Testing the Group threat theory in

an European context

Maurice Mante (s2719460)

[email protected]
Supervisor: Michael Thomas
Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

Table of Contents

1 Summary............................................................................................................................................... 2
2 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Research problem .......................................................................................................................... 4
2.3 Structure of the thesis .................................................................................................................... 5
2.4 Theoretical framework .................................................................................................................. 6
2.5 Conceptual model .......................................................................................................................... 9
2.6 Hypotheses..................................................................................................................................... 9
3 Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 10
3.1 Data collection ............................................................................................................................ 10
3.2 GDP levels................................................................................................................................... 10
3.3 Percentage of non-EU population ............................................................................................... 11
3.4 Attitudes towards migrants .......................................................................................................... 11
3.5 testing the group threat theory .................................................................................................... 12
4 Results ................................................................................................................................................ 12
4.1 Change of the attitudes towards migrants over time ................................................................... 12
4.2 Change of the GDP over time ..................................................................................................... 14
4.2.1 Europe as a whole. ............................................................................................................... 14
4.2.2 At the country level. .............................................................................................................. 14
4.2.3 Relation between GDP and attitudes towards migrants....................................................... 16
4.3 Change of the non-EU-immigrant population over time ............................................................. 18
4.3.1 At country level ..................................................................................................................... 18
4.3.2 Relation between the percentage of Non-EU migrants and attitudes towards migrants...... 20
4.4 Analyses of the group threat theory............................................................................................. 22
5 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 28
5.1 Reflections ................................................................................................................................... 30
7 References .......................................................................................................................................... 33
Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

1 Summary

This thesis has the aim to better understand the variations in attitudes towards

migrants. It will do so using the group threat theory introduced by Lincoln Quillian in 1995.

This theory suggests an interaction between GDP and the percentage of non-EU migrants in

society. He argues that this interaction is important for explaining attitudes to migrants. More

specifically, when the product of an interaction between the inverse of GDP and the

percentage of non-EU migrants is high, attitudes towards migrants are predicted to be

negative. As such, this thesis asks ‘’To what extent can group threat theory help explain the

attitudes towards migrants in European countries?’’. To analyse this research question open

source data for European countries are used, with data about the attitudes of national

populations towards migrants derived from the European Social Survey (ESS) and data about

the percentage of non-EU migrants and GDP are collected from Eurostat. Applied in the

context of contemporary Europe, the results typically support the predictions of group threat

theory, though there are important outliers. Estonia and the Czech Republic do not fit the

typical relationship. The group threat theory assumes that non-EU migrants have a different

set of cultural threats than the European migrants. Therefore, the attitudes towards those

migrants will be more negative. But the non-EU migrants in Estonia are mostly Russians and

they have largely the same cultural background as the host country. In the case of the Czech

Republic no conclusive reason could be found. Once these outliers are removed, the

remaining countries do show a negative relationship between low gdp, high shares of non-EU

populations and negative attitudes to migrants. So to conclude the group threat theory seems

to hold true for most of the cases. But it fails to explain two specific cases. The theory has to

be extended to include the factors playing a role in those cases. A option could be to combine

the historical and political context, suggested by other literature, with the economic and

demographic context, represented in the group threat theory. This combination could offer
Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

another inside than the economic and demographic alone, represented in the group threat

theory.

2 Introduction

2.1 Background

In 2015 and 2016 more than 1 million people, either migrants or refugees, entered the

European union (European union, 2017). This so-called ‘migration crisis’ has led to a range of

different policy responses between the member states of the EU. Germany, for example, was

relatively welcoming with Angela Merkle’s ‘’wir shaffen das’’ statement fuelling a heated

discussion in German society and marking a uniquely open policy towards refugees (Trouw,

2016). A completely different policy approach is being undertaken by the Hungarian

government where, in opposition to EU values, the government decided to physically close

the borders by building fences (Trouw, 2016). At the wider EU-scale, and equally surrounded

by heated public discussion, the ‘’turkey deal’’ was passed, bringing the high influx of

migrants to a relative standstill. As of March 20th 2016, all new irregular migrants crossing

from Turkey into the EU, via Greek islands, are returned to Turkey (Seeberg, 2016).

In addition to the migration crisis, Europe is also recovering from the biggest

economic crisis since 1930 (European Economy, 2009). The economic crisis did not hit all of

the European countries evenly, some countries have fared better than others. For example

Greece, Ireland and the UK experienced severe GDP drop while the effects for the

Netherlands and Germany where relatively small (Kickert, 2012). In section 4.2 of this paper

the economic fluctuations will be further assessed. This crisis is also said to have had an

influence on public and political attitudes towards migrants and refugees. During the

economic crisis support for nationalistic, and often anti-immigrant, right-wing parties

emerged all over Europe (Garcia faroldi, 2009). Examples can be seen in Germany with the
Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

Alternative for Germany (AfD), the UK with the rise to prominence of the United Kingdom

Independence Party (UKIP) and in France with the growth of the Front National (Bertz 2013).

due to the differences in impact of the economic crisis it is expected that the changes in

attitudes will also be fluctuating between countries.

At the same time, Europe is facing up to the reality of an ever aging population. The

burden of the non-productive share of the society on the productive share of the population is

growing (European union, 2017). which may lead to problems in sustaining the social support

systems that are currently in place (Smith 2015). One of the solutions to this problem could be

to increase the productive part of society. Pantuliano (2016) argues that refugees and migrants

can significantly contribute to society when they are given the opportunity. So the migration

crisis could also be an opportunity for those countries facing a demographic crisis in terms of

an ageing population and a shrinking population. A key factor that influences the extent to

which refugees and migrants are given these opportunities is public attitudes. Whenever

organisations are trying to get funds for projects, create job opportunities or help out refugees

and migrants in other ways, the overall effectiveness will depend highly on the attitudes in

society towards migrants and refugees.

With this in mind, to better understand differences in policies and to better respond to

migration or even use it to an advantage, it is important to understand what factors determine

the public attitudes towards migrants.

