Immigration through the lens of nationals and immigrants: self-interest, solidarity, autochthony and moral determinants

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