War and anti-minority prejudice

Cassie Beudet

Professor:
Jean Lacroix – Paris Sacaly University

Abstract

The major objective of this paper is to complete the literature on the war effects over
individual’s attitudes. More specifically, we try to establish and evaluate the role of World War
II over anti-minority prejudice in France. We based our research on a survey conducted in 1951
in France that has never been exploited in research. Our analysis of the survey demonstrate that
post-World War II France holds prejudices and dislikes of foreigners as well as sexist opinions.
However, our multiple regression to test for the effects of war over such attitudes turned out to
be unsuccessful. We failed to evaluate the direct effects of World War II over anti-minority
attitudes. Nonetheless, we believe further research could succeed in assessing the clear and
established role of WWII in the observed anti-minority prejudice.

1
Table of content

Abstract _____________________________________________________________________________ 1
Introduction _______________________________________________________________ 3
1. Literature review _________________________________________________________ 4
1.1 Anti-minority prejudice ________________________________________________________ 4
1.2 The effects of war _____________________________________________________________ 4
2. Historical context _________________________________________________________ 5
2.1 Post-WWII France _____________________________________________________________ 5
2.2 WWII: a particular case ? _______________________________________________________ 5
2.3 Immigration _________________________________________________________________ 5
3. The survey _______________________________________________________________ 8
3.1 General presentation __________________________________________________________ 8
3.2 The anti-minority attitudes _____________________________________________________ 8
3.3 Sexism _____________________________________________________________________ 10
4. Method ________________________________________________________________ 11
5. Discussion ______________________________________________________________ 14
7. Limits & recommendations for future research ______________________________ 16
Conclusion ________________________________________________________________ 17
Bibliography ______________________________________________________________ 18
Appendix _________________________________________________________________ 20

2
 "We are not makers of history.
We are made by history."
Martin Luther King

Introduction
It has been several years now that France and Europe are experiencing a rise in
popularity of far right movements spreading along their anti-immigration ideas. The
presidential election in France recorded a total of 30,22% of the votes for the two far right
candidates, M. Le Pen and E. Zemmour, in the first round. Similarly, on a much broader scale,
looking at the European Union, the Danish government adopted a very strict anti-immigration
policy, together with two far right parties already being in possession of power in Poland and
Hungary. Furthermore, such anti-minority attitudes are now more palpable than ever
considering the migration crisis happening in Europe since 2015. A surprising popularity
considering that in the meantime economists preached the good deeds of immigration (Banerjee
& Duflo, 2020; West, 2011 ; Borjas, 1995). A contradiction which corresponds to the definition
provided by Quillian (1995) that describe prejudice against a group as an unjustified, general
and antipathic sentiment towards all individuals identified as part of the same group.
It is in view of these recent events that we attempted to investigate the origins of such
persistent (Voigtländer & Voth, 2013) and growing anti-minority prejudices. We believe
interesting to direct our research through the prism of war and more specifically World War II
(WWII). Indeed, wars are traumatic events that shape a generation and can have long lasting
effects (Duriez and Soenens, 2009). The focus of this paper will be to determine the role of
WWII on anti-minority prejudice in France. For that matter, we used the data of a survey
conducted in France in 1951 collecting French sentiments and thoughts on foreigners. This
survey, is very valuable as it has been conducted in the post-WWII period. It hence captures
the sentiments towards foreigners immediately after WWII.
Primarily, we will review the existing literature on anti-minority prejudice, the proven
impacts of wars on solidarity and outgroup hostility as well as provide a short historical context.
Secondly, we will present the survey and analyze the data. We will, then, test the different
variables provided through the survey in order to establish a link between WWII and such
attitudes. To finally, highlight the identified limits of the method used and provide
recommendations for further research in the field, using the same survey.

3
1. Literature review
1.1 Anti-minority prejudice
First Blumer (1958)1 and then Quillian (1995), following his steps, argue that prejudice
arises when the dominant group experiences a collective threat. Hence, that prejudice seldom
results from individual characteristics. Both authors emphasize on the fact that prejudice is
rather a matter of group perceived position determined by historical power relationships
between two groups. It is a defense mechanism used by the dominant group that perceive its
privileges as threatened. Collective threat is recognized as varying according to the size of the
subordinate group and economic circumstances. This approach is very valuable with regards to
our analysis of post-WWII France as a great part of the territory was under German occupation
from 1940 until 1944 as well as hosted allies on its soil. One can argue that conditions for
French citizens to perceive a high level of threat from which prejudice stems from were reunited
in France during the war. Hence, WWII might have had a key role in French anti-minority
prejudice towards foreigners. Arguably, it is hard to say if the cause of anti-minority prejudice
would emanate from the conflict or the sole presence of foreigners on the territory.
Finally, we believe important to point up the intergenerational dimension of anti-
minorities behaviors. The research conducted by Duriez and Soenens (2009), touching on
parent-adolescent similarities in racist attitudes, highlights that parents with racist attitudes are
likely to engender racist children. Though our study does not tackle any intergenerational
aspects it is important to take notice of their large scope in time. As a matter of fact, the results
found might help apprehend any persistent anti-minority prejudice.

1.2 The effects of war

This section investigates the literature about the various effects and utmost importance
of such traumatic events that are wars2 and conflicts.
Jasiewicz (2009) explicitly indicates that regions who underwent German occupation
were more likely to have a particular voting pattern. Which proves the effects of WWII in our
behavior nowadays. The author also underlines the importance of the past and history as a
strong determinant of our beliefs: “People of a nation organize their collective beliefs around
past and current events and personalities.” (Jasiewicz, 2009, p.492).
Many researches proved that wars can have strong and transgenerational effects on
individual’s attitudes and group cohesion. On one hand, wars and conflicts can lead to lasting
hostile attitudes towards the enemy, a strong identification to the individual’s ethnic group and
stronger political implication (Lupu and Peisakhin, 2017), along with becoming a mean for the
diffusion of far right political opinions (Cagé, Dagorret, Grosjean & Jha, 2021). Opinions
commonly known for promoting the loathing of foreigners.
Whereas on the other hand, wars can increase solidarity in between the ingroup members
as well as reducing prejudice against some minorities. Indeed, the need for a group to defend
itself against an external threat can help foster positive attitudes such as solidarity, altruistic

1
Blumer’s work treats of racism, which we consider here as a sub-category of anti-minority prejudice. We focus
on prejudice over national origins rather than based on physical characteristics.
2
It is worth underlining that the literature does not exclusively rely on WWII research but rather research on all
various kinds of conflict such as civil wars for instance.

