Journal of International Migration and Integration

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-023-01061-5

Education and Inter‑Ethnic Attitudes among Recent

Immigrants in the Netherlands

Paolo Velásquez1

Accepted: 23 May 2023

© The Author(s) 2023

Abstract
Recent research shows that better educated and structurally integrated immigrants
do not articulate more positive attitudes toward the ethnic majority than immigrants
who have lower levels of educational attainment, described as evidence of an “inte-
gration paradox.” While these findings have important implications for theories of
immigrant integration, they stand in contrast with theories of intergroup relations,
e.g., intergroup contact theory. Importantly, these findings also challenge the strong
theoretical expectation that higher levels of education generate more positive inter-
group attitudes, that is, the universality of the educational effect. Using four waves
from ‘New Immigrants Survey Netherlands’ (NIS2NL) survey, I investigate atti-
tudinal differences toward both the ethnic majority and other ethnic minorities in
the Netherlands for four recent immigrant groups by focusing on the highest level
of education from their country of origin. First, I analyze whether the relationship
between education and outgroup attitudes differs toward the ethnic majority and
toward ethnic minorities. Second, I look at how attitudes toward outgroups change
over time. Findings indicate that immigrants with higher levels of educational attain-
ment hold more positive attitudes toward other ethnic minority groups, and these
attitudes are stable over time. Attitudes toward the ethnic majority, however, are ini-
tially very positive but become less so over time, regardless of level of education.
The findings shed new light on the universality of the educational effect on intereth-
nic attitudes by showing that higher levels of education among immigrants have a
potential “liberalizing” effect only toward minority groups, but not toward the ethnic
majority.

Keywords Education · Immigrants · Attitudes · Longitudinal · Prejudice

* Paolo Velásquez
paolo.velasquez@umu.se
1
Department of Sociology, Umeå University, 90187 Umeå, Sweden

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 P. Velásquez

Introduction

Recent research shows that better educated and structurally integrated immigrants
do not articulate more positive attitudes toward the native-born and ethnic major-
ity than immigrants who have lower levels of educational attainment (de Vroome
et al., 2014; Teije et al., 2013; Tolsma et al., 2012; Verkuyten, 2016). These seem-
ingly counterintuitive findings have been described as evidence of an “integration
paradox” (Schaeffer & Kas, 2023) and are attributed to higher levels of perceived
discrimination among better-educated immigrants (van Doorn et al., 2013), which
negatively affects how they feel about the members of the host society, as well as
their sense of belonging (Geurts et al., 2020).
While these empirical findings have important implications for theories of
immigrant integration, they stand in stark contrast with theories of intergroup
relations. For instance, they contradict intergroup contact theory (Allport, 1954);
insofar as better integrated, highly educated immigrants have greater contact with
the native/ethnic majority (Martinovic et al., 2009), they should hold more posi-
tive attitudes toward them. Importantly, these findings also challenge the strong
theoretical expectation that higher levels of education generate more positive
intergroup attitudes (Hainmueller & Hiscox, 2007; Hello et al., 2006; Hjerm,
2001; Hooghe et al., 2013). Indeed, the inverse relationship between education
and prejudice is arguably the most consistent empirical finding in studies of inter-
ethnic relations (Vogt, 1997) and anti-immigrant sentiment (Ceobanu & Escan-
dell, 2010). This strong correlation is most noticeable when discerning between
individuals with a tertiary degree and those without one (Hainmueller & Hiscox,
2007).
How can we understand these divergent empirical results? Previous research
on prejudice has primarily focused on the relationship between levels of educa-
tional attainment among native-born, ethnic, and/or racial majorities and their
attitudes toward ethnic minorities and immigrants. Although studies on the inte-
gration paradox examine the association between educational attainment of ethnic
minorities and their attitudes toward the native-born and ethnic majority, this lit-
erature has neglected the relationship between immigrants’ level of education and
their attitudes toward other ethnic minority groups, and how they develop over
time. Thus, it remains unclear the extent to which this educational effect is “uni-
versal” i.e., whether it is also present among immigrants and ethnic minorities.
The presence of an integration paradox for highly educated immigrants is wor-
thy of attention, since they would be the most likely to pass exams measuring lan-
guage skills and knowledge of the host society. This paradox has not been inves-
tigated systematically in other countries (Verkuyten, 2016), thus, the Netherlands
provides an opportunity to further investigate this by building on previous litera-
ture, and contributing by analyzing to what extent immigrants’ level of education
from their country of origin shapes their attitudes toward the native Dutch and
other ethnic minority groups in a longitudinal perspective.
To do this, I rely on data from four waves of the ‘New Immigrants Survey
Netherlands’ (NIS2NL), collected in the years 2013–2018 for recent immigrants

13
Education and Inter‑Ethnic Attitudes among Recent Immigrants…

to the Netherlands from Spain, Poland, Bulgaria, and Turkey. The Netherlands,
like most Western democracies, has seen a considerable change in its ethnic com-
position in past decades, with immigrants making up a considerable share of EU
residents (Van Der Zwan et al., 2017). As of 2019, immigrants in the Netherlands,
including second generation immigrants with at least one parent born abroad,
made up 23.6% of the population: 12.5% first-generation and 11.1% second-gen-
eration (Statistics Netherlands, 2019). This makes inter-minority attitudes some-
thing important to study, which is often neglected in migration and integration
research.
In this study, I investigate the role of education from the country of origin on
recent immigrants’ attitudes toward both the ethnic majority and other ethnic minor-
ities in the Netherlands. First, I investigate whether the relationship between educa-
tion and outgroup attitudes differs depending on whether the outgroup is the native
majority or other ethnic minorities. Second, I examine how attitudes toward out-
groups change over time depending on different levels of educational attainment. By
doing this, I can speak to what extent this relationship holds among immigrants, and
if it varies depending on the ethnicity of the outgroup. By examining if education
matters for immigrants’ attitudes toward different ethnic outgroups in the host soci-
ety, I provide greater insight into the universality of the educational effect.

Theory and Hypotheses

Integration Paradox

Research on the integration paradox postulates that there is a negative relationship

between structural integration and level of education, and positive attitudes toward
natives and the host society. One possible explanation for the integration paradox is
the “theory of exposure,” (van Doorn et al., 2013) which suggests that highly edu-
cated immigrants experience more discrimination since they consume more media
and have more contact with natives in the labor market and associations, therefore
being more exposed to discrimination. A second argument is that highly educated
immigrants hold more sophisticated cognitive abilities (Bobo & Licari, 1989;
Wodtke, 2012) and are therefore more aware of discrimination in the destination
country and their lower status as immigrants. Moreover, highly educated immigrants
develop higher expectations which are not always met (Verkuyten, 2016; see also
Thijssen et al., 2021), thus leading to a feeling of relative deprivation when compar-
ing themselves to the group that they most often have contact with, i.e. natives with
similar levels of education.
Studies in the Netherlands have shown that although highly educated minorities
have more opportunities for contact with natives, they do not necessarily have more
positive contact and meet less discrimination (Tolsma et al., 2012). In other words,
minorities with higher levels of education are more likely to experience interper-
sonal contact with members of the ethnic majority, but these interactions lead minor-
ities to view the majority less positively. Moreover, the relationship between minori-
ties’ perceived discrimination/less societal acceptance and their attitudes toward the

13
 P. Velásquez

native population and the host society is strongest among those with higher levels of
education (de Vroome et al., 2014; Teije et al., 2013). This also seems to be the case
in Germany (Steinmann, 2019; see also Tuppat & Gerhards, 2021), implying that
this phenomenon is not endemic to the Netherlands. In addition, research has shown
that a longer duration in the destination country is associated with more discrimina-
tion (McGinnity & Gijsberts, 2018), which suggests that the attitudes of immigrants
with the most education should also worsen over time.
The integration paradox has also been found to exist among smaller immigrant
groups in the Netherlands (Geurts et al., 2020; van Doorn et al., 2013), suggesting
similar integration processes (or lack thereof) among various immigrant groups. It is
therefore not specific to the four largest immigrant groups, i.e., Turks, Moroccans,
Surinamese, and Antilleans. Considering this, higher levels of education among
immigrants should not result in more positive attitudes toward the ethnic major-
ity, although this may differ toward other ethnic minorities. This finding, however,
has failed to be replicated among adolescents in the Netherlands, indicating that the
integration paradox is limited to migrants who do not grow up in the host society, or
that young immigrants’ attitudes toward the ethnic majority drastically change after
high school (van Maaren & van de Rijt 2020).
The absence of the relationship consistently found in studies of natives’ attitudes
toward immigrants and ethnic/racial minorities challenges the notion that more edu-
cation always means more positive attitudes toward outgroups. This is key since
more education is often regarded as a way to integrate immigrants and improve their
commitment and identification with the host society. And yet, there is evidence that
higher levels of education among the immigrant population do not necessarily trans-
late into more positive attitudes toward the native ethnic majority, mainly due to
perceived discrimination, which likely increases over time (McGinnity & Gijsberts,
2018). Therefore, I hypothesize that due to the integration paradox:

H1a: Higher levels of educational attainment are not associated with more posi-
tive attitudes toward the ethnic majority in a destination country.
H1b: Attitudes toward the ethnic majority become less positive over time.

Education and outgroup attitudes

Research that has focused on the effect of education and prejudice (e.g., Creighton et al.,
2023; Hello et al., 2002, 2006; Meeusen et al., 2013; Mulders & van Tubergen, 2022;
Velásquez & Eger, 2022) has largely looked at the inverse relationship between edu-
cation and prejudice among ethnic and racial majorities and native-born. Meanwhile,
empirical studies on the effect of education on immigrants’ attitudes toward natives and
toward other immigrants and minorities is scarce (Roth & Kim, 2013), leaving the ques-
tion open as to whether this robust statistical relationship also exists among immigrants.
Yet, previous studies that have investigated inter-minority attitudes have not
focused on education. In the United States, Philip et al. (2010) looked at the
differences in attitudes toward African-Americans among Indian immigrants
and Indian-Americans, and showed that Indian immigrants hold more negative

13
Education and Inter‑Ethnic Attitudes among Recent Immigrants…

attitudes toward African-Americans, due to lack of contact, as well as beliefs

about social hierarchies, inter alia. Despite this, ethnic minority groups at times
may share their minority position in society and the feeling of being “in the same
boat,” which could trigger a common disadvantaged minority ingroup identity
that results in more positive attitudes toward other minorities (Craig & Richeson,
2012).
In a study of 23 European countries, Van Der Zwan et al. (2017) found that
perceived migrant threat among immigrants was stronger among those who had
lived longer in the destination country, and the more education a migrant had,
the weaker their threat perceptions were toward other migrants. In Belgium,
Meeusen et al. (2019) showed that Belgians of Turkish and Moroccan descent
were not exempt from having negative attitudes toward immigrants in general,
and these were more negative when it specifically concerned Eastern European
immigrants, with a slight majority believing Eastern Europeans take their jobs
and ruin the reputation of other immigrants. In a study among secondary school
students in the Netherlands, Verkuyten et al. (1996) found that students with
Turkish, Moroccan and Surinamese background considered the Dutch the most
preferred outgroup, and that Turks and Moroccans had more favorable attitudes
toward each other than to the Surinamese. Similarly, Hindriks et al. (2014) found
that more social distance was reported by Turks and Moroccans toward Suri-
namese/Antilleans than toward each other.
These studies suggest two important things: First, similar groups are evaluated
more positively (McPherson et al., 2001); Second, the ethnic majority population (at
least in the Netherlands) is the most positively viewed outgroup by ethnic minori-
ties, after their own group. Yet, these studies have not particularly focused on edu-
cation and its effects on inter-minority attitudes, and on attitudes toward the eth-
nic majority. Research has also not investigated whether these attitudes change over
time, despite existing evidence that the effects of education may vary across groups.
For instance, Hindriks et al., (2014) found that higher levels of education are associ-
ated with less social distance toward other minority groups but not toward the native
Dutch. In fact, this association is reversed toward the native Dutch, albeit the effect
size is rather small and weak. In contrast, Meeusen et al. (2019) found that Bel-
gian Turks and Moroccans show no significant differences in their anti-immigrant
attitudes by level of education. The authors speculate that this is likely due to the
majority of respondents in the sample being in low socio-economic positions.
To summarize, the few studies on inter-minority attitudes have not focused on the
effect of education on these attitudes, while evidence suggests it may operate differ-
ently toward other minority groups than toward the ethnic majority. Still, education
is consistently shown to be a strong predictor of pro-immigrant attitudes (Ceobanu
& Escandell, 2010; Hainmueller & Hiscox, 2007; Hello et al., 2002). Therefore, due
to strong theoretical expectations on the educational effect on attitudes toward immi-
grants, I hypothesize:

H2a: Higher levels of educational attainment are associated with more positive
attitudes toward other ethnic minority groups in a destination country.

