia ac oss 20 Eu opean coun ies”. G oup P ocesses and In e g oup Rela ions (12): 41-60.
guimond, S., R. de la Sablonniè e and A. Nugie . 2014. “Li ing in a mul icul u al wo ld:
in e g oup ideologies and he socie al con ex o in e g oup ela ions”. Eu opean Re iew
o Social Psychology, 25 (1): 142-188. doi: 10.1080/10463283.2014.957578.
hea h, A. e al. 2013. The Poli ical In eg a ion o E hnic Mino i ies in B i ain. Ox o d: Ox o d
Uni e si y P ess.
hea h, A. e al. 2018. “Explaining a i udes owa d immig a ion: Findings om he
immig a ion module in he Eu opean Social Su ey 2014-15.” Jou nal o E hnic and
Mig a ion S udies.
hu nik, N. 1986. “Pa e ns o e hnic mino i y iden i ica ion and modes o social adap a ion”.
E hnic and Racial S udies, 9 (2): 150-167. doi: 10.1080/01419870.1986.9993520.
ingleha , R. 1997. Mode niza ion and Pos -mode niza ion: Cul u al, Economic, and Poli ical
Change in 43 Socie ies. P ince on: P ince on Uni e si y P ess.
lambe , A. J., A. L. Chas een. 1997. “Pe cep ions o disad an age e sus con en ionali y:
poli ical alues and a i udes owa d he elde ly e sus blacks”. Pe sonali y and Social
Psychology Bulle in, 23 (5): 469-481. doi: 10.1177/0146167297235003.
leong, C.-H., C. Wa d. 2006. “Cul u al alues and a i udes owa d immig an s and mul i-
cul u alism: he case o he Eu oba ome e su ey on acism and xenophobia”. In e na ional
Jou nal o In e cul u al Rela ions, 30: 799-810. doi: 10.1016/j.ijin el.2006.0 7.001.
hews one, M., e al. 2014. “In e g oup con ac and in e g oup con lic ”. Peace and Con lic :
Jou nal o Peace Psychology, 20 (1): 39-53.
ma ino ic, B., M. Ve kuy en. 2013. “ ‘We we e he e i s , so we de e mine he ules o he
game’: Au och hony and p ejudice owa ds ou ‐g oups”. Eu . J. Soc. Psychol., 43: 637-647.
doi: 10.1002/ejsp.1980.
immig a ion h ough he lens o na ionals and immig an s 135
eh kamp. P. 2010. “Placing iden i ies: ansna ional p ac ices and local a achmen s o
Tu kish immig an s in Ge many”. Jou nal o E hnic and Mig a ion S udies, 31 (2), 345-364.
doi: 10.1080/1369183042000339963.
peh son, S., E. G.T. G een. 2010. “Who we a e and who can join us: Na ional Iden i y
con en and en y c i e ia o new immig an s”. Jou nal o Social Issues, 66 (4): 695-716.
doi: 10.11 11/j.1540-4560.2010.01671.x.
amos, A., J. Vala. 2009. “P edic ing opposi ion owa ds Immig a ion: economic esou ces,
social esou ces and mo al p inciples”. In Quod E a Demons andum: F om He odo us’
E hnog aphic Jou neys o C oss-Cul u al Resea ch, eds. A. Ga i and K. Mylonas. A hens:
Pedio Books Publishing, 245-254.
amos, A., C. Pe ei a, and J. Vala. 2016. “Economic c isis, human alues and a i udes owa ds
immig an s”. In Values, Economic C isis and Democ acy, o gs. M. Voicu, I. Mochmann and
H. Duelme . London and New Yo k: Rou ledge, 104-136.
amos, A., C. Pe ei a, and J. Vala. 2018. “The impac o biological and cul u al acisms on
a i udes owa ds immig an s and immig a ion public policies”. Jou nal o E hnic and
Mig a ion S udies.
okeach, M. 1960. The Open and Closed Mind. New Yo k: Basic Books.
okeach, M. 1973. The Na u e o Human Values. New Yo k: F ee P ess.
schneide , S. L. 2008. “An i-immig an a i udes in Eu ope: ou g oup size and pe cei ed
e hnic h ea ”. Eu opean Sociological Re iew, 24 (1): 53-67. doi: h ps://doi.o g/10.1093/
es /jcm034.
schwa z, S. H. 1992. “Uni e sals in he con en and s uc u e o alues: heo e ical ad anced
and empi ical es es in 20 coun ies”. In Ad ances in Expe imen al Social Psychology, o g.
M. Zanna. New Yo k: Academic P ess, 1-65.
schwa z, S. H., W. Bilsky. 1987. “Towa d a uni e sal psychological s uc u e o human
alues”. Jou nal o Pe sonali y and Social Psychology, 53 (3): 550-562.
schwa z, S. H., W. Bilsky. 1990. “Towa d a heo y o he uni e sal con en and s uc u e
o alues: Ex ensions and c oss-cul u al eplica ions”. Jou nal o Pe sonali y and Social
Psychology, 58 (5): 765-778.
schwa z, S. H. e al. 2012. “Re ining he heo y o basic indi idual alues”. Jou nal o
Pe sonali y and Social Psychology, 103 (4): 663-688.
pe ig ew, T. F. e al. 2011. “Recen ad ances in in e g oup con ac heo y”. In e na ional
Jou nal o In e cul u al Rela ions, 35 (3): 271-280. doi:10.1016/j.ijin el.2011.03.001.
uni ed na ions, Depa men o Economic and Social A ai s, Popula ion Di ision. 2017.
In e na ional Mig a ion Repo 2017: Highligh s (s /esa/se .a/404).
ci e his chap e as:
amos, A. 2018. “Immig a ion h ough he lens o na ionals and immig an s: sel -in e es , solida i y,
au och hony and mo al de e minan s”. In Changing Socie ies: Legacies and Challenges. Vol. i. Ambiguous
Inclusions: Inside Ou , Inside In, eds. S. Aboim, P. G anjo, A. Ramos. Lisbon: Imp ensa de Ciências
Sociais, 113-135.
h ps://doi.o g/10.31447/ics9789726715030.05