4
behaviors towards the ingroup members, enhance social capital and increasing the levels of
collective actions (Gilligan, Pasquale & Samii, 2013; Rusch, 2013; Jennings & Sanchez-Pages,
2017). Finally, wars and prolongated contact with a minority group can lead to positive changes
in attitudes towards minorities which helps the reduction of anti-minority prejudice (Schindler
& Westcott, 2020).
Even if we saw that individual’s attitudes could be shaped by war it is important to state
that wars and conflicts do not seem to be broadly acknowledged as major sources of anti-
minority prejudice. Zamora-Kapoor et al. (2013) list six reasons - none of which is war - for
anti-foreigner sentiment to be persistent within and across countries. They assert that economic
competition, human capital, cultural affinity, social capital, political values and institutional
environment explain anti-foreigner sentiment. As wars also affect the economy, politics and the
institutional environment we are aware that we must be vigilant about any correlation fallacy.

2. Historical context
2.1 Post-WWII France
In 1951, six years after WWII, a conflict that left France victorious yet destroyed. France
had been the stage of a great part of the conflicts between the Allies and the Germans. The land
was destroyed, half a million hectares of land had still to be de-mined, agriculture was running
at only 40% of its pre-war capacity, 400 000 buildings were destroyed without mentioning the
state of roads, train tracks, ports and bridges. The population had lived a traumatic war period
paced by human loss, deportation, bombing, rationing, diseases, occupation, collaboration and
other war atrocities to finally terminate on the ‘legal purge’. The state recognized the sacrifices
all the French had made and undertook a massive nationalization program as well as social
reforms. On that account, the social security saw the light in 1945 and women were granted the
right to vote in 1944. Economically, in 1951 France was in the middle of what is remembered
as the “Trente Glorieuses”. A period globally marked by full employment, reconstruction,
higher living standards and industrialization. Finally, post-WWII period is also the cradle of the
European Union, the characterization of the ‘never again’ attitude and the desire to look
forward.

2.2 WWII: a particular case ?

In most studies, social capital and altruistic behaviors emerge from the need of one
group to defend its interests against an enemy. However, one can speculate on the comparability
of WWII to the conflicts observed in these studies. Because of the French collaboration with
Nazi Germany we must take into account the unique character and singularity of WWII where
the enemy and occupant became the ally. Against all odds, nationalism chose collaboration
rather than resistance as the path to national revival (Kocher, Lawrence, & Monteiro, 2013).

2.3 Immigration
As the main subject of our paper is the French anti-minority prejudice against foreigners,
we must assess the immigration situation in France at that time.
In regards to immigration the year 1946 is considered a cornerstone. As it is in 1946 that
the first wave, of an immigration that will continue until nowadays, took place. This first wave

5
of immigration will last until 1949. At that time France began to experience a labor force
shortage due to the demographic gap created by World War I and the very weak birth rate of
the inter-war period. However, no massive immigration policies were put into place in order to
preserve full-employment and prevent a drop in wages. Nonetheless, it was corrected by illegal
immigration. Most of the immigrants were Italians, Belgians and refugees from eastern Europe.
However, the 1954 census of the population establishes that despite the immigration wave there
has been a shift in the number of foreigners decreasing from 1 743 500 in 1945 to 1 557 620 in
1954. Even though 454 118 naturalization occurred at that time specialists agreed that the main
reason for this slump was the departure of foreigners, including the one considered as
permanent resident (Faidutti-Rudolph, 1962). Our 1951 survey, thus, captures attitudes towards
immigrants at a time where their number declined. These maps outline the immigration flow
and outflow in the French territory from 1945 until 1960, each curve representing a nationality.
We notice that Italians account for the majority of immigrants as well as being the earliest to
arrive.

Map 1: Permanent workers immigration in Map 2: Immigrant families in France from 1945
France form 1945 until 1960 per nationality. until 1960 per nationality.

The following maps informs us on the geographical localization of immigrants in the

year 1954. It is the closest studies to the year 1951 – when the survey was completed - we could
find that provided such information. With the help of these maps we will be able to control for
the presence of immigration in order to truly isolate for war effects. Indeed, the way we will
determine the effects of war is through the geographical localization of participants. We will
try to determine if in consideration of war events that occurred in certain areas there is a
correlation with the level of anti-minority measured.

6
Map 3: Foreigners per departments in 1954. Map 4: Proportion of foreigners in 1954.
1. Less than 6 000 1. Less than 2%
2. From 6 000 to 19 000 2. From 2 to 4%
3. From 19 000 to 30 000 3. From 4 to 6%
4. From 30 000 to 50 000 4. From 6 to 8%
5. More than 50 000 5. More than 8%

Map 5: Italians per departments in 1954. Map 6: Spanish per departments in 1954.
1. Less than 2 000 1. Less than 2 000
2. From 2 000 to 5 000 2. From 2 000 to 5 000
3. From 5 000 to 15 000 3. From 5 000 to 15 000
4. More than 15 000 4. More than 15 000

7
 We have, therefore, briefly summarized the situation of immigrants in France in the 1950s
as we must control for the possibility that anti-minority attitudes disclosed by the survey might
stem from immigration that occurred at this period and does not draw its roots from WWII.

