Skip to main content

Interactions Across Boundaries in More and Less Diverse Contexts

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Diversity and Contact

Abstract

This chapter turns to core results of the project. We outline the social interactions between those without and those with migration background. Here we present results for three different interactions: contacts in the neighbourhood, and weak as well as strong ties, both within and beyond the neighbourhood. We show to what extent different levels of diversity in the neighbourhood are related to frequencies of intergroup interaction. Contrary to pessimistic assumptions in part of literature, we can demonstrate that higher levels of diversity in the neighbourhood are associated with higher frequencies of intergroup interaction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The question in the German-language questionnaire was: ‘Jetzt nochmal eine Frage zu Ihrem Wohnviertel. Wie oft unterhalten Sie sich in Ihrem Wohnviertel mit Menschen, die selbst oder deren Eltern nicht aus Deutschland stammen?’ for respondents without migration background. Respondents with migration background were asked, ‘Wie oft unterhalten Sie sich in Ihrem Wohnviertel mit Menschen, die aus Deutschland stammen?

  2. 2.

    taub = −0.03 n.s.

  3. 3.

    taub = 0.20.

  4. 4.

    taub = −0.02.

  5. 5.

    Respondents were asked, for instance, whether they agree or disagree with the statement ‘I generally don’t care about the problems of foreigners.’

  6. 6.

    In parts of the literature other categories are used, thus for instance Talja Blokland distinguishes transactions, connections, interdependencies and bonds (2003: 13).

  7. 7.

    A larger fraction of these answers give quite low numbers of weak ties supporting the view that these answers are presumably wrong.

  8. 8.

    taub = 0.30

  9. 9.

    Here for people living in cities of at least 50,000 inhabitants in the Western states including Berlin (comparable to the population of the DivCon panel), own calculations.

  10. 10.

    taub = 0.06

  11. 11.

    In two multivariate analyses on network size (not shown), the regression coefficients between network size and share of foreigners are −0.05 (sig.) for strong ties and 0.00 (n.s.) for weak ties.

  12. 12.

    It takes a 21 percentage points larger share of foreigners at the neighbourhood level to reduce the strong tie network by one tie.

  13. 13.

    In another publication Petermann and Schönwälder (2014) investigated neighbourhood effects on the shares of intergroup ties among all ties. Differences in neighbourhood diversity turned out to have no impact.

  14. 14.

    Weak ties: taub = 0.06, sig; strong ties: taub = 0.10.

  15. 15.

    We investigated potential effects of the heterogeneity of the foreign population, of the unemployment ratio, and of population size and density.

  16. 16.

    The intraclass correlations for intergroup exposure in network ties are very low (p = 0.01 for weak ties resp. p = 0.04 for strong ties in the null models).

  17. 17.

    Larger networks boost the existence of cross-group weak and strong ties, and looser forms of interaction further stronger forms. Immigrant respondents and respondents with intergroup partners are more likely to have ties across group boundaries. Higher educational levels and higher occupational status enhance the likelihood of an intergroup tie among weak ties. However, social status is irrelevant for the existence of strong intergroup ties.

  18. 18.

    Further countries among the top ten are France, Spain, the US, (former) Yugoslavia, the UK and Greece.

  19. 19.

    Heterophily and homophily are generally understood as the results of both opportunities and preferences.

  20. 20.

    Here we exclude those who refused to answer or said they did not know.

  21. 21.

    taub’s range from 0.03 to 0.14.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Schönwälder, K. et al. (2016). Interactions Across Boundaries in More and Less Diverse Contexts. In: Diversity and Contact. Global Diversities. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58603-2_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58603-2_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-58602-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-58603-2

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics