Discrimination Against Ethnic Minorities in Germany: Going Back to the Field¹

Abstract

A series of 14 field experiments on the differential treatment of ethnic majority and minority groups were conducted. In all studies, German participants were confronted with a German or a foreign confederate (ostensibly a member of the migrant‐worker population or a refugee/asylum seeker). In 9 experiments, the foreign confederate received worse treatment than did his German counterpart. Meta‐analyses showed a significant overall correlation between ethnic group membership and indexes of discrimination (r= .24), which support the assumption of everyday ethnic discrimination in Germany. Categorizing studies according to the directness of interaction between confederate and participants revealed a significantly stronger discrimination in remote contact situations (r= .34 vs. r= .17), replicating results of a review on American studies by Crosby, Bromley, and Saxe (1980).

What is learned from repeated pairings? On the scope and generalizability of evaluative conditioning.

“…The sign of the given contingency was always opposite to prevalent attitudes, thus (a) working against unwanted infiuences of expectancies and (b) avoiding bottom or ceiling effects. Hence, the proportion of positive pairings was higher for males than for females (e.g., Eagly, Mladinic, & Otto, 1991;Rudman & Goodwin, 2004), higher for older than for young people (e.g.. Nelson, 2009), and higher for CS faces with relatively dark than light skin color (e.g.. Klink & Wagner, 1999). Each CS individual was characterized by a contingency of Ap = .52 with its assigned valence, which was arrived at by applying the Ap formula to the frequencies depicted in Table 1 (see above).…”

Cognitive and affective experiences of minority and majority members: The role of group size, status, and power

“…Research participants were all students at the University of Kiel, and the respective ingroups were selected such that they occupied either a minority or majority position according to social criteria (status and power) as well as numbers in the university context. For example, as minority members we included foreigners (Klink & Wagner, 1999;Verkuyten & Lay, 1998), homosexuals (Hegarty & Pratto, 2001;Simon, Glässner-Bayerl, & Stratenwerth, 1991), overweight people (Allon, 1982;Crandall et al, 2001), bodily disabled people (Frable, Platt, & Hoey, 1998), poor people (Frable et al, 1998), and older people (Dasgupta & Greenwald, 2001;Kimmel, 1988). The corresponding contrast groups (heterosexual people, people of average weight, etc.)…”

Assessing the validity of two indirect questioning techniques: A Stochastic Lie Detector versus the Crosswise Model

“…Whereas self-reports using direct questioning procedures have shown only a moderate level of xenophobia in Germany that was comparable to the level observed in other Western European countries (Zick, Küpper, & Hövermann, 2011), Klink and Wagner (1999) demonstrated a heavy discrimination against ethnic minorities in a series of field experiments in which they manipulated the names, accents, and appearances of confederates presumably seeking help in everyday situations. Confederates mimicking a Turkish immigration background were far less likely to obtain a viewing appointment for a vacant house or to receive help in several situations in which they needed support.…”