3. The survey
3.1 General presentation
The survey was conducted in France in the course of the year 1951 by the National
Institute for Demographic Studies (Institut National d’Etudes Démographiques) and, as far as
we know, has never been exploited before by any scholars. This survey allows us to capture, to
some extent, the immediate sentiment towards foreigners after WWII in France.
The survey is composed of a total of 24 questions manly gravitating around immigrants.
Participants were asked for instance how many foreigners they believed lived in France, which
nationality they appreciate the most, if they believed housing should be accorded in priority to
a French or a foreigner, and so on. The survey ends with questions about the individuals
background and current situation. Participants are not forced to answer, they have the option to
say that they do not know or do not which to reply.
Participants amount to a number of 2006, including 1009 women, 991 men and 6
individuals who preferred not to specify their gender. More than half participants have between
20 to 50 years old. The vast majority have been French for over three generations. Only 9% of
them declare having great grandparents that are immigrants and less than 4% have one or both
parents that are from a foreign country. There is a greater number of participants interrogated
(37%) that live in a city of less than two thousand inhabitants and about 9% declare living in
Paris. Whereas, the rest is equally distributed in the categories of cities in between these two
sizes. In regards to their socio-economic status the two categories of profession that include the
most people are unemployed which represents almost 30% of the respondents and workers
which represents 15%. Categories recognized as a high socio-economic status - the ‘white-
collar workers’ such as retailer, chief executive - are the ones that are the less represented.

3.2 The anti-minority attitudes

The following section will primarily examine the replies given by participants and
analyze if they reveal any anti-minority prejudice.
Studies were conducted on the link between perceived size of the foreign group and
anti-minority prejudice. Semyonov et al. (2004) indicates that the bigger the perceived size of
the group the more anti-minority attitudes are likely to arise. LaPierre (1936) also states that
threat perception is the central reason of hostility towards foreigners. Hence, the table below
might be a good indicator of the level of anti-minority prejudice present in France.
Furthermore, opposition to naturalization is far from being innocuous. Awarding
someone the citizenship involves allowing one the same civil, political and labor rights as native
civilians. It is also awarding one with a status, incorporating one to the country’s future history
and culture. Along with offering one the same social welfare, health and legal protection. In
essence it is rising one to your equal and including someone that was once ‘the other’ into your

8
in-group (Collins, 1998; Pereira et al., 2010). Furthermore, studies proved that legalizing
immigration is infinitely more beneficial economically than are reforms that try to refrain
immigration (Hinojosa-Ojeda, 2012; Dixon & Rimmer, 2009). Naturalization is thus a strong
revealer of anti-minority prejudice and will be our reference variable, throughout this paper, to
estimate the presence of anti-minority prejudice.

The actual number of foreigners in France at that time was around 1 740 000 (Faidutti-
Rudolph., 1962). Hence, only 120 out of 2006 participants were able to assess the number of
foreigners present in France correctly. This table also reveals that regardless of the perceived
number of foreigners the number of participants that believe the nationality is awarded too
easily is always superior to the number of participants that believe it was granted accordingly
or with too much difficulty. However, we observe that the gap increases when the perceived
number of foreigners is high. Indeed, when participants believe that immigrants are present in
larger numbers is also when the maximum of participants (90) replied that the nationality was
granted too easily.
Conclusively, the data from the survey is coherent with the studies on perceived size
and anti-minority prejudice. The larger the perceived threat the greater the animosity towards
the out-group.

Table 1: Table cross-comparing responses regarding the perceived number of foreigners in France and
the easiness to be granted the French nationality.

Additionally, we believed that a good sign of anti-foreigner prejudice would be well

demonstrated through the cross-comparison of responses to question 11 asking if foreigners
should be fired first instead of French individuals and question 14 which asks if foreigners
should be mobilized for a war the same way French citizens would be. Formulated in such a
way, these questions carry the honest answers to the question: ‘not being entitled to the same
rights do you believe fair for a foreigner to perform the same duties as a native citizen ?’ This
question highlights the unilateral efforts that a foreigner must provide, along with the unfairness
with which they are treated. Such unilateral effort is the characterization of discrimination
where foreigners should be subjected to the same obligation but not entitled to the same rights

9
as French citizens. The tables below and more specifically the number 1211 put forth the anti-
minority prejudice, that immigrants are ousted when it comes to advantages.

Table 2: Cross-comparison of responses regarding the mobilization of immigrants during a war and the
priority to fire foreigners before French citizens.

Furthermore, the table below confirms the presence of anti-minority prejudice and
discrimination observed in the previous cross-comparison. The two largest figures 1083 and
581 present in the table below state that foreigners should be submitted to the same obligations
or worst should contribute more to the community without ever benefiting from any advantages.

Table 3: Results regarding housing priority and tax payment.

3.3 Sexism
As well as underlining anti-minority prejudice the data also unveils gender biases. We
compared answers given to the two questions: ‘Do you think it would be beneficial for France
for a man to marry a foreign women ?’ and alternatively in the case of a French woman to marry
a foreigner.

10
 Primarily, the presence of anti-minority prejudice is proved by the fact that most
interviewee think it is a bad thing for a French citizen to marry a foreigner regardless of the
gender. Secondly, the gender bias is explicitly revealed by the numbers outside of the left to
right diagonal. They reveal an asymmetry in responses. Additionally, as 125 participants think
it is a good thing for a man to marry a foreigner but not for a woman. As opposed to only 13
that think it is a good thing for a woman to marry a foreigner but not for a man. We draw the
conclusion that women do not benefit from the same liberty than men do with regards to their
personal choices.

Table 4: Results regarding mixt wedding between a man/woman and a foreigner for the good of France.

To conclude, all these information are important in order to have a better understanding
of the population sample interrogated. With these results we can approximatively draw the
profile of the average individual interrogated by the survey: a women, that has been French for
over three generations, living in a small city hence in a rather rural area and that exhibit anti-
minority prejudice as well as a sexist opinions. The latter specification of the non-urban origin
of interviewees, is relevant according to Neal (2002) as she asserts that there is a clear link
between rural areas and anti-minority prejudice.