2.2 Research problem

This thesis has the aim to better understand attitudes towards migrants. It will do so

using the group threat theory, a theory that acknowledges specific economic and demographic

factors that, as noted, are of particular relevance in the context of Europe today. The question
Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

that this thesis will be trying to answer is: ‘’To what extent can group threat theory help

explain the attitudes towards migrants in the European countries ?’’

In order to give an answer to this overall research question, four subsequent sub-

questions must be addressed:

1. How did the GDP change over time in different European countries?

2. How did the percentage of non-EU-migrants in European countries change over

time?

3. How did the attitude towards migrants change over time in European countries?

4. Do these trends follow the same path as the group threat theory predicts?

2.3 Structure of the thesis

This thesis will start with a review of the literature and the subsequent development of

a theoretical framework (Section 2.4), wherein some of the main factors that influence the

attitudes towards migrants will be addressed. It will continue with a more in depth explanation

of the group threat theory by Quillian. These theories will be combined in to a conceptual

model describing the factors influencing the attitudes towards migrants (Section 2.5). From

this conceptual modal three hypotheses are derived (Section 2.6). Following this, the

methodology section (Section 3) will explain the choice of research method, where and how

the data is collected and the quality of the data. In the results section (Section 4) the data

analysis will be discussed. First, GDP changes are discussed (Section 4.1) , both on a

European (Section 4.1.1.) and country level (Section 4.1.2) . Second, an assessment of the

percentage of non-EU migrants in the European countries is given (Section 4.2), before the

attitudes towards migrants across Europe are described (Section 4.3). These three factors

combined form the basis for the last part of the results addressed, in section 4.4, where the
Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

interaction introduced by Quillian is analysed. In this analyses the correlation between the

product of the inverse of GDP and share of non-EU migrants and attitudes to migrants is

tested. Finally, the thesis is concluded with a summary of the findings (Section 5),

recommendations for policy and a reflection on the limitation of the research undertaken

herein.

2.4 Theoretical framework

A lot of research has been done about what influences the attitude of people towards migrants.

A distinction that has been made is between the attitude of individual people, a good example

is Mayda (2006) or O’Rourke and Sinnott (2006), and that of a nation as a whole like

McCollum et al. (2014) did. This thesis will focus on the national level. The factors that have

been indicated by previous research can roughly be grouped in to four main factors: political,

historical, demographic and economic (Dempster et al., 2017). Given time constraints, this

thesis will focus on the latter two and in doing so will employ the group threat theory that

focuses on these factors in particular.

The group threat theory focuses on two key factors: GDP per capita (economic) and

the relative size of the ‘’subordinate’’ group (demographic) (Quillian, 1995). Quillian

identifies an interaction between these two factors, where the higher the relative levels in this

interaction the more negative the national population’s attitude will be towards immigrants.

Quilian’s fist argument about the demographic factor is that when the relative size of

the minority group grows it will increasingly compete with the dominant group for scarce

resources like jobs. Secondly he argues that as the relative size of the minority group grows it

will increase the potential for political mobilization. This political mobilization will create a

threat to the establishment from the dominant group and fuel resistant from this group.

Quillian regards non-EU migrants to be the minority group. He supposes that this group has a
Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

different cultural background than the dominant group in the host country. The difference in

cultural background makes that the resistance against non-EU migrants will be greater than

towards EU-migrants.

Quilian’s argumentation for the economic factor is mainly focused on the assumption

that the connection between the economic circumstances and result from either scapegoating

the minority group for economic hardship, or again from the increased competition between

the minority group and the dominant group. In the latter instance because the resources

become increasingly scarce through economic downfall. The group threat theory implies that

when the economic circumcises worsen the dominant group fears it will lose their economic

advantages over the minority group. In cases where economic circumstances improve this

group feelings of threat also diminishes.

Historical factors influence the attitudes towards immigrants and refugees. South

Africa for example is one of the most hostile countries in the world towards immigrants and

refugees. This attitude towards migrants can only be understood when you take in to account

the apartheid history (Crush et al. , 2015). Another example is the luso‐tropicalism in

Portugal.

‘’Luso–tropicalism is based on the hypothetical existence of a specific Portuguese cultural

trait: the natural capacity and ability of Portuguese to relate to people that are seen as

different—a trait that would explain the unique character of colonial relationships and that

would, nowadays, have a positive impact on the relationships between Portuguese and

immigrants.’’ (Vala, Lopes, and Lima,2008)

Vala, Lopes, and Lima (2008) argue that luso‐tropicalism has been developed because of the

specific colonial history. Due to the luso‐tropicalism the traditional association between
Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

national identity and overt prejudice is weaker in Portugal compared to other European

countries.

Political factors also play a role in the attitudes towards migrants and refugees. In

recent years many political parties have linked migration with economic, security and cultural

issues (Crawley and McMahon, 2016). This kind of scapegoating has taken place in several

political debates over the past years. A good example of this was Donald Trump during his

presidential election campaign where he linked drugs and crime to Mexican immigrants

(Andreas, 2009. doves, 2016. Edwards et all., 2017). A critical note that must be takin into

account is that political debate is being influenced by the attitudes that are already present in

the society. The Brexit campaign was a good example of a political debate fuelled by a sense

of dissatisfaction in society. So political debate influences attitudes but also the other way

around (Edwards et all., 2017)

This thesis will try to validate if the group threat theory holds true in the European

context and also to what extent. Due to limited time and resources this thesis will focus on the

attitudes of nations as a whole. Duffy et al. (2015) do give a critical side note to the national

level approach. She argues that it is too simplistic to just take an average attitude of a country

because it discards geographical and social differences within a country. In spite of the

argument of Duffy et al. analysing changes and revealing interesting geographical variations

at a cross-country scale can be important in cases such as the EU where each country has the

ability to delay EU-wide policy formation (Morano-Foadi et all., 2015). De la Porte (2002)

argues that assessing the attitudes in society is crucial for creating effective European policy.
Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

2.5 Conceptual model

inverse of
GDP per history
capita

percentage politics
attitudes
of towards
immigrants immigrants

Quillian (1995) argues that the interaction between the inverse of the GDP and the

percentage of immigrants is a good indicator for the attitudes towards immigrants, where the

higher the relative levels in this interaction the more negative the national population’s

attitude will be towards immigrants. To test this model, a comparison of trends between two

points in time will be performed. One being 2014 before the start of the ‘’migration crisis’’

and 2016, the year the ‘’turkey deal’’ was struck. The literature suggest that factors like

history and politics do also play a role in shaping attitudes towards migrants. Due to the

limited scope of the thesis it will only focus on the factors addressed by Quillian in his group

threat theory.

