Post on 13-Sep-2018
Panel25:Socialcohesion,diversityand
publicpolicies.Friday,June30th08:15to10:15
(BlockB3- 3)
ICPP,Singapore28-30June2017
Trustinpolice:effectsofreligiousandnationalattachment.
AstudyofadolescentsinFranceandGermany.
TheSchoolsurveyofthe“Polis”project.
SebastianRoché &DietrichOberwittler (PIs)Anina Schwartzenbach,SandrineAstor
Roadmap“POLIS”study
• Introduction• 1/HYPOTHESES• 2/DATA• 3/FINDINGS• 4/SUMMARY• 5/DISCUSSION
1HYPOTHESES
Trustinpolice
Nationalidentification
GovernmentRepresentsnation
Police(institutedbygovernment)
Public
Institutivelegitimacy Relationallegitimacy
(1)Does thepublicfeel partofthenation?Identity basedlegitimacy
(1)(2)
(2)Does thepublictrustthepolice?Relational legitimacy
3 waystothinkaboutAttitudestowardsthepolice(ATP)
• Interactionswithpolice(interactionalorder):• =>biasinselection+processes(PJ/relationalmodelofauthority)
• Locallevelcitystructure(concentrateddisadvantages)
• Societylevelcleavages(social/politicalorder):religion,nationalidentification,
• =>asocietalmodelofauthority/trust/socialcohesion
Acloserlookatsocialcleavages• 1.Policeorganizationsaredesignedtocompelpeopletoobey(whethertheylikeitornot),toconformthemselveswiththeexistingpoliticalorder,
• 2.Policeorganizationsareinstitutedanddirectedby“superiorauthorities”(institutiveauthorities)thatrepresent“thepeople”,
• 3.Feelingsofattachmenttopoliticalcommunitiescouldexplaintheattributionoftrust/legitimacytopolice
• =>Ethnicity/religion• =>Socio/ethnic-spatialexclusion
Hypotheses(noninteractionalcauses)
TrustPolice
Religiosity
Nationalidentif.
Neighbor.effects
SocialCleavages
ETHNICITY
ETHNICITY
ETHNICITY
2DATA,MEASURMENTS
The« POLIS »survey
German-FrenchresearchFrance:SebastianRoché (teamleader),Jacquesde
Maillard,SandrineAstor andcolleaguesAllemagne:DietrichOberwittler (teamleader),Anina
Schwarzenbach andcolleagues
2quitesimilar
countries
“Polis”(2011):specificities
• Notnationalaveragesofadultpopulationbut• =>citybasedsurveys(4):n=22.000.• =>adolescents:moretenserelationswithpolice,
• =>preciseminorityrepresentation(randomsamplesofclassesinschools)
• =>precise“neighborhoodlevel”measures(geocodingofaddresses)
Dependentvariable:Constructofattitudestowardthepolice• Scale:stronglyagree– agree– disagree– stronglydisagree• Items
ThepoliceprotectadolescentsOneshouldinanycasefollowtheinstructionsofthepolice
Overallthepolicecanbetrusted
Thepolicedisrespectadolescents
Evenifhavingaseriousproblem,IwouldnevercontactthepoliceIfadolescentsprotestviolentlyandwithriotsagainstthepolice,IwouldjointhemThepolicetreatforeignersworsethannatives
negativeitems
positiveitems
13
Religion,religiosity&nationalidentification
• Religion:ethnicityworksasaproxyforreligion(Turkish>90%Muslim,Maghrebian >90%Muslim)
• Religiosity:Howimportantisreligioninyourlife?
• Nationalidentification:Generallyspeaking,doyoufeelasaGerman[French]orasamemberofyourgroupoforigin?
• Ifeel…completelyGerman[French]– moreGerman[French]– divided– moreasmemberofgroupoforigin– completelyasmemberofgroupoforigin
14
3POLISFINDINGS
3.1• RELIGIOSITYandETHNICBACKGROUND
• INTERACTIONEFFECTS:ETHNICITYANDRELIGIOUS/NATIONALIDENTITYonATP
Religiosityandethnicbackground
0%# 20%# 40%# 60%# 80%# 100%#
na#ve&&
Turk.(D)/Magh.(F)&
other&migra#on&back.&&
na#ve&&
Turk.(D)/Magh.(F)&
other&migra#on&back.&&
Germ
any&
Fran
ce&
not#important#
fairily#important#
important#
very#important#
T#test:##Germany#(M=2.5,#SD=1.07)#France#(M=2.4,#SD=1.15),#p<0.000##Germany#Pearson's#Χ2##=##2.3e+03,#p<0.000#Cramérs'#V#=#0.4246##France#Pearson's#Χ2##=#4.8e+03#p<0.000#Cramérs'#V#=#0.4708##
DemographyinFrance/EU(geography)
• “94%ofMuslimsdeclaredin2008andaged18-50areimmigrantsorchildrenofimmigrants”(Tribalat,INED),
• 63%ofMuslimsaged18-50areresidingin3regions:Paris,MarseilleandRhône-Alpes(GrenobleandLyon).
• In5%mostdeprivedneighborhoods(IRIS),Muslimsrepresent37%ofthepopulation(against8%onaverageinFrance).
ATP:religiosity*ethnicitycontrollingforsocio-demographicvariables
19
22.
53
3.5
Line
ar P
redi
ctio
n
not important at all fairily important important very importantimportance of religion
native EuropeTurkey
Predictive Margins of ethnic2 with 95% CIs
22.