4. Method
In order to test our hypothesis the method of Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) and
more specifically the Linear Probability Model (LPM), as we use a dummy dependent variable,
seemed to be the most appropriate. For the reasons stated in the previous section, the question
of naturalization explicitly reveals anti-minority prejudice. Hence, we have selected it as the
dependent variable of our regression. Our independent variables were selected in order control
for other potential reason for animosity towards foreigners in order to capture the net effect of
war over such anti-foreigners attitudes. The effect of war will mainly be captured through the
independent variables of the departments of residence as well as the independent variable
number 4 as it explicitly evokes war in one of the answer choice.
Presentation of the variables and why we included these specific variables:

Y = naturalization (awarded too easily = 1 ; otherwise = 0)

11
 1. Assimilation into the national collectivity (q4): we believe that this variable clearly
captures and summarizes the fact that people are hostile towards foreigners precisely
because they are not French. This variable allows us to control anti-minority
prejudice caused by cultural disparities.
2. Benefice of foreigners for country (q2): this variable will allow us to control for
economic reasons that would justify such prejudice.
3. Foreigners’ good behavior (q3): allow us to control for prejudice that would be
justified by foreigners’ automatic misbehavior.
4. Why people thought foreigners were antipathic (qb9com): a variable that captures
the effects of the war as one of the comments explicitly states that a lack of sympathy
towards foreigners have its roots in WWII.
5. Years of education: allows us to control for the lack of education of French citizens.
Hence, the role of education and school in diminishing anti-minority prejudices.
6. Regions: this variable will help us to control for potential effects of WWII, as regions
encapsulate war events such as occupation, bombing, resistance networks (maquis)
and so forth.

In order to estimate the impact of each variable we performed a Simple Probabilistic Linear
regression with each of our independent variables and finally performed a Multiple Probabilistic
Linear regression incorporating all our independent variables. Statistical significance is
indicated by the stars. The code is as follows:
0,1% statistical significance à ***
1% statistical significance à **
5% statistical significance à *

We will not consider any variable to be meaningful under a statistical significance to the
threshold of 5%.

Independent variables Simple Linear Probability Model Linear Probability Model

1. Can foreigners assimilate ß0 = 0,6127 ß0 = 0,132228
easily into the national -0,31569 yes *** -0,140583 yes***
collectivity (0,02898) (0,041508)
(no = 0 ; yes = 1)
R2 = 0,09768
2. Are foreigners beneficial to ß0 = 0,35336
the country 0,37726 no *** 0,227401 no ***
(Yes = 1 ; No = 2 ; Depends =3) (0,03642) (0,053678)
0,17629 depends *** 0,056067 depends
(0,03601) (0,047841)

R2 = 0,09442

12
3. Do foreigners behave ß0 = 0,21849
properly 0,38945 no *** 0,194020 no ***
(Yes = 1 ; No = 2) (0,02968) (0,045422)

R2 = 0,1291
4. Why people thought ß0 = 0,27749
foreigners were antipathic -0,04672 b -0,094671 b
a. Difference in mentality (0,08342) (0,102342)

b. Brutality, wrong 0,08493 c 0,036707 c

(0,044) (0,053507)
morality
0,26097 d 0,189001 d
c. Bad memories and (0,13607) (0,167211)
patriotic feeling 0,38918 e 0,477189 e
d. Laziness, robbery (0,27622) (0,26697)
e. Dishonesty 0,13428 f 0,299590 f *
f. Peculiar customs (0,12015) (0,129273)

g. Vague answers: I don’t 0,11492 g ** 0,116929 g *

(0,04351) (0,051991)
like them
-0,0632 h 0,034334 h
h. Other replies: I am (0,09606) (0,12464)
partial / irrational
feeling R2 = 0,01709
5. Education ß0 = 0,539683
a. Left school before 12 -0,058913 b 0,051424 b
years old (yo) (0,07463) (0,093086)

b. Attended school until -0,062889 c 0,078038 c

(0,070867) (0,087587)
12 yo
-0,085137 d -0,02685 d
c. Until 13 yo (0,072829) (0,091672)
d. Until 14 yo -0,024831 e 0,061342 e
e. Until 15 yo (0,080263) (0,104628)
f. Until 16 yo 0,003625 f 0,142811 f
g. Until 17 yo (0,078364) (0,097435)

h. Until 18 yo -0,018849 g 0,024494 g

(0,081062) (0,100252)
i. Until 19 yo
-0,087509 h 0,011669 h
j. Until 20 yo (0,078364) (0,094476)
k. Until 21 yo and over -0,152586 i -0,010593 i
(0,089437) (0,113788)
0,107376 j 0,200719 j
(0,10639) (0,157106)
-0,065324 k 0,036309 k
(0,084687) (0,112392)

R2 = 0,008393
6. Departments (only the ones ß0 = 0,588235
with a statistical
significance of 5% cf. -0,388235 Aisne **

13
appendix figure 1, for full (0,142481)

regression) -0,37395 Ardennes *

(0,173943)
-0,516807 Aube **
(0,173943)
-0,588235 Belfort *
(0,228865)
-0,588235 Charente-Maritime * None are statistically significant
(0,267837) (cf. appendix, figure 2)
-0,37395 Cher *
(0,173943)
-0,403050 Creuse **
(0,149223)
-0,588235 Eure-et-Loire*
(0,267837)
-0,463235 Hérault *
(0,206641)
-0,373950 Loiret *
(0,173943)
-0,373950 Lot *
(0,173943)
-0,588235 Saône-et-Loire *
(0,267837)

R2 = 0,127 R2 = 0,3207
" 2= 0,2033
R

5. Discussion
In the light of the Multiple Linear Probability Model performed above displaying
multiple R-square of 0,32 implying that our model explains 32% of the dependent variable
variance.
We can assert that on average, without knowing any answers to other questions, 13,22%
of French are likely to believe that the French citizenship is awarded to easily. Furthermore, if
individuals believe that non-French citizens are able to easily blend in within the country and
the population than the probability to believe that naturalization is awarded too easily will drop
by 14,06 percentage points. However, if individuals believe that immigrants are not beneficial
for the country the probability to believe that naturalization is awarded to easily will increase
by 23 percentage points than if they though foreigners represented any economic benefits. The
probability to believe that the nationality is granted without difficulty will increase by 19,4
percentage points if French citizens also believe that foreigners do not behave accordingly. Both
numbers being economically significant as well as statistically significant to the threshold of
0,1%.
Moving on to interpret statistically significant variables to the threshold of 5% we can
conclude that the probability to believe that the French nationality is granted too easily will

14
increase by almost 30% and 11,7% if respectively individuals believe that foreigners are
dishonest and provide a vague response that implies a certain antipathy towards foreigners.