2.6 Hypotheses

H1 attitudes between countries that experience economic decline will see an increase

in negative attitudes, while those who experience growth will see an increase in positive

attitudes.
Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

H2 countries that have the greatest increase in non-EU migrant population will show

an increase in negative attitudes.

H3 Where GDP drops and the inflow of migrants increases, negative attitudes towards

migrants will increase most sharply.

3 Methodology

3.1 Data collection

The research questions has been analysed with European open source. The main data

about the attitudes of national populations towards migrants are derived from the European

Social Survey (ESS) . The data about the percentage of non-EU migrants in the population

and GDP have been collected from Eurostat. This data set is analysed over time to look for

trends in attitudes for specific countries. The correlation between the attitudes toward

migrants and the interaction proposed by Quilian has been tested.

3.2 GDP levels

The first factor assessed is the level of GDP. To make the change in GDP

comparable between countries an index number is created. For this analysis 2007 will be

taken as an index base year. This base year is chosen to better display the drop in average

GDP that occurred during the latest financial crisis. To set this drop in perspective, data from

2006 and onwards is shown in Figure 3. The change between the index number in 2009 and in

2016 is calculated to show the development of GDP in this period of time. The year 2009 has

been chosen because this was the low point in the financial crisis, when looking at GDP. A

critical note has to be made about the use of GDP to measure economic development.

Giannetti et all (2014) argue that defining economic growth as merely an increase in total

value of goods and services produced and traded in a country is too simplistic. However, in
Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

following the group threat theory, GDP is the most appropriate indicator because it is the

indicator described by Quillen.

3.3 Percentage of non-EU population

The second factor assessed is the percentage of non-EU population. In each country,

the percentage has been calculated for 2014 and 2016. These points in time have been chosen

because this was before and after the ‘’Turkey deal’’. In this period of time the media gave a

lot of attention to the ‘’migration crisis’’ so the public became aware of the problems.

Harteveld et all (2018) suggest that from that point onwards people’s attitudes will start

changing. It should be noted that these data do not include pending asylum requests. So the

actual size of the non-EU population may differ. Again this choice has been made to stay in

line with the interaction that Quillian suggests.

Attitudes towards migrants are collected from the European social survey. This survey

contains the statement ‘’immigrants make the country a better place to live’’. Subjects are

asked to rank this statement between 0: ‘’Immigrants make the country a worst place to live’’

and 10: ‘’immigrants make the country a better place to live’’. Where answers are recorded

for each respondent in each country, an average score is calculated for each country.

3.4 Attitudes towards migrants

To analyse the change of the attitudes over time, two points in time where selected,

2014 and 2016. One being 2014 before the start of the ‘’migration crisis’’ and the other 2016,

the year the ‘’turkey deal’’ was struck. To better analyse the change in attitudes the change is

calculated through an index number, with 2014 being the base year. The fact that the data

seems to centre around 5.0, the neutral option. It may be the case that people find it difficult to

express a more extreme stand point on such a controversial topic (Presser and Schuman,

1980).
Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

3.5 testing the group threat theory

The final analyses is to compare the collected data to the predictions of the group

threat theory. Quillian (1995) argues that the interaction between the inverse of the GDP

(1/GDPx1000) and the percentage of non-EU immigrants in the society is a good indicator for

the attitudes towards non-EU immigrants. The higher this interaction is the more negative the

attitudes towards immigrants. To test the theory the inverse of the GDP is calculated for every

single European country in the data set for the year 2014 and 2016. The inverse is multiplied

by the percentage of non-EU-immigrants in in the corresponding societies. This results in the

interacting suggested by Quillian.

4 Results

4.1 Change of the attitudes towards migrants over time

The first step taken in assessing the group threat theory is analysing the change of

attitudes towards migrants. In Figure 1 the attitudes towards migrants in 2016 are displayed.

The categories are formed from best to worst in this data set. From dark green being the most

welcoming towards migrants to dark red being the least welcoming. So when the data set

would have been more extensive than countries could have been in other categories. There is

no clear geographical distribution of positive and negative attitudes across the European

countries. In Figure 2, the changes in attitudes are displayed with the base year being 2014.

The attitudes seem to be relatively stable (Figure 2).

Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

Figure 2: Mapchange in attitudes towards migrants

Figure 1: Map attitudes towards Migrants 2016

Legend Attitudes towards Legend Change in attitudes

migrants (2016 towards migrants

(Base year 2014)

Lower than 85 Lower than 85

Between 85 - 95 Between 85 - 95

Between 95 - 105 Between 95 - 105

Between 105 - 115 Between 105- 115

Higher than 115 Higher than 115

Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

4.2 Change of the GDP over time

4.2.1 Europe as a whole.

The second step taken in assessing the group threat theory is analysing the GDP

fluctuations in Europe. As show in Figure 3, between 2006 and 2007 the average GDP grew

rapidly after that it stabilized between 2007 and 2008. In 2008 the crisis hit and the average

GPD plummeted to levels below that from 2006. From 2009 onwards the GDP has been

recovering and is still growing at the moment far beyond the levels before the crisis.

Figure 3: Average GDP 28 EU countries

4.2.2 At the country level.

The argument of Duffy (2015) is also relevant in respect to the European scale. When

looking at the average GDP fluctuations you discard geographical differences within Europe.

