ESIMO.MENOR(matriz;k)

majority or large groups (Hornsey & Hogg, 1999). Furthermore, in large groups, individuals often identify themselves in fragmented categories as a means of shaping their distinctiveness (Badea et al., 2010).

2.1.3. Ethnic group conflict theory

The combination of realistic group conflict theory and social identity theory is formulated in what is called ethnic group conflict theory or ethnic competition theory (Scheepers et al., 2002a; Gijsberts, Hagendoorn and Scheepers, 2004; Schneider, 2007; Coenders et al., 2009). This theory integrates the dispositional notions of social identity theory with the situational notions of realistic group conflict theory, and unites them in one theoretical framework. It develops realistic group conflict theory, which does not account for the psychological processes that are the focus of attention in social identity theory. Simultaneously, it reveals contextual factors underlying individual attitudes, derived from rational competition within the conflict. In this sense, competitive conditions intensify group identification in conjunction with factors such as group size, power and status differences, as well as specific histories of conflict. Both theoretical approaches are complementary to one another.

Ethnic group conflict theory attempts to explain various phenomena – individual attitudes, and formation of groups in which either individual or group identities are drawn along specific boundaries, such as ethnic or religious. It is a multi-level theory that can be used to derive hypotheses regarding variations in different social contexts as well as at an individual level. The fundamental proposition of the theory is that inter-group competition, at an individual as well as a contextual level, reinforces the mechanisms of social identifica tion and contra-identification, the eventual outcome of which is refer red to as group exclusionism (Scheepers et al., 2002a; Gijsberts, Hagendoorn and Scheepers, 2004: 18; Coenders, Lubbers and Scheepers, 2009).

Figure 2. 1. Theoretical model of ethnic group conflict theory

Sources: Adapted from Gijsberts et al., 2004.

In this theory, actual competition is seen to develop perceptions of threat, which in turn intensifies the processes of social identification and contra-identification. It is assumed that the intergroup conflict that inevitably occurs deals with group claims to and possession of scarce resources, and values as well as the distribution of power, privileges and other means of livelihood. The challenge to in-group prerogatives by out-groups creates a threat to the in-group. The competition between groups induces social cohesion, solidarity and feelings of superiority among in-group members, and hostile and prejudiced attitudes towards members of out-groups. Perceived threat plays a mediating role between individual and contextual level determinants when it comes to competitive intergroup conditions and unfavourable out-group attitudes (Scheepers, et al., 2002a; Gijsberts, Hagendoorn and Scheepers, 2004)

In terms of its methodology, this theory suggests different levels of analysis. At the contextual level, competition refers to observable and measurable macro-social conditions. At the individual level, competition may be specified in terms of the observable and measurable social conditions of the individual members of groups; it also refers to perceived threat, which mediates the effects of social conditions on different dimensions of ethnic exclusionism. In this sense, the intensity of actual competition and/or perceived threat is crucial: it may vary between different social categories and between various contexts that affect exclusionist and nationalist attitudes (Gijsberts, Hagendoorn and Scheepers, 2004; Coenders, Luppers and Scheepers, 2009).

2

2.1.4. Salience of identity

Salience of identity is defined as strong attachment by individuals to group identification. It refers to individuals’ awareness of their ethno-religious categorization and identity, and the importance that they give to ethno-religious differentiation (Duckit, 2006: 154). It has its roots in ethnocentrism, which comprises the existence of social groups and the hostility between them. However, salience of identity is different from ethnocentrism, in that its in-group attachment is not necessarily related to out-group hostility. In other words, salience of identity is a process of social identification by which individuals strongly associate with their group. This group identification can be multidimensional, given that it can embody a variety of attitudes towards the out-group, from hostility to acceptance.