13
 P. Velásquez

In addition, since there are no strong theoretical expectations for inter-minority

attitudes to change over time by level of education, as there is toward the ethnic
majority, I hypothesize:

H2b: Attitudes toward other ethnic minority groups are stable over time.

Data

Data come from the ‘New Immigrants Survey Netherlands’ (NIS2NL) for the
years 2013–2018. This is a survey designed to analyze early integration processes
of recently arrived immigrants to the Netherlands from Spain, Poland, Bulgaria,
and Turkey (Lubbers et al., 2018). Information for the first wave was collected in
November 2013 and March 2014 for migrants who had registered in a Dutch munic-
ipality less than eighteen months before September 2013. The mean response rate
was 32.3% leading to a total of 4,808 respondents in the first wave. In the second,
third and fourth waves, respondents were approached in March and May 2015; Sep-
tember 2016; and January 2018, respectively.
In the original dataset, 4,808 individuals were interviewed. However due to miss-
ing values mainly on the dependent variables, the sample includes a total 4,323 indi-
viduals: 1,254 (29%) Spaniards; 1,622 (37.5%) Poles; 687 (15.9%) Bulgarians, and
760 (17.6%) Turks. The number of respondents is 4,323 in wave 1; 2,069 in wave 2;
1,230 in wave 3, and 901 in the last wave. In order to test hypotheses H1a and H2a,
I only use the first wave since the highest level of education is from the immigrants’
country of origin and therefore time-invariant in the analyses. The reason for not
using highest level of education attained in the Netherlands is due to data limitations
that do not capture adequate educational attainment in the destination country as
well as a high attrition rate. The dropout between waves can be selective to a certain
degree, due to the nature of immigrants’ mobility and wishes to return to their coun-
try of origin or migrate to other countries. While testing hypotheses H2a and H2b,
I complement the analyses with a balanced sample (Table A7 in Appendix) with
respondents who participated in all waves, which can better represent the migrant
population that eventually stays in the country.

Dependent Variables

The dependent variables are based on “feeling thermometer” questions asking

respondents how they feel toward different ethnic groups: native Dutch, Spaniards,
Poles, Bulgarians, and Turks. Feeling thermometer questions are a reliable way to
measure attitudes (Alwin, 1997) and are commonly used in ethnic studies, including
research in the Netherlands (Coenders et al., 2008; de Vroome et al., 2014; Geurts
et al., 2020; Velthuis et al., 2021; Weber, 2022). Respondents are asked to imag-
ine a thermometer and can specify a temperature between 0 to 100 with 10-degree
intervals representing how they feel about a given group. In the original dataset, the
responses are coded on a 0–10 scale with 0 degrees representing very negative atti-
tudes, and 100 degrees (coded as 10) meaning they feel very positively toward the

13
Education and Inter‑Ethnic Attitudes among Recent Immigrants…

group. As robustness checks, I also create two alternative dependent variables which
are presented in Table A6 in the Appendix. For the first alternative dependent vari-
able, I subtract ingroup attitudes from attitudes toward the ethnic majority. Similarly
for the second one, I subtract ingroup attitudes from the average attitudes toward
other ethnic minorities. By doing so, I am able to “isolate changes in the relative
views of the targeted group and shifts in a willingness to apply stereotypes generally
are thus deliberately removed” (Hopkins & Washington, 2020: 8).

Main Independent Variable

The main independent variable is highest level of educational attainment in the country
of origin. Many of the respondents in the sample have not pursued higher education in
the Netherlands and graduated with a degree (around 92%), and a vast majority of those
who did pursue higher education already had a university degree. To test my hypotheses,
I use a three-category version of education: 0 “Less than Secondary” 1 “Secondary” 2
“Tertiary.” This three-category variable was constructed from a 9-category variable rang-
ing from “less than primary” to “Doctoral” education. This was done due to very low
numbers in some categories and even zero for others (e.g., no Bulgarians with a master’s
degree, or Turks with a doctoral degree).