So to better understand the GDP fluctuations you have to look at the country level. The same

argumentation could be used to zoom in even more to the regional level, but this would

surpass the scope of this research. At the country level the fluctuations are more diverse. In

Figure 4 and 5 below you can see the change in the index of the GDP in 2009 and 2016, with

the index base year of 2007. In 2009 the GDP growth in almost all the European countries
Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

came to a standstill (Figure 4). The Scandinavian countries together with the Baltic states and

Hungary already experienced a decline in their GDP from more than 5 percent. The UK,

Ireland and Iceland experienced even lager decline of over 15 percent. On the other side of the

coin their where still some countries experiencing GDP growth namely Slovakia, Czech

Republic, Switzerland and Bulgaria. With the last one even experiencing growth exceeding 15

percent.

In 2016 large part of Europe was again experiencing GDP growth apart from the UK,

Spain, Italy and Norway with are stable around the level of GDP in 2007 (Figure 5). Special

attention should go to Greece that has still a GDP that is below the pre-crisis level and is even

lower than that in 2009. To conclude, even though the average GDP for Europe is giving a

promising image of growth and seems to overcome the drop of the crisis. Some countries are

clearly still struggling with the aftermath of the financial crisis.

Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

Figure 4:Map Index GDP 2009 Figure 5: Map Index GDP 2016

Legend Index of GDP (Base year 2007)

Lower than 85

Between 85 - 95

Between 95 - 105

Between 105 - 115

Higher than 115

4.2.3 Relation between GDP and attitudes towards migrants

The first hypotheses (H1) expects that : countries that experience economic decline

will see an increase in negative attitudes, while those who experience growth will see an

increase in positive attitudes. To test this hypotheses, the GDP is compared to the attitudes in

the corresponding years. The results are tested for a correlation between the change in
Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

attitudes, between 2014 and 2016, and the change in GDP in the same period. For the change

between 2014 and 2016 no significant correlation has been found (table 1). The 2-tailed

significant level is >.05. The relation is positive as the hypotheses would expect, 0,277. But

no real value can be attributed to this results because the results are not significant. When

looking at the scatterplot ( figure 6 )from the data no real upwards or downwards sloping line

can be identified. It seems that H1 is not valid for this set of countries.

Correlations
change in
attitudes 2014- change gdp
2016 2014-2016
change in attitudes 2014- Pearson Correlation 1 ,277
2016 Sig. (2-tailed) ,360
N 13 13
change gdp 2014-2016 Pearson Correlation ,277 1
Sig. (2-tailed) ,360
N 13 13
Table 1: correlation between change in attitudes and change in GDP (2014-2016)

Figure 6: scatterplot, change in attitudes and change in GDP (2014-2016)

Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

4.3 Change of the non-EU-immigrant population over time

4.3.1 At country level

The last part of the group threat theory is the share of the non-EU immigrant

population in society. Again, the picture at country level is diverse. In general, the share of

this population increased in the north-east of Europe and decreased or remained stable in the

south-west of Europe. The Baltic states are the exception. Estonia and Latvia remained

relatively stable and in Lithuania the population decreased with more than 15 percent (Figure

8). The data displayed is the change between 2014 and 2016. In 2016 Estonia and Latvia top

the list on non-EU population. Both the countries have a percentage of non-EU migrant

population of over 12 percent (Figure 7). This big share of non-EU migrants can be explained

by the history of the nations. These Baltic states were part of the Soviet Union. Because of

this origin the amount of Russian migrants in the Baltic states is relatively high (kirch, 2007).
Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

Figure 7: Map percentage of non-EU population Figure 8: Map change in the non-EU population

legend Percentage of non- Legend Index of non EU

EU population in population (Base year

2016 2014)

0-3 percent Lower than 85

3-6 percent Between 85 - 95

6-9 percent Between 95 - 105

9-12 percent Between 105 - 115

12-15 percent Higher than 115

Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

4.3.2 Relation between the percentage of Non-EU migrants and attitudes towards migrants

The second hypotheses (H2) expects that : Countries that have the greatest increase in

non-EU migrant population will show an increase in negative attitudes. To test this

hypotheses, the percentage of non-EU migrants is compared to the attitudes in the

corresponding years. The results are tested for a correlation between the change in attitudes,

between 2014 and 2016, and the change in the percentage of non-EU migrants in the same

period. For the change between 2014 and 2016 no significant correlation has been found

(table 2). The 2-tailed significant level is >.05. The relation is negative as the hypotheses

would expect, but only slightly , -,005. At first sight no real value can be attributed to this

results because the results are not significant.

Table 2: correlation between change in attitudes and change in non-EU population (2014-2016)

When looking at the scatterplot from the data there are some indications of a negative

correlation (figure 9). The data seems to display a downward sloping line. One outlier is

disturbing the image, Estonia. the percentage of the non-EU population declined, -4,4 percent.

Following the reasoning of the group threat theory this should result in better attitudes

towards migrants. But this is not the case, the attitudes towards migrants worsened, -12

percent.
Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

Figure 9: scatterplot, change in attitude and change in non-EU population (2014-2016)

When excluding Estonia from the analyses the image changes significantly (table 3).

The relation becomes more negative, -,585. And the correlation becomes significant p<0,05.

An explanation could be in the composition of the non-EU migrant population. The group

threat theory assumes that non-EU migrants have a different set of cultural threats than the

European migrants. Therefore, the attitudes towards those migrants will be more negative. But

the non-EU migrants in Estonia are mostly Russians and they have largely the same cultural

background as the host country (kirch, 2007). It could be the case that the total percentage of

non-EU population declined, less Russians, but the percentage of migrants with another

cultural background increased. This would worsen the attitudes towards migrants as is the

case. Islam (2017) argues that the amount of non-EU immigrants, that are not Russian, have

increased in the time period of 2014-2016. In another research he did he classified Estonia as

being one of the most hostile towards receiving migrants that are not European or former
Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

soviet union (Islam, 2016). This could explain the relatively big change in attitudes towards

migrants, -12 percent. H2 seems to hold true when excluding Estonia from the analysis.