53
3.5
Line
ar P
redi
ctio
n
not important at all fairily important important very importantimportance of religion
native EuropeMaghreb and Middle East
Predictive Margins of ethnic2 with 95% CIs
Germany France
increaseinreligiosity:+trust strongerreligiosity:minority- trust
20
GERMANY• amongallethnicgroups:strongerreligiosity hasapositiveeffect
onATP(significantpositive“main”effectofreligiosity)• NodifferenceacrossethnicgroupsFRANCE• forMaghrebians:strongerreligiosityhasanegativeeffectonATP
(significantinteractioneffect)• forotherethnicgroups:Noeffect(natives)orcurvilineareffectof
religiosityonattitudestowardpolice(significantnegative“main”effectofreligiosity)
Summaryoftheinteraction:religiosity*ethnicity
Nationalidentificationandethnicbackground– minoritygroupsonly
0%# 20%# 40%# 60%# 80%# 100%#
Turk.(D)/Magh.(F)/
other/migra5on/back.//
Turk.(D)/Magh.(F)/
other/migra5on/back.//
Germ
any/
Fran
ce/
completely#G/DE#
more#G/DE#
devided#
more#group#of#origin#
completely#group#of#origin#
T#test:##Germany#(M=2.1,#SD=1.39)#France#(M=2.3,#SD=1.20),#p<0.000##Germany#Pearson's#Χ2##=##5.6e+03,#p<0.000#Cramérs'#V#=#0.6628##France#Pearson's#Χ2##=#4.6e+03,#p<0.000#Cramérs'#V#=#0.4605##
ATP:nationalidentification*ethnicitycontrollingforsocio-demographicvariables
22
1.5
22.
53
3.5
Line
ar P
redi
ctio
n
host divided originNational identification
Europe Turkey
Predictive Margins of ethnic2 with 95% CIs
1.5
22.
53
3.5
host divided originNational identification
Europe Maghreb and Middle East
Predictive Margins of ethnic2 with 95% CIs
predictivemarginsofnative
Germany France
2.88
2.56
Summaryontheinteractionnationalidentification* ethnicity
23
• InGermanyandFrance,minorityyouthsthatfeelveryclosetotheirgroupoforiginhavemorenegativeATPthannativeyouth(significant“main”effect),
• BUT:• InGermany:nodifferencebetween2minoritygroups,
• InFrance,ReligiosityhasastrongereffectonATPforMaghrebian youths(significantinteractioneffect)
3.2NEIGHBORHOODEFFECTS
(full)multilevel regression model – predicted effect ofconcentrated disadvantage onATP(DE)
noeffectofconcentrateddisadvantage
(full)multilevel regression model – predicted effect ofconcentrated disadvantage onpositiveATP(FR)
4SUMMARY
Findings(1/2):
1. Minorityethnicgroupà lesssupportiveofthepolice=YES
2. Weakidentificationwithnationalsocietyà lesssupportiveofthepolice=YES
3. Minoritydenominationà lesssupportiveofthepolice=not
4. Strongreligiositystandsforthesharingofconservativevaluesàmoresupportiveofthepolice=not
5. Mostdisadvantagedneighborhoodofcitiesà lesssupportiveofthepolice,not
28
Controllingfor:self-reporteddelinquencytypeofcontactwiththepolice
ETHNICMINORITY
NATIONALIDENTIFICATION
ATP
Findings:interactioneffects(2/2)
+RELIGIOSITY +NEIGHBORHOODDISADVANTAGE
POSITIVENEGATIVE
5DISCUSSION
Discussion
• Societiesareorganizedalongfaultlines• Ethnicity,Religiosityandeconomicstatusaresuchlines
• Theireffect(direction)andimportance(intensity)varyacrosscountries
• FranceismoredividedthanGermany• =>shouldn’tcleavagesalsoexplaintrustinthepolice?
Cleavages• Societiesaresplitalongoneormorelinesrootedinstructuraltransformationsthataretriggeredbylarge-scaleprocesses
• “cleavages”arethesociety’sfaultlinesalongwhich:• - spaceisused,• - senseofsolidaritydevelops,• - politicalattitudesform,
• Religion regardedas1ofthe2majorcleavagesbypoliticalscientists(sinceSemour Lipset &SteinRokkan,1967)
• ReligionintersectsmuchwithethnicityinEurope
Ethnicity
Smalleffect
Largeeffect
amarkerofgroupboundaries
Religiosity
Integrativeeffect
Separationeffect
amarkerofgroupboundaries
Denomination/religiousnessnopre-determinedeffectinitself,butinrelationtoreligionascleavageinagivensociety
Grouployaltyandreligion
• Atheistgroupvs religiousgroups• Variousreligiousdenominations
Nationalframingeffectofreligiosity
+Religiousindividuals
-Religious
-Religiousindividuals
+Religiousindividuals
PoliceHIGHsupport
PoliceLOWsupport
Religionadministeredbystate
Churchoutsidepublicsphere
Nationalframingeffect:identityascleavage?
• GermanyandFrancearesecularsocieties,butsecularismhasadifferenthistoryineachofthem
• SecularismismorestrictinFrance.• Meaningofreligiosityisdependentontheframingeffectofnation-state(MuslimreligiousminorityismorereluctanttoembracenationinFrancethaninGermany).
• Nationalframingeffectmightexplainlackofneighborhoodeffect(concentrationofpoverty=religiousconcentration)inGermany.
THANKYOU