Nonetheless, in the view of our results, we failed to establish any clear link between
WWII and anti-minority prejudice. However, in the simple regression some regions appeared
as being statistically significant. We mapped out the regions that seemed relevant in our simple
regression in order potentially detect a pattern. For instance, if only regions under occupation
were significant. In order to better control for a sample bias we specified the number of persons
interrogated in each departments.

Map 7: All statistically relevant French departments in regression 6.

If we take a closer look to the two departments of the Aisne and of the Creuse, two
departments that respectively interrogated 48 and 40 participants which represents more than
most other departments. The table below repertories the replies of participants from these two
regions regarding the nationality they believed the less sympathetic. With regards to WWII the
department of the Aisne was the host of many armed conflicts between the Allies and the
Germans. We would have expected the Germans to be the most despised nationality. However,
it is not the case. Romanians and North-Africans are the nationality that collected the most
votes. As for the departments of the Creuse 13 participants declare that the Swiss are the most

15
unsympathetic out of all the other nationalities. Unfortunately, we did not find any historical
elements that could explain such a high score.

Table 5: Most despised nationalities in the departments of the Aisne and the Creuse.

According to the maps displayed in section (2.3), we are able to observe that most
departments highlighted in our map correspond to areas with a presence of foreigners oscillating
from 6 000 to 30 000. It is worth highlighting that the regions that contained the most
immigrants are not the ones that had the most statistical significance in our regression. The
latter observation is concordant with the study realize by Schindler & Westcott (2020) stating
that the presence of African American soldiers in the United-kingdom reduced anti-minority
prejudice. Hence, that being in contact of minorities tend to reduce any prejudice against them.

Nonetheless, we believe impertinent to conclude on any effects of WWII over anti-minority

attitudes with the results found. However, in the view of the literature review and the confirmed
presence of anti-minority attitudes in the survey and with the help of further research on the
subject we believe the role of war on such attitude could be proved.

7. Limits & recommendations for future research

Primarily, we would like to draw the attention on the limitations of surveys and the existence
of several biases relative to such method of information collection. Surveys only collect the
opinion of a random sample of individuals that is supposedly representative of the population.
Hence, the data they collect are doomed to be considered with a certain degree of uncertainty.
Furthermore, they can be subject to several biases. Common biases to appear frequently in
surveys are the following: sampling errors, nonresponse biases, selection biases (Edwards &
Anderson, 1987), social desirability bias, demand artifact (Butori & Parguel, 2010) and the
investigator’s bias (Fournier, 2006). We recommend for subsequent research on this survey to
better control for the biases stated above. For instance, some tests such as a chi-squared test can
be realized on socio-economic variables of participants that did not respond to try and eliminate
the nonresponse bias (Edwards & Anderson, 1987).
Another limit of our research is that while this survey revealed that some individuals after
WWII clearly displayed prejudice towards foreigners as well as a sexist opinions it is hard to
control if such attitudes were present before the war or if they appeared post hoc. The clear

16
effect of WWII is hence hard to establish with the very few information we had on anti-minority
prejudice before the war.
We also had trouble differentiating between the effects of war and the effects due to the
presence of immigrants and threat perception. However, we believe our first intuition, to
demonstrate the war effects on anti-minority attitude, pertinent as to the question 9bcom the
answer that received the second highest number of votes is the one that justifies hostility
towards foreigners by ‘bad memories’ and ‘patriotic feelings’ against Germans and Italians.
The latter answer clearly indicates that anti-minority prejudice has some origins in WWII.
Our research also reaches its limits as only one variable (naturalization) was used a
determinant of anti-minority prejudice. Additionally, even if it is on purpose that only a few
variables were selected as determinants of anti-minority prejudice, more questions feature in
the survey that could be tested and integrated in the model. We recommend for future research
to exploit unused variables.
Finally, in regards to the effect of the region people live in we have omitted to take into
account people’s mobility. The latter acknowledgement, might call for a reconsideration of the
use of the region as an indicator of war effects.

Conclusion
Anti-minority prejudice is thus a complex and persisting phenomenon that take its origins
in various areas. As the literature is formal about the effects of war over such attitudes and
individual cohesion. We tried to detect such effects by analyzing the specific case of the impact
of WWII over the French prejudice towards foreigners, basing our evidence on a survey
conducted in 1951. Our analysis of the survey confirms that anti-minority prejudice are present
in post-WWII France as well as sexist attitudes. We could confirm the studies on high threat
perception correlated with strong anti-minority prejudice. However, due to a lack of data
treating of war effects and resentment of the conflict, we found it difficult to clearly demonstrate
the role of war over the anti-minority prejudice encountered in the survey. Nonetheless, we still
believe our reasoning to be pertinent and encourage forthcoming research to further explore
down this path.

17
Bibliography

Banerjee, A. V., & Duflo, E. (2020). Economie utile pour des temps difficiles. Editions du Seuil.

Blumer, H. (1958). Race prejudice as a sense of group position. The Pacific Sociological Review, 1(1),
3–7. https://doi.org/10.2307/1388607

Borjas, G. (1994). The economic benefits from immigration. https://doi.org/10.3386/w4955

Butori, R., & Parguel, B. (2010). Les biais de réponse-Impact du mode de collecte des données et de
l'attractivité de l'enquêteur. In AFM.

Cagé, J., Dagorret, A., Grosjean, P. A., & Jha, S. (2021). Heroes and Villains: The Effects of Heroism
on Autocratic Values and Nazi Collaboration in France.