Table 3: correlation between change in attitudes and change in non-EU population (2014-2016)

4.4 Analyses of the group threat theory

The group threat theory would expect a negative correlation between the product of

the interaction and attitudes to migrants. This suggestion of the group threat theory results H3:

Where GDP drops and the inflow of migrants increases, negative attitudes towards migrants

will increase most sharply. To test the group threat theory, the interaction is compared to the

attitudes in the corresponding years. The results are tested for a correlation between the

attitudes and the calculated interaction. For the year 2014 no significant correlation has been

found (table 4). The 2-tailed significant level is >.05. For the year 2016 no significant

correlation has been found (table 5). The 2-tailed significant level is >.05. For both years the

correlation is negative as the group threat theory would expect , -,236 in 2014 and -,489 in

2016, at first sight no real value can be attributed to this results because the results are not

significant.
Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

Table 4: correlation between attitudes and interaction (2014)

Table 5:correlation between attitudes and interaction (2016)

When looking at the scatterplot from the data of 2014 there are some indications of a

negative correlation (figure 10). The data seems to display a downward sloping line but two

outliers disturb this image. One of them is Estonia. In 2014 13,9 percent of the Estonian

population were non-EU migrants. This high percentage, in combination with a GDP of only

40 percent of the average in the data set, creates a high interaction of 0,9. Following the

reasoning of the group threat theory this should result in a negative attitude towards migrants.

However, this is not the case, with an attitude score of 4,8 the attitudes seems to be relatively

neutral. The second is the Czech Republic. In 2014 2,5 percent of the Czech population were

non-EU migrants, the second lowest percentage in the data set. This low percentage, in

combination with a GDP of only 40 percent of the average in the data set, creates a relatively

low interaction of 0,15. Following the reasoning of the group threat theory this should result
Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

in a positive attitude towards migrants. However this is not the case, the attitude score of 3,8

is the most negative attitude score in the data set.

When looking at the scatterplot from the data of 2016 there is again some indications

of a negative correlation (Figure 11) . The data seems to display a downward sloping line but

two outliers disturb this image. The two countries are Estonia and the Czech Republic. When

looking at the date the same image appears as in 2014. Estonia has a high percentage of non-

EU migrants, 13,4 percent. The GDP is only 41 percent of the average of the data set. These

two factors combined result in an interaction of 0,83. Following the reasoning of the group

threat theory this should result in a negative attitude towards migrants. In 2016 the attitudes

towards migrants seem to develop in the direction predicted by the group threat theory. The

attitudes worsen from 4,8 in 2014 to 4,2 in 2016 a decline of 12,5 percent. Ranking Estonia

among the three worst countries in the data set (figure 2). But still the attitudes are relatively

positive compared to the high interaction. The Czech Republic has a low percentage of non-

EU migrants, 2,5 percent. The GDP is only 39 percent of the average of the data set. These

two factors combined result in an interaction of 0,15. Following the reasoning of the group

threat theory this should result in a positive attitude towards migrants. However this is not the

case, the attitude score of 3,8 is the most negative attitude score in the data set.
Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

Figure 10: scatterplot, attitudes and interaction (2014)

Figure 11: scatterplot, attitudes and interaction (2016)

Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

When excluding Estonia and the Czech Republic from the analyses the image changes

significantly. For both 2014 and 2016 the correlations turn out to be strong negative

correlations, -,780 for 2014 and -,769 for 2016 (table 6, table 7). And both the correlations are

significant even on a P<0,01 level. For Estonia the explanation could again be in the

composition of the non-EU migrant population. The group threat theory assumes that non-EU

migrants have a different set of cultural threats than the European migrants. Therefore, the

attitudes towards those migrants will be more negative. But the non-EU migrants in Estonia

are mostly Russians and they have largely the same cultural background as the host country

(kirch, 2007). So the assumptions from the Group threat theory may result in the deviating

scores of Estonia. For the Czech Republic no decisive explanation could be found. Other

literature do point out that Czech Republic society heavily support homogeneity. In addition

there is significantly more concern both about the economic costs of immigrants and about

their effect on crime in the Czech Republic, compared to other European countries (Citrin and

Sides, 2008) . Another explanation could be that the data concerning Estonia and the Czech

Republic does not give an accurate representation of reality. In conclusion the group threat

theory seems to hold true when excluding Estonia and the Czech Republic. The same can be

said of H3.
Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

Correlations

interaction

attitude 2014 2014

attitude 2014 Pearson Correlation 1 -,780**

Sig. (2-tailed) ,005

N 11 11

interaction 2014 Pearson Correlation -,780** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) ,005

N 11 11

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 6: Correlation between attitudes and interaction (2014, Without Estonia and Czech Republic)

Correlations

interaction

2016 attitude 2016

interaction 2016 Pearson Correlation 1 -,769**

Sig. (2-tailed) ,006

N 11 11

attitude 2016 Pearson Correlation -,769** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) ,006

N 11 11

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 7: Correlation between attitudes and interaction (2016, Without Estonia and Czech Republic)
Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

5 Conclusion

This thesis had the aim to better understand attitudes towards migrants. The recent

economic, migration and ageing problems in Europe all need policy actions, though the

attitudes towards migrants could play a crucial role. In an attempt to increase the

understanding of variations in attitudes towards migrants across Europe, the group threat has

been applied and tested.

There is no clear geographical distribution of positive and negative attitudes across the

European countries available in the data set. A side note that has to be made is that the data

set might be too small to identify geographical patterns. In addition the attitudes towards

migrants seem to be relatively stable between 2014 and 2016. And no clear distribution across

Europe

In 2008 the crisis hit and the average GPD plummeted to levels below that from 2006.

From 2009 onwards the GDP has been recovering and is still growing at the moment far

beyond the levels from before the crisis. Even though the average GDP for Europe is giving a

promising image of growth and seems to overcome the drop of the crisis. The situation for

every single country is very diverse. The first hypotheses (H1) expects that : countries that

experience economic decline will see an increase in negative attitudes, while those who

experience growth will see an increase in positive attitudes. The conclusion that can be made

is that this hypnotises does not hold true for this data set.

The second part of the group threat theory is the share of the non-EU immigrant

population in society. Again, the picture at country level is diverse. In general, the share of

this population increased in the north-east of Europe and decreased or remained stable in the

south-west of Europe. The second hypotheses (H2) expects that : Countries that have the
Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

greatest increase in non-EU migrant population will show an increase in negative attitudes.