Controls

In order to isolate education’s effect from other SES indicators, I use immigrants’
employment status (main activity) in the Netherlands: Unemployed; Employed;
Non-employed; In Education. The first category captures individuals who are cur-
rently unemployed. The second category consists of individuals who are currently
working, including those who are temporarily on parental leave. The third category
‘non-employed’ consists of individuals who are long term sick or disabled, retired,
or looking after the home/children as their main activity and are not searching for a
job. The fourth category refers to individuals who are currently enrolled in any type
of education. Due to a substantial number of missing values for income (N≈700),
this control is not added in the main analyses, but in additional analyses in the
Appendix (see models in Tables A1-A7).
As basic demographic controls, I include the continuous measure of age, and
a binary measure of sex. Other relevant controls included are perceived group
discrimination and contact with native Dutch. Perceived group discrimination is
captured by answers to the question: “Some say that people from [country of ori-
gin] are being discriminated against in the Netherlands. How often do you think
[country of origin] people are discriminated against in the Netherlands?” I then
constructed a 4-category variable: Never/Almost Never; Sometimes; Often/Very
Often; Do not know. Contact with native Dutch1 consists of 6-categories: Never;

1
Due to the lack of a variable measuring contact with other ethnic minorities in the data, this control
variable is included in analyses of both attitudes toward the ethnic majority and ethnic minorities.

13
 P. Velásquez

Less often; Several times a year; A few times a month; Several times a week;
Every day, answering to the question “How often do you spend time with Dutch
people in your free time?”.

Estimation

I restrict the sample to exclude ingroup attitudes in the models. In this manner,
the number of respondents becomes 3,069 for attitudes toward Spaniards; Poles
2,071; Bulgarians 3,636; and Turks 3,563. In additional analyses using alterna-
tive dependent variables (Table A6 in the Appendix), the number of respond-
ents is 4,323 for both attitudes toward the ethnic majority, and toward ethnic
minorities.

Methods
To test the hypotheses, I analyze data with ordinary least squares (OLS) regres-
sions for hypotheses H1a and H2a due to the time-invariant nature of the key
independent variable. In order to test H1b and H2b I use mixed, multilevel
repeated measurement models. These are hierarchical models, with observa-
tions (time) nested in individuals. This approach estimates fixed-effects and
two random-effects, corresponding to the between-individual (intercepts) and
within-individual (residuals) variances. The generic model using a single equa-
tion looks like this:
yij = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 x1 + … 𝛽n xn + uj + eij

Where yij is the dependent variable measured for i th level-1 unit (observations)
nested within the j th level-2 unit (individuals). The fixed-part of the model consists
of the intercept 𝛽0 and covariates 𝛽1 x1+… 𝛽n xn . The random-part consists of uj , the
residual variance of the level-2 units (individuals) and eij , the residual variance of
the level-1 units (observations).
This can also be written as a set of hierarchical equations:
Level 𝟏 expression ∶ yij = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 x1 + eij

Level 𝟐 expressions ∶ 𝛽0j = 𝛾00 + 𝛾01 wj + u0j

𝛽1j = 𝛾10 + 𝛾11 wj + u1j

With 𝛾00 referring to the overall intercept, 𝛾01 the overall regression coeffi-
cient, wj a level-2 predictor (individual), u0j the random error component for
the deviation of individuals’ intercepts from the overall intercept, 𝛾10 the overall
regression coefficient between the dependent variable and level-1 predictor, 𝛾11
the regression coefficient for covariate wj and u1j the error component for the

13
Education and Inter‑Ethnic Attitudes among Recent Immigrants…

slope. A random slope for time is also included in the analyses for purposes of
cross-level interactions (Heisig & Schaeffer, 2019).