Collins, P. H. (1998). It's all in the family: Intersections of gender, race, and nation. Hypatia, 13(3), 62–
82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.1998.tb01370.x

Dixon, P. B., & Rimmer, M. T. (2009). Restriction Or Legalization?: Measuring the Economic Benefits
of Immigration Reform. Center for trade and policy studies (CATO)

Duriez, B., & Soenens, B. (2009). The intergenerational transmission of racism: The role of right-wing
authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(5),
906–909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.05.014

Edwards, S. F., & Anderson, G. D. (1987). Overlooked biases in contingent valuation surveys: Some
considerations. Land Economics, 63(2), 168. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146578

Faidutti-Rudolph., A.-M. (1962). L'évolution de l'immigration en France de 1946 à 1960. L'information

Géographique, 26(4), 152–160. https://doi.org/10.3406/ingeo.1962.2167

Fournier, P. (2006). Le sexe et l’âge de l’ethnographe: éclairants pour l’enquêté, contraignants pour
l’enquêteur. ethnographiques. org, 11.

Gilligan, M. J., Pasquale, B. J., & Samii, C. (2013). Civil War and social cohesion: Lab-in-the-field
evidence from Nepal. American Journal of Political Science, 58(3), 604–619.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12067

Hinojosa-Ojeda, R. (2012). The economic benefits of comprehensive immigration reform. Cato J., 32,
175.

Jasiewicz, K. (2009). “The past is never dead.” East European Politics and Societies: and Cultures,
23(4), 491–508. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888325409342114

Jennings, C., & Sanchez-Pages, S. (2017). Social capital, conflict and welfare. Journal of Development
Economics, 124, 157-167.

Kocher, M. A., Lawrence, A., & Monteiro, N. P. (2013, August). The rabbit in the hat: nationalism and
resistance to foreign occupation. In APSA 2013 Annual Meeting Paper, American Political
Science Association 2013 Annual Meeting

Lapiere, R. T. (1936). Type-rationalizations of group antipathy. Social Forces, 15(2), 232–237.

https://doi.org/10.2307/2570963

18
Lupu, N., & Peisakhin, L. (2017). The legacy of political violence across generations. American Journal
of Political Science, 61(4), 836–851. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12327

Neal, S. (2002). Rural Landscapes, representations and racism: Examining multicultural citizenship and
policy-making in the English countryside. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 25(3), 442–461.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870020036701c

Pereira, C., Vala, J., & Costa-Lopes, R. (2010). From prejudice to discrimination: The legitimizing role
of perceived threat in discrimination against immigrants. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 40(7), 1231–1250. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.718

Quillian, L. (1995). Prejudice as a response to perceived group threat: Population composition and anti-
immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe. American Sociological Review, 60(4), 586.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2096296

Rusch, H. (2013). Asymmetries in altruistic behavior during violent intergroup conflict. Evolutionary
Psychology, 11(5), 147470491301100. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470491301100504

Schindler, D., & Westcott, M. (2020). Shocking racial attitudes: Black g.i.s in Europe. The Review of
Economic Studies, 88(1), 489–520. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdaa039

Semyonov, M., Raijman, R., Tov, A. Y., & Schmidt, P. (2004). Population size, perceived threat, and
exclusion: A multiple-indicators analysis of attitudes toward foreigners in Germany. Social
Science Research, 33(4), 681–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2003.11.003

Voigtländer, N., & Voth, H.-J. (2013). Married to intolerance: Attitudes towards intermarriage in
Germany, 1900-2006. https://doi.org/10.3386/w18813

West, D.M. (2011). The costs and benefits of immigration. Political Science Quarterly, 126(3), 427–
443. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-165x.2011.tb00707.x

Zamora-Kapoor, A., Kovincic, P., & Causey, C. (2013). Anti-foreigner sentiment: State of the art.
Sociology Compass, 7(4), 303–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12027

19
Appendix

Map 1: Permanent workers immigration in Map 2: Immigrant families in France from 1945
France form 1945 until 1960 per nationality. until 1960 per nationality.

Map 3: Foreigners per departments in 1954. Map 4: Proportion of foreigners in 1954.

6. Less than 6 000 6. Less than 2%
7. From 6 000 to 19 000 7. From 2 to 4%
8. From 19 000 to 30 000 8. From 4 to 6%
9. From 30 000 to 50 000 9. From 6 to 8%
10. More than 50 000 10. More than 8%

20
Map 5: Italians per departments in 1954. Map 6: Spanish per departments in 1954.
5. Less than 2 000 5. Less than 2 000
6. From 2 000 to 5 000 6. From 2 000 to 5 000
7. From 5 000 to 15 000 7. From 5 000 to 15 000
8. More than 15 000 8. More than 15 000

Table 1: Table cross-comparing responses regarding the perceived number of foreigners in France and
the easiness to be granted the French nationality.

21
 Table 2: Results regarding housing priority and tax payment.

Table 3: Cross-comparison of responses regarding the mobilization of immigrants during a war and the
priority to fire foreigners before French citizens.

Table 4: Results regarding mixt wedding between a man/woman and a foreigner for the good of France.