H2 seems to hold true when excluding Estonia from the analysis.

When assessing the group threat theory, some interesting results emerge. When all

countries are included, the correlation tests show a weak (non-significant) negative

relationship between the product of the inverse of GDP and the share of non-EU migrants and

attitudes to migrants. However, this relationship seems to be strongly influenced by two

outlier countries, Estonia and the Czech Republic. When these countries are removed, the

expected negative relationship increases in strength, reaching statistical significance. In the

case of Estonia and the Czech Republic, the theory seems fail to explain the attitudes towards

migrants.

The failing of the group threat theory could be explained by the fact that it assumes

that non-EU migrants have a different set of cultural threats than the European migrants.

Therefore, the attitudes towards those migrants will be more negative. But the non-EU

migrants in Estonia are mostly Russians and they have largely the same cultural background

as the host country. So the assumption of the group threat theory does not hold true for

Estonia. In the case of the Czech Republic no conclusive reason could be found. Further

research could be aimed at assessing why the attitudes in Estonia and the Czech Republic

differ from what the group threat theory would expect. Besides this it would be interesting to

test the group threat theory on the regional scale, something that surpasses the scope of this

research.

So to conclude the group threat theory seems to hold true for most of the cases. But it

fails to explain two specific cases. The same can be said of H3. The theory has to be extended

to include the factors playing a role in those cases. A option could be to combine the historical

and political context, suggested by other literature, with the economic and demographic
Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

context, represented in the group threat theory. This combination could offer another inside

than the economic and demographic alone, represented in the group threat theory.

5.1 Reflections

Reflecting on the research process, there are a number of limitations that should be

recognised. The limitations of this thesis are mainly formed by the missing countries in the

data set. The eastern and southern European countries did not participate in the European

social survey, so no data was available on the attitudes for these countries. Some interesting

cases are missing, for example Greece. Following the reasoning from the group threat theory

it would have been interesting to see the effect of this economic downfall in Greece on the

attitudes towards migrants.

The fact that the data is not available for all European countries can bias the analyses

made in this thesis. Another critical point is that the data seems to center around 5.0, the

neutral option. It may be the case that people find it difficult to express a more extreme stand

point on such a controversial topic (Presser and Schuman, 1980).

In addition the group threat theory is only tested at the country level. The results may

be different when assessing the theory at regional level.

When conducting this research some ethical issues should be taken in to consideration.

The fact that I am an unexperienced researcher may increase the opportunity that mistakes are

being made throughout the research. Besides that, my personal view about attitudes for

different countries may cloud my judgement in analysing the data from specific countries.

This should be countered by the fact that I am not collecting my own data and that the

analyses of the data will be the same for all the counties in the data set. Finally, it is

impossible to identify individuals from the data so there are no privacy issues or risk of

disclosure.
Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).
Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).
Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

7 References

Agostinho, F., Almeida, C, M, V, B., Giannetti, B, F., Huisingh, D,. (2015). A review of

limitations of GDP and alternative indices to monitor human wellbeing and to manage eco-

system functionality. Journal of Cleaner Production, 87(1), 11-25.

Andreas, P. (2009) Border Games: Policing the U.S.-Mexico Divide. Ithaca, NY: Cornell

University Press.

Bertz, H,G. (2013). The new front national: still a master case?. RECODE working paper

series,30.

Citrin, J., Sides, J. (2008). Immigration and the Imagined Community in Europe and the

United States. Political studies, 56(1), 33-56.

Crawley, H., and McMahon, S. (2016) Beyond fear and hate: mobilising people power to

create a new narrative on migration and diversity. Coventry: Centre for Trust, Peace and

Social Relations, Coventry University.

Crush, J., Ramachandran, S., and Pendleton, W. (2013). Soft Targets: Xenophobia, Public

Violence and Changing Attitudes to Migrants in South Africa after May 2008. . Capetown:

Southern African Migration Programme.

De la Porte, C. and Pochet, P. (2002) “Social Benchmarking, Policy Making and New

Governance in the Eu,” Peace Research Abstracts, 39(4), 459–605.

Demster, H. & Hargrave, K. (2017). Understanding public attitudes towards refugees and

migrants. Working paper 512. London: Overseas development institute.

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (2014). Population ageing in Europe: facts,

implications and policies. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European

Communities.
Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

Dove, T. (2016). Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech. Consulted on 07-06-

2018 through https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/politics/transcript-trump-immigration-

speech.html, The New York times.

Duffy, B. & Kaur-Ballagan, K. & Gottfried, G. (2015). Shifting Ground Report #1: Changing

attitudes to immigration in the long term and during election campaigns. London: Ipsos

MORI.

Edwards, J. , Haugerud, A. and Parikh, S. (2017). Introduction: The 2016 Brexit referendum

and Trump election. American Ethnologist, (44), 195-200.

European Economy (2009). Economic Crisis in Europe: Causes, Consequences and

Responses. Raport 7/2009. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European

Communities

European union (2017). The EU and the migration crisis. publications.europa.eu 02-02-2018.

Garcia-Faroldi, L. (2017). Determinants of attitudes towards immigration: Testing the

influence of interculturalism, Group threat theory and national context in time of crisis.

Grand-Saconnex: IOM

Harteveld, E., Schaper, J., De Lange, S. L. and Van Der Brug, W. (2018) “Blaming Brussels?

The Impact of (news About) the Refugee Crisis on Attitudes Towards the Eu and National

Politics,”. Journal of Common Market Studies, 56(1), 157–177.

Hommes, K. (2016). Hongarije bouwt nog een hek om vluchtelingen te weren. Consulted on

12-03-2018 through https://www.trouw.nl/home/hongarije-bouwt-nog-een-hek-om-

vluchtelingen-te-weren~a5997e9a/, trouw.
Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

Hommes, K. (2016). Merkels 'Wir schaffen das' leidde niet tot extra vluchtelingen naar

Duitsland. Consulted on 12-03-2018 through https://www.trouw.nl/home/merkels-wir-

schaffen-das-leidde-niet-tot-extra-vluchtelingen-naar-duitsland~a1edc9f6/, trouw.