Results

Descriptive statistics

The descriptive statistics for this study are presented in Table 1. The average
response to the first dependent variable capturing attitudes toward the ethnic major-
ity is 7.24 over the four waves. The average attitudes toward ethnic minorities
(excluding ingroup attitudes) are Spaniards (5.44), Poles (5.29), Bulgarians (4.58),
and Turks (4.46). About 54% of the sample has tertiary education, 30% secondary
education, and 16% less than secondary education. Figure 1 below shows a fine-
grained version of educational attainment in the sample by immigrant group. The
majority (62%) are employed, 15% are unemployed, 8% are “non-employed,” and
15% are enrolled in some type of education. There are more women (55%) than men
(45%), and the average age of respondents is 32 years old. Most respondents in the
sample come from Poland (37%), followed by Spaniards (29%), Turks (18%), and
Bulgarians (16%).
Figure 1 shows the distribution of educational levels by immigrant group. The
vast majority of Spaniards in the sample have tertiary education (81.2%). 45.8% of
Poles have tertiary education; 33.8% of Bulgarians; and 47% Turks. Respondents
with tertiary education form the largest educational category for each immigrant
group, except for Bulgarians who mostly have secondary education (58.2%) as their
highest level of completed education in their country of origin.
Figure 2 illustrates mean attitudes by country of origin, including attitudes toward
their own ethnic group, for comparison purposes. It is noteworthy that all immi-
grant groups regard the native Dutch more positively than other ethnic groups, even
their own, except for respondents from Spain, who regard their own group the most
favorably. The next most favored group is the ingroup, followed by Spaniards, Poles,
Bulgarians, and Turks.

Empirical Analyses

In Table 2, I report results from the test of hypotheses H1a in Models 1–2 and H2a in
Models 3–10. I begin with model 1, including only the trichotomous education vari-
able. Results show support for H1a in that having higher levels of education from the
country of origin are not associated with more positive attitudes toward the ethnic
majority. These analyses are also corroborated in Table A1 in the Appendix, where
I analyze separately each immigrant group’s attitudes toward the ethnic majority. In
model 2, controls are added showing that being employed, non-employed or in edu-
cation does not seem to have an effect on attitudes toward the ethnic majority when
compared to those who are unemployed. In addition, respondents who perceive

13
 P. Velásquez

more group discrimination hold more negative attitudes toward the ethnic major-
ity. Respondents who have more contact with the native Dutch, however, hold more
positive attitudes toward them.

Table 1  Descriptive statistics

N Mean/% SD Min Max

Dependent variables
Attitudes toward ethnic majority 4323 7.24 2.04 0 10
Attitudes toward Spaniards 3069 5.44 2.30 0 10
Attitudes toward Poles 2701 5.29 2.46 0 10
Attitudes toward Bulgarians 3636 4.58 2.42 0 10
Attitudes toward Turks 3563 4.46 2.57 0 10
Main independent variable
Highest level of education from country of origin
Less than Secondary 4323 0.16 0.36 0 1
Secondary education 4323 0.30 0.46 0 1
Tertiary Education 4323 0.54 0.50 0 1
Socioeconomic controls
Employment status in the Netherlands
Unemployed 4323 0.15 0.36 0 1
Employed 4323 0.62 0.49 0 1
Non-employed 4323 0.08 0.27 0 1
In Education 4323 0.15 0.35 0 1
Demographic controls
Male 4323 0.45 0.50 0 1
Female 4323 0.55 0.50 0 1
Age 4323 32.15 8.72 16 76
Other controls
Perceived discrimination 0 1
Never/Almost never 4323 0.27 0.45 0 1
Sometimes 4323 0.42 0.49 0 1
Often/Very often 4323 0.22 0.41 0 1
Do not know 4323 0.08 0.28 0 1
Contact with native Dutch
Never 4323 0.11 0.32 0 1
Less often 4323 0.13 0.34 0 1
Several times a year 4323 0.10 0.30 0 1
Few times a month 4323 0.23 0.42 0 1
Several times a week 4323 0.23 0.42 0 1
Every day 4323 0.20 0.40 0 1
Country of origin
Spain 4323 0.29 0.45 0 1
Poland 4323 0.37 0.48 0 1
Bulgaria 4323 0.16 0.36 0 1
Turkey 4323 0.18 0.38 0 1

New Immigrant Survey Netherlands (NIS2NL) waves 1–4

13
Education and Inter‑Ethnic Attitudes among Recent Immigrants…

81.2
80 80

60 60
Percent

45.8
40 40 31.4
22.7
20 12.8 20
6.1
0 0
Spain Poland

80 80
58.2
60 60
47.0
Percent

40 33.8 40 30.3
22.8
20 20
8.0
0 0
Bulgaria Turkey

Less than secondary Secondary Tertiary

Fig. 1  Educational attainment (%) in the sample within each immigrant group at wave 1