22
Map 7: All statistically relevant French departments in regression 6.

23
Call:
lm(formula = naturalisation3 ~ q4_fac + q2_fac + q3_fac + q9bcom_fac
+ q24_fac39 -0.143016 0.178809 -0.800 0.424164
q15c_fac + q24_fac, data = dataallclear)
Residuals:
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
-0.92384 -0.30887 -0.04743 0.33641 1.19121
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 0.132228 0.170398 0.776 0.438095
q4_fac2 -0.140583 0.041508 -3.387 0.000758 ***
q2_fac2 0.227401 0.053678 4.236 2.67e-05 ***
q2_fac3 0.056067 0.047841 1.172 0.241734
q3_fac2 0.194020 0.045422 4.271 2.30e-05 ***
q9bcom_fac2 -0.094671 0.102342 -0.925 0.355358
q9bcom_fac3 0.036707 0.053507 0.686 0.493001
q9bcom_fac4 0.189001 0.167211 1.130 0.258849
q9bcom_fac5 0.477189 0.266970 1.787 0.074431 .
q9bcom_fac6 0.299590 0.129273 2.318 0.020851 *
q9bcom_fac7 0.116929 0.051991 2.249 0.024914 *
q9bcom_fac8 0.034334 0.124640 0.275 0.783063
q15c_fac2 0.051424 0.093086 0.552 0.580880
q15c_fac3 0.078038 0.087587 0.891 0.373339
q15c_fac4 -0.026850 0.091672 -0.293 0.769718
q15c_fac5 0.061342 0.104628 0.586 0.557926
q15c_fac6 0.142811 0.097435 1.466 0.143314
q15c_fac7 0.024494 0.100252 0.244 0.807072
q15c_fac8 0.011669 0.094476 0.124 0.901749
q15c_fac9 -0.010593 0.113788 -0.093 0.925864
q15c_fac11 0.200719 0.157106 1.278 0.201941
q15c_fac12 0.036309 0.112392 0.323 0.746777
q24_fac2 -0.107286 0.176043 -0.609 0.542496
q24_fac4 0.260951 0.287264 0.908 0.364073
q24_fac6 0.209071 0.231738 0.902 0.367361
q24_fac7 -0.064660 0.461756 -0.140 0.888688
q24_fac8 -0.276955 0.181449 -1.526 0.127509
q24_fac10 -0.001501 0.459737 -0.003 0.997397
q24_fac11 -0.251521 0.261789 -0.961 0.337096
q24_fac12 0.033142 0.241314 0.137 0.890814
q24_fac13 -0.144390 0.290140 -0.498 0.618928
q24_fac14 0.264065 0.208636 1.266 0.206178
q24_fac19 -0.253282 0.191132 -1.325 0.185678
q24_fac20 -0.029808 0.262062 -0.114 0.909483
q24_fac22 -0.031891 0.168902 -0.189 0.850312
q24_fac23 0.249875 0.227882 1.097 0.273346
q24_fac24 -0.208971 0.182619 -1.144 0.253007
q24_fac26 0.489088 0.458224 1.067 0.286291
q24_fac28 -0.384570 0.227604 -1.690 0.091675 .
q24_fac29 -0.577282 0.457123 -1.263 0.207187
q24_fac30 0.271753 0.197294 1.377 0.168962
q24_fac31 0.079494 0.341100 0.233 0.815810
q24_fac32 0.018992 0.228840 0.083 0.933889
q24_fac34 0.197122 0.180353 1.093 0.274892
q24_fac35 -0.175653 0.260802 -0.674 0.500912
q24_fac36 -0.016690 0.194011 -0.086 0.931478
q24_fac37 0.066779 0.290000 0.230 0.817968
q24_fac40 -0.100557 0.291613 -0.345 0.730356
q24_fac41 0.392550 0.290000 1.354 0.176426
q24_fac42 0.268080 0.460745 0.582 0.560918
q24_fac43 -0.246780 0.226796 -1.088 0.277032
q24_fac44 -0.177773 0.340993 -0.521 0.602345
q24_fac46 -0.390515 0.287140 -1.360 0.174394
q24_fac47 -0.111371 0.229523 -0.485 0.627714
q24_fac48 -0.046133 0.241433 -0.191 0.848535
q24_fac49 -0.059008 0.263016 -0.224 0.822570
q24_fac50 -0.081723 0.458789 -0.178 0.858690
q24_fac51 0.282064 0.194744 1.448 0.148092
q24_fac52 -0.391860 0.262073 -1.495 0.135440
q24_fac54 0.199195 0.194578 1.024 0.306426
q24_fac55 0.171368 0.208822 0.821 0.412213
q24_fac57 0.027765 0.241175 0.115 0.908391
q24_fac58 0.082736 0.289092 0.286 0.774840
q24_fac59 0.245681 0.486543 0.505 0.613798
q24_fac60 0.148212 0.158531 0.935 0.350257
q24_fac61 -0.195521 0.460880 -0.424 0.671565
q24_fac62 -0.093466 0.261407 -0.358 0.720820
q24_fac63 0.014156 0.175515 0.081 0.935747
q24_fac64 0.069994 0.178110 0.393 0.694487
q24_fac65 -0.223510 0.178568 -1.252 0.211232
q24_fac66 -0.103701 0.344807 -0.301 0.763721
q24_fac67 -0.180612 0.192187 -0.940 0.347758
q24_fac68 -0.084212 0.169522 -0.497 0.619559
q24_fac69 0.124549 0.185032 0.673 0.501159
q24_fac70 0.018211 0.202072 0.090 0.928224
q24_fac71 -0.313004 0.338738 -0.924 0.355886
q24_fac72 -0.397267 0.242410 -1.639 0.101834
q24_fac73 -0.195856 0.202437 -0.967 0.333733
q24_fac75 -0.057200 0.207460 -0.276 0.782871
q24_fac76 0.081213 0.149085 0.545 0.586155
q24_fac77 -0.027972 0.210843 -0.133 0.894507
q24_fac78 -0.074184 0.174719 -0.425 0.671304
q24_fac79 0.271215 0.195169 1.390 0.165212
q24_fac80 -0.145583 0.243119 -0.599 0.549549
q24_fac81 0.237117 0.263864 0.899 0.369249
q24_fac82 -0.067955 0.287520 -0.236 0.813251
q24_fac83 0.086436 0.339900 0.254 0.799364
q24_fac84 0.375164 0.241919 1.551 0.121541
q24_fac85 -0.412006 0.473725 -0.870 0.384844
q24_fac86 -0.055412 0.175194 -0.316 0.751906
q24_fac87 -0.185394 0.290019 -0.639 0.522935
q24_fac88 0.303828 0.340150 0.893 0.372140
q24_fac89 0.127362 0.167522 0.760 0.447425
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
Residual standard error: 0.4317 on 538 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-squared: 0.3207, Adjusted R-squared: 0.2033
F-statistic: 2.731 on 93 and 538 DF, p-value: 6.364e-13