Salience of ethno-religious identity comprises one of four dimensions to ethno- cultural group identification, as proposed by Phinney (1990). The three others are attachment to the ethno-religious group; evaluation of the ethnic-religious group; and involvement with the group and its cultural practices, ways and customs (cf. Duckit, 2006: 152). The salience of identity measure consists of eight composed scales (see appendix 1, Table 2). Therefore, salience might intermediate the relation between ethno-religious identification and support for intergroup violence.

2.1.5. Intergroup contact theory

Intergroup contact theory seemingly contradicts ethnic group conflict theory. While ethnic group conflict theory assumes that the increasing size of out-groups strongly induces perceived ethnic threat, intergroup contact theory proposes that such increases strongly induce intergroup contact opportunities, which in turn reduce exclusionist attitudes. However, the repeated validation of the intergroup contact theory (Pettigrew and Tropp, 2006) shows its relevance in explaining ethnic exclusionism, such as anti-immigrant attitudes in Europe (Schneider, 2008) and anti- Muslim attitudes in the Netherlands (Savelkoul et al., 2010). The meta-analytic test for intergroup contact theory also finds that it is applicable beyond racial and ethnic groups (Pettigrew and Tropp, 2006).

Among the studies that have developed intergroup contact theory, Allport’s (1954) hypothesis is the most influential, by specifying the situational conditions in which intergroup contact tends to decrease prejudice. The fundamental assumption of the theory is that contact between groups can effectively reduce negative attitudes toward out-groups under ‘optimal’ conditions, i.e. equal group status within the situation, common goals, intergroup cooperation, and the support for authorities, laws or customs. It has gained support from a diverse range of empirical studies, not merely laboratory experiments but also field research (Pettigrew, 1998; Pettigrew and Tropp, 2006).

Pettigrew (1998) refines Allport’s hypothesis by adding friendship potential as an essential factor for positive intergroup contact, in that it leads to less negative stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination. He argues that constructive contact relates more closely to long-term relationships than to initial acquaintanceship. Optimal intergroup contact requires time for cross-group friendships to develop. By taking into account recent findings of intergroup contact studies, he thus reveals the importance of four interrelated processes: learning about the out-group; changing behaviour; forming affective ties; and reappraising the in-group. Furthermore, Pettigrew proposes a longitudinal model for intergroup contact with a meso-level analysis, placed between the micro-level context of participants’ characteristics and the macro-level social setting. It distinguishes between essential and facilitating situational factors and emphasizes the dimension of time, with different outcomes predicted for different stages of intergroup contact.

The result of a longitudinal study of intergroup contact theory by Brown et al. (2007), conducted between two neighbouring schools, also affirms that contact with members of an out-group can improve intergroup attitudes, especially if those people are viewed as representatives of their group. This study provides evidence that quantity of contact with a member of the out-group is predictive of more favourable intergroup attitudes. When the contact is with someone perceived to be typical of the out-group, the effects are stronger and more beneficial than with an ‘a typical’ individual. This conclusion serves to further validate previous longitudinal researches in the context of interethnic or inter-nation attitudes.24

In her study of anti-migrant attitudes in Europe, Schneider (2008) shows that over time, growing familiarity with immigrants decreases perceptions of ethnic threat. The huge number of migrants that exists not only increases competition, but also increases opportunity for contact and familiarity with them. When immigration has featured strongly in a country’s past, people become accustomed to the presence of other nationalities, and can deal more easily with cultural diversity without feeling threatened. Schneider’s research implies that an increase in contact opportunities leads to a reduction in perception of out-group threat. Similar findings have been reported in the Netherlands (Schlueter and Scheepers, 2010).

By taking into account intergroup contact theory, this study examines the relationship between ethno-religious identification and support for ethno-religious violence on the individual level. As contact theory suggests that ‘constructive’ intergroup contact reduces prejudice (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew, 1998; Brown et al., 2007), it can be expected that contact between ethno-religious groups tends to decrease negative attitudes towards out-groups and may decrease support for ethno- 24 Earlier longitudinal studies of contact and attitudes include the work of Hamilton and Bishop

2