Islam, A. (2016). “Refugee Quota: Is Estonia Ready to Receive Refugees? A Review of the

Literature on Migration and Ethnic Minorities in Estonia,” International and

Multidisciplinary Journal of Social Sciences, 5(3), 281–281.

Islam, A. (2017). “Constructing Narratives through Story Telling: A Study of Refugees in

Estonia,”. Anthropological Notebooks, 23(2), 67–81.

Kickert, W. (2012). State Responses to the Fiscal Crisis in Britain, Germany and the

Netherlands. Public Management Review, 14(3), 299–309.

Kirch, A., Kirch, M., & Tuisk, T. (2007). Russians in the Baltic States: To be or not to be?.

Journal of Baltic Studies, 24(2), 173-188.

Mayda, A.M. (2006). Who Is Against Immigration? A Cross-Country Investigation of

Individual Attitudes toward Immigrants. Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(3), 510-530.

McCollum, D. & Nowok, B. & Tindal, S. (2014). Public Attitudes towards Migration in

Scotland: Exceptionality and Possible Policy Implications. Scottish Affairs, 23(1), 79-102.

Morano-Foadi, S. and Vickers, L. (2015). Fundamental rights in the EU : a matter for two

courts. Oxford: Hart Publishing (Modern studies in European law).

Norris, P. (2000). A Virtuous Circle: Political Communications in Postindustrial Societies.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

O’Rourke, K.H. & Sinnott, R. (2006). The determinants of individual attitudes towards

immigration. European Journal of Political Economy, 22(4), 838-861.

Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

Pantuliano, S. (2016). 3 ways for countries to build resilience to mass refugee flows.

Consulted on 12-03-2018 through http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sara-pantuliano/3-ways-

for-countries-to-b_b_9011262.html, Huffington Post.

Presser, S. Schuman, H. (1980). The Measurement of a Middle Position in Attitude Surveys.

Public Opinion Quarterly, 44(1), 70-85.

Seeberg, P. (2016). The EU-Turkey March 2016 Agreement As a Model: New Refugee

Regimes and Practices in the Arab Mediterranean and the Case of Libya. Centre for

Contemporary Middle East Studies, working paper, 16.

Smith, G. (2015). The ageing society and it’s potential impact on health and social care

provision. Working Papers in the Health Sciences, 13(1).

Vala, J., Lopes, D., & Lima, M. (2008). Black immigrants in Portugal: Luso‐tropicalism and

prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 64(2), 287–320.

EDWARDS, J. , HAUGERUD, A. and PARIKH, S. (2017). Introduction: The 2016 Brexit

referendum and Trump election. American Ethnologist, (44), 195-200.

Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

Peer review formulier - Bachelorthesis

Algemeen

Is de opbouw van de thesis duidelijk? Ja

Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

Is de samenhang tussen de verschillende Ja, na verduidelijking van de Threat Theory

onderdelen duidelijk? in het begin + Turkey deal helemaal (zie

comments later in dit formulier)

Is de meerderheid van de bronnen Ja, wetenschappelijk

wetenschappelijk? Zo niet, is daar een

goede reden voor?

Is de gebruikte literatuur recent? Zo niet, is Ja, recent

daar een goede reden voor?

Zijn alle gebruikte bronnen vermeld in de Ja

literatuurlijst?

Worden bronnen correct geciteerd? Ja, veelal wel. De thesis moet uiteraard nog

even worden doorgelezen en controleert.

Wordt correct verwezen naar bronnen, Ja, in de bronnenlijst moeten de titels nog

volgens het Harvard systeem? schuingedrukt worden gemaakt. Maar dat

komt vast nog goed.

Verduidelijken gebruikte figuren en Ja

tabellen de tekst?
Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

Zijn figuren en tabellen correct genummerd Ja, ook.

en wordt ernaar verwezen in de tekst?

Is de tekst duidelijk en leesbaar? Ja, op een aantal spellingsfouten etc na,

maar dat komt ook goed.

Hoe is de opbouw van de zinnen? Prima

Zijn de spelling, grammatica, en Veelal wel. Zoals gezegd, het moet nog

interpunctie correct? even worden doorgelezen, dit is de draft.

Vragen/ Opmerkingen

Samenvatting

Worden de belangrijkste elementen uit het Misschien in plaats van te vertellen waar de

onderzoek besproken? data vandaan komt (Kan wel kort erin) kort
Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

uitleggen in 1 zin wat de group threat

theory is.

Worden onderwerp, doelstelling, Ja, duidelijk. Het enige wat ik mis is een

onderzoeksvragen, methoden, resultaten en korte uitleg van de group threat theory. Dit

conclusies samengevat? is ook fijn om alvast te weten bij het lezen

van de introductie etc.

Vragen/ Opmerkingen

Inleiding

Is het onderwerp duidelijk afgebakend? Ja

Wordt de relevantie van het onderwerp Ja, de houding tegenover migranten is van

duidelijk uiteengezet? belang om te weten ivm met integratie van

migranten en vluchtelingen.
Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

Wat is het doel van het onderzoek, Het doel van het onderzoek is om te kijken

geformuleerd in je eigen woorden? wat voor houding europa heeft tegenover

de komst van migranten en vluchtelingen

en of deze houding overeenkomt met de

group threat theory van Lincoln Quillan.

Zijn het doel en de onderzoeksvragen Ja, het doel van het onderzoek wordt

ingebed in wetenschappelijke literatuur? gelinkt met de group threat theory van

Lincoln Quillan.

Wekt de inleiding je interesse op? Ja, het is een relevant thema wat op dit

Waardoor (niet)? moment een grote rol speelt in Europa.

Vragen/ Opmerkingen

Opnieuw misschien in de introductie kort iets zeggen over de group threat theory.

Daarover gaat je onderzoek, maar wordt pas iets over gezegd in het theoretisch kader.

Theoretisch kader
Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

Vormen de besproken theoretische Ja theoretische inzichten zijn besproken op

inzichten een relevante basis voor het 4 verschillende aspecten die van invloed

beantwoorden van de onderzoeksvraag/- zouden kunnen zijn.

vragen?