Figure 1: Complete regression with the independent variable of regions

Call: q24_fac26 -0.088235 0.228865 -0.386 0.69991

lm(formula = naturalisation3 ~ q24_fac, data = dataclearreg6) q24_fac27 0.139037 0.186498 0.746 0.45610
q24_fac28 -0.310458 0.163000 -1.905 0.05706 .
Residuals: q24_fac29 -0.588235 0.267837 -2.196 0.02826 *
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max q24_fac30 -0.179144 0.155637 -1.151 0.24994
-0.89474 -0.43333 -0.07143 0.44872 0.92857 q24_fac31 -0.088235 0.267837 -0.329 0.74188
q24_fac32 -0.064426 0.157244 -0.410 0.68208
Coefficients: q24_fac33 -0.016807 0.216445 -0.078 0.93812
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) q24_fac34 -0.038235 0.139540 -0.274 0.78412
(Intercept) 0.588235 0.116894 5.032 5.58e-07 *** q24_fac35 -0.463235 0.206641 -2.242 0.02516 *
q24_fac2 -0.388235 0.142481 -2.725 0.00653 ** q24_fac36 -0.114551 0.160903 -0.712 0.47665
q24_fac4 -0.088235 0.206641 -0.427 0.66946 q24_fac37 0.078431 0.301818 0.260 0.79501
q24_fac6 0.011765 0.192076 0.061 0.95117 q24_fac38 0.161765 0.206641 0.783 0.43388
q24_fac7 -0.004902 0.181719 -0.027 0.97848 q24_fac39 0.078431 0.152784 0.513 0.60780
q24_fac8 -0.373950 0.173943 -2.150 0.03177 * q24_fac40 -0.088235 0.267837 -0.329 0.74188
q24_fac10 -0.516807 0.173943 -2.971 0.00303 ** q24_fac41 0.161765 0.206641 0.783 0.43388
q24_fac11 -0.188235 0.158993 -1.184 0.23668 q24_fac42 0.078431 0.301818 0.260 0.79501
q24_fac12 0.268908 0.216445 1.242 0.21434 q24_fac43 -0.224599 0.186498 -1.204 0.22871
q24_fac13 -0.588235 0.228865 -2.570 0.01028 * q24_fac44 0.161765 0.267837 0.604 0.54598
q24_fac14 0.117647 0.165313 0.712 0.47681 q24_fac46 -0.373950 0.173943 -2.150 0.03177 *
q24_fac18 -0.588235 0.267837 -2.196 0.02826 * q24_fac47 -0.373950 0.173943 -2.150 0.03177 *
q24_fac19 -0.373950 0.173943 -2.150 0.03177 * q24_fac48 -0.338235 0.206641 -1.637 0.10193
q24_fac20 0.011765 0.245198 0.048 0.96174 q24_fac49 -0.049774 0.177574 -0.280 0.77930
q24_fac22 -0.181985 0.144648 -1.258 0.20859 q24_fac50 0.126050 0.216445 0.582 0.56043
q24_fac23 -0.088235 0.167876 -0.526 0.59926 q24_fac51 0.306502 0.160903 1.905 0.05703 .
q24_fac24 -0.403050 0.149223 -2.701 0.00701 ** q24_fac52 -0.180828 0.149223 -1.212 0.22583

24
q24_fac54 0.078431 0.170734 0.459 0.64605 q24_fac75 -0.188235 0.192076 -0.980 0.32728
q24_fac55 0.161765 0.167876 0.964 0.33544 q24_fac76 -0.036953 0.123098 -0.300 0.76408
q24_fac56 -0.254902 0.198681 -1.283 0.19975 q24_fac77 -0.021569 0.146312 -0.147 0.88283
q24_fac57 -0.133690 0.186498 -0.717 0.47361 q24_fac78 -0.180828 0.149223 -1.212 0.22583
q24_fac58 -0.388235 0.245198 -1.583 0.11360 q24_fac79 0.002674 0.155637 0.017 0.98630
q24_fac59 -0.302521 0.216445 -1.398 0.16247 q24_fac80 -0.203620 0.177574 -1.147 0.25174
q24_fac60 -0.024599 0.133744 -0.184 0.85410 q24_fac81 -0.143791 0.198681 -0.724 0.46937
q24_fac61 -0.588235 0.360290 -1.633 0.10280 q24_fac82 0.411765 0.245198 1.679 0.09335 .
q24_fac62 -0.315508 0.186498 -1.692 0.09095 . q24_fac83 0.411765 0.360290 1.143 0.25332
q24_fac63 -0.154902 0.146312 -1.059 0.28994 q24_fac84 0.093583 0.155637 0.601 0.54776
q24_fac64 0.051765 0.151511 0.342 0.73267 q24_fac85 -0.088235 0.267837 -0.329 0.74188
q24_fac65 -0.219814 0.160903 -1.366 0.17215 q24_fac86 -0.126697 0.177574 -0.713 0.47568
q24_fac66 -0.042781 0.186498 -0.229 0.81860 q24_fac87 0.078431 0.198681 0.395 0.69309
q24_fac67 -0.167183 0.160903 -1.039 0.29900 q24_fac88 0.161765 0.206641 0.783 0.43388
q24_fac68 -0.159664 0.157244 -1.015 0.31012 q24_fac89 -0.016807 0.148190 -0.113 0.90972
q24_fac69 0.107417 0.154155 0.697 0.48605 ---
q24_fac70 -0.188235 0.170734 -1.103 0.27046 Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
q24_fac71 -0.280543 0.177574 -1.580 0.11440
q24_fac72 -0.588235 0.267837 -2.196 0.02826 * Residual standard error: 0.482 on 1205 degrees of freedom
q24_fac73 -0.338235 0.181719 -1.861 0.06294 . Multiple R-squared: 0.127, Adjusted R-squared: 0.07047
q24_fac74 -0.143791 0.163000 -0.882 0.37787 F-statistic: 2.247 on 78 and 1205 DF, p-value: 1.234e-08

Figure 2: Complete final regression with all independent variables

25