We employ three theories distinguished by Putnam (2007), who (in particular) analyses the influences of social capital on the dynamic process within less diverse modern societies to more multicultural and complex societies. He de- fines social capital as “[…] social networks and the associated norms of recip- rocity and trustworthiness” (Putnam 2007, 137). According to Putnam, a social network is a powerful means of strengthening people’s abilities to achieve their life’s goals. Through connecting with others, people enhance their social capi- tal (Putnam 2007, 138; cf. Putnam 2000).
How does social capital relate to preference for a certain type of reli- gious education? Considerable research has shown that religious education is a process of socialisation (cf. Vermeer 2010), communication and interaction (cf. Hermans 2003, Nietto 2004). Similarly, social capital underlines the need for socialisation processes and connection between individuals, and communica- tion and interaction between groups. Social capital is also related to reciprocity and trustworthiness, which are the major elements of communication and inter- action between groups. Putnam’s theory is beneficial, particularly for analysing attitudes towards other groups and responses to religious diversity. This study argues that the preference of students for a certain type of religious education is influenced by certain attitudes toward other groups and responses to religious diversity. Moreover, Putnam analyses different responses regarding ethnic diversity in relation to attitudes towards ‘the other’ (persons, groups), using contact, conflict and constrict theory. Next, we will present Putnam’s three theories, followed by our conceptual model and theoretical expectations.
4.1.1. Contact, conflict and constrict theory
One of the most important challenges facing modern society is the increase in religious and social heterogeneity. How do people respond to religious and social differences? What types of inter-group attitudes do they construct? To what extent does a particular inter-group attitude influence the preference of students for different types of religious education? Putnam (2007) identifies three theories on the effect of diversity on social connections, which lead to contradictory expectations for inter-group attitudes: contact, conflict and con- strict theory. He applies these particularly to examine the relationship between ethnic diversity and in-group/out-group attitudes. In this study, we use these theories to investigate attitudes towards people of different religions, and the influence of different inter-group attitudes on the preferences of students to- wards different types of religious education.
a. Contact theory
According to contact theory, religious diversity gives people an opportunity to contact and interact with other groups. Considerable research has shown that greater inter-group contact corresponds with lower prejudice, as inter-group contact diminishes in-group/out-group distinctions and enhances out-group solidarity (cf. Tajfel 1982; Pettigrew & Trop 2006). According to Allport (1979, 261-281), only contact under optimal conditions will effectively reduce out-group prejudice between groups. He argues that the positive effects of con- tact occur only in situations marked by four key conditions: equal group status within the situation; common goals; inter-group cooperation; and the support of authorities, laws, or customs.
In addition, Pettigrew and Trop (2006; Pettigrew 1997) state that the relationship between contact and prejudice tends to be weaker among members of minority groups than in majority groups. They found that members of mi- nority and majority groups confront different situations. Members of majority- status groups are typically concerned with being perceived as prejudiced by those in the minority, whereas members of minority-status groups are con- cerned with becoming the targets of prejudice from those in the majority. Peo- ple belonging to a majority status group are less likely to contact the members of other groups. In contrast, those belonging to a minority group typically cre- ate more opportunities for contact with members of other groups, and thus have more opportunities to overcome their initial hesitation and ignorance. Tausch et al. (2008) found inter-group anxiety to be a mediating variable between inter- group contact and prejudice. Accordingly, contact is associated with reduced anxiety; and that anxiety mediates the relationship between contact and preju- dice.
b. Conflict theory
According to social identity theory, people have a fundamental need to per- ceive their own in-group as superior to other groups. One of the main mecha- nisms is through the process of categorisation, which leads to group identifica- tion (cf. Tajfel 1982; Savelkoul et al. 2010, 3). Putnam describes the potential negative influence of differing ethnic identifications in so-called ‘conflict the- ory’. According to conflict theory, religious diversity increases out-group dis- trust and in-group solidarity. Therefore, the more contact there is between groups, the more individuals will stick to their own religious identity; religious diversity and out-group solidarity are negatively correlated.
In many ways, conflict theory is related to contestation between differ- ent groups. Savelkoul et al. (2011), for instance, found that diversity actually fosters competition between majority groups and minority groups over scarce resources. As a result, competition between groups fosters solidarity within a specific group, and hostility between groups. In addition, Blalock (1967) dis- tinguishes between perceived competition and actual competition (cf. Scheep-
ers et al. 2002). Perceived competition can be understood as an imaginary competition, referring to a perception of conflict with others with regard to resources. Perceived competition on a macro or meso socio-economic level leads to perceived threat (Savelkoul et al. 2011). Perceived threat encourages unfavorable attitudes towards other group (prejudice, but also violent reac- tions).
c. Constrict theory
Constrict theory proposes that religious diversity encourages people to with- draw from social life. Putnam (2007, 149) argues that ethnic diversity might trigger social isolation and cause people to withdraw from social life – or as he puts it, “[…] pull in like a turtle”. This contradicts contact theory, which pre- sumes that religious diversity enhances out-group solidarity, and conflict the- ory, which proposes that religious diversity reduces out-group solidarity. In constrict theory, religious diversity may actually reduce both in-group and out- group solidarity. This argument is based on the assumption that in-group and out-group attitudes to religious diversity are not necessarily reciprocally re- lated, but can vary independently. They may be positively correlated (as for contact theory) or negatively correlated (as for constrict theory).
4.1.2. Conceptual model and theoretical expectation
The conceptual model (Figure 4.1) shows the relationship between variables, and to what extent each variable might influence another variable. Before we explain our hypotheses, we introduce the theoretical model of independent and intermediary variables. In addition, we generate our hypothesis.
Figure 4.1: Conceptual model
Independent variables Intermediary variables Dependent variables
1.
Personal characteristics
1. Socio-economic status