Worden de theoretische inzichten op een Ja er worden voorbeelden genoemd wat ik

begrijpelijke manier uiteengezet? fijn vind. Alleen misschien nog enkele

voorbeelden die echt betrekking hebben op

de EU. Aangezien daar de focus ligt.

Wordt verwezen naar relevante Ja

internationale wetenschappelijke literatuur?

(artikelen uit wetenschappelijke

tijdschriften en wetenschappelijk boeken)

Is het theoretisch kader logisch Ja zeker. Eerst duidelijk de 4 verschillende

opgebouwd? influences genoemd en die dan per alinea

uitgewerkt.

Sluit het conceptueel model aan bij de Ja sluit aan op de theorie, alleen in de

onderzoeksvragen en theorie? eerste alinea van de theorie zeg je

demography, politics, history and economy

en in het conceptueel model zijn de termen

demography en economy ineens weg (ik

snap dat het percentage of immigrants and

Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

gdp is) maar misschien kan je gewoon

economy and demograpy doen en dan in de

tekst uitleggen? Of Demography (%

immigrants) in het blokje oid. Dan komt

het helemaal goed overeen met je theory

stuk.

Vragen/ Opmerkingen

- misschien bij political debate nog wat relevante voorbeelden met betrekking tot de EU.

- de eerste zin van het theoretisch kader noem je an individual and a national attitude

towards migrants. Misschien nog goed/duidelijk om in die alinea dan even te zeggen dat

je in het onderzoek focust op alleen national attitude towards migrants, je zegt het ook op

het einde van het theoretische kader maar nu noem je het aan het begin en dan ineens

helemaal niks erover.

- De ‘Turkey Deal’ komt een beetje uit de lucht vallen in het conceptual model.

Misschien kan je hierover een alinea schrijven in de inleiding, dat het een deel is van de

probleemstelling. Voor Turkey Deal grote stroom richting Europa, na de Turkey deal in

2015/16? Is dit veranderd door dit en dit. Even kort uitleggen wat het is. ☺

- Je hebt in het theoretische kader ook de politieke en historisch invloed. Dit bespreek je

als eerste. Misschien is het handiger/fijner voor de lezer om te beginnen met de theory
Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

van Quillian omdat daar je onderzoek over gaat. En dan als soort side note dat ook

historische en politieke interactie van invloed kan zijn om deze en deze reden maar dat je

dat verder in deze analyse niet gaat onderzoeken.

Methodologie

Wordt de keuze voor de gebruikte Ja, dit wordt goed uitgelegd, elke variabele

methoden van dataverzameling en data- in een aparte alinea.

analyse goed toegelicht?

Sluiten de manieren van dataverzameling Ja, volgens mij wel

en data-analyse aan bij doelstelling en

onderzoeksvragen?

Zijn de gebruikte vragenlijsten, lijsten met Nog niet, maar dat komt vast nog wel. Ook

observatiepunten, etc. opgenomen in is er geen eigen vragen lijst gebruikt, dus

bijlagen? deze kan ook niet worden opgenomen in de

bijlage.
Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

Wordt duidelijk uitgelegd hoe te werk is Ja dit wordt duidelijk uitgelegd.

gegaan bij het verzamelen en analyseren

van de gegevens?

Wordt gereflecteerd op de kwaliteit van de Ja, ook.

verzamelde gegevens?

Is voldoende uiteengezet welke ethische Ja, ook.

vraagstukken in het onderzoek relevant

zijn, en hoe hiermee is omgegaan?

Zijn de paragrafen over methodologie Ja, de paragrafen zijn per variabele

logisch opgebouwd? opgebouwd. Dat is volgens mij een

logische manier.

Vragen/ opmerkingen
Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

Resultaten

Worden de meest relevante resultaten Ja, inclusief mooie kaarten.

besproken?

Worden de resultaten grondig geanalyseerd Naar mijn mening wel, mogelijke oorzaken

(en niet alleen beschreven)? worden meerdere malen besproken.

Worden de resultaten in verband gebracht Ja

met de onderzoeksvragen?

Zijn de paragrafen met resultaten logisch Ja, beschrijvende resultaten eerst, correlatie

opgebouwd? als laatst

Vragen/ opmerkingen
Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

- Ik heb niet zoveel verstand van de berekeningen etc maar het ziet er allemaal goed uit.

Ik snap ook niet zo goed hoe je de resultaten al grondig moet analyseren, dat lijkt me iets

voor in de conclusie. Ik denk dat je dat zo dan prima hebt gedaan.

Conclusie/discussie

Worden de onderzoeksvragen beantwoord? Ja, de Group Threat theory komt

waarschijnlijk niet overeen met de

werkelijkheid (resultaten niet sig).

Worden de resultaten in een breder Ja.

theoretisch perspectief geplaatst?

Worden de resultaten vergeleken met Nee, maar ik weet ook niet hoe je dit zou

andere onderzoeksresultaten? moeten doen.

Worden aanbevelingen gedaan voor Ja, een grotere data set met ook de

toekomstig onderzoek? europese landen die nu ontbraken of een

analyse op regionaal niveau wat ook de N

vergroot.
Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

Vragen/ opmerkingen

- Ik zou de conclusie weer beginnen met een alinea over de Theory van Quillan/ de

instroom van migranten naar de EU/ de invloed van de Turkey deal/ economische

recessie/ vergrijzende populatie → houding mensen tegenover immigranten.

- eerste alinea zou ik dus anders doen, vervolg is gewoon goed.

Alleen even een aparte alinea maken vanaf ‘further research’ dit is het begin van de

discussie.
Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).

Modificaties after peer review

- In the summary I included a part about the group threat theory

- In the background I included a short introduction about ‘’the turkey deal’’

- In the theoretical framework I pointed out that the thesis focusses on the national level

- In the conclusion repeated the reason for the thesis. The recent crisis, better

understand the attitudes towards migrants for.

- In the literature list: I forgot the make the titles of the journals cursive
Bachelor thesis, Maurice Mante (s2719460), (2018).