In the following models (3–10), attitudes toward the different ethnic minor-
ities are shown excluding ingroup attitudes. These models show a consistent
relationship between higher levels of education and more positive attitudes

8.0
8 7.5
7.1 7.2 7.1 7.2
7.0
Attitudes toward ethnic groups

6.0 5.8 6.0

6 5.7
5.5 5.4 5.3
5.1

4.2 4.2
4.0 3.9
4 3.7

0
Spain Poland Bulgaria Turkey

Dutch Spaniards Poles Bulgarians Turks

Fig. 2  Attitudes toward ethnic outgroups and ingroup by country of origin

13
 Table 2  Highest level of education from country of origin and attitudes toward the ethnic majority and ethnic minorities (OLS regressions)
H1a: Ethnic majority H2a: Ethnic minorities

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

13
Dutch Dutch Spaniards Spaniards Poles Poles Bulgarians Bulgarians Turks Turks

Education (ref. Less than secondary)

Secondary -0.085 -0.013 0.544*** 0.389** 0.861*** 0.726*** 0.435*** 0.305* 0.079 0.096
(0.098) (0.097) (0.116) (0.118) (0.167) (0.166) (0.125) (0.124) (0.140) (0.139)
Tertiary 0.086 -0.055 1.021*** 0.830*** 1.745*** 1.346*** 1.393*** 1.010*** 0.890*** 0.668***
(0.091) (0.091) (0.114) (0.116) (0.155) (0.156) (0.110) (0.112) (0.129) (0.129)
Current activity (ref. Unemployed)
Employed 0.143 0.128 0.368** 0.280** -0.339**
(0.083) (0.107) (0.125) (0.105) (0.123)
Non-employed 0.138 0.059 -0.196 0.061 -0.111
(0.138) (0.171) (0.226) (0.176) (0.202)
In Education -0.072 0.952*** 0.809*** 0.730*** 0.063
(0.105) (0.144) (0.145) (0.143) (0.154)
Perceived group discrimination (ref. Never/Almost Never)
Sometimes -0.578*** -0.426*** -0.732*** -0.747*** -0.789***
(0.076) (0.118) (0.111) (0.095) (0.104)
Often/Very Often -1.288*** -0.530*** -1.135*** -1.403*** -1.492***
(0.088) (0.126) (0.141) (0.116) (0.119)
Do not know -0.355** -0.276 -0.339* -0.081 0.022
(0.113) (0.169) (0.160) (0.142) (0.159)
Contact with native Dutch (ref. Never)
Less often 0.266* 0.312* 0.417* 0.275 0.377*
(0.119) (0.147) (0.205) (0.150) (0.165)
P. Velásquez
 Table 2  (continued)
H1a: Ethnic majority H2a: Ethnic minorities

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
Dutch Dutch Spaniards Spaniards Poles Poles Bulgarians Bulgarians Turks Turks

Several times a year 0.254 0.506** 0.995*** 0.265 0.270

(0.137) (0.171) (0.261) (0.169) (0.186)
Few times a month 0.464*** 0.543*** 0.761*** 0.481*** 0.571***
(0.107) (0.140) (0.178) (0.133) (0.150)
Several times a week 0.623*** 0.601*** 0.807*** 0.578*** 0.767***
(0.107) (0.137) (0.173) (0.134) (0.152)
Every day 0.902*** 0.566*** 0.888*** 0.413** 0.608***
(0.110) (0.142) (0.180) (0.139) (0.154)
Female 0.050 0.155 0.159 0.228** -0.058
(0.063) (0.086) (0.096) (0.081) (0.088)
Age 0.023*** 0.016*** 0.014* 0.010* 0.024***
Education and Inter‑Ethnic Attitudes among Recent Immigrants…

(0.004) (0.005) (0.006) (0.005) (0.005)

Constant 7.299*** 6.636*** 4.787*** 4.057*** 4.003*** 3.218*** 3.638*** 3.390*** 4.004*** 3.792***
(0.080) (0.193) (0.094) (0.248) (0.142) (0.310) (0.097) (0.245) (0.115) (0.277)
Observations 4,323 4,323 3,069 3,069 2,701 2,701 3,636 3,636 3,563 3,563
R-squared 0.001 0.084 0.027 0.064 0.056 0.114 0.055 0.121 0.025 0.098

New Immigrant Survey Netherlands (NIS2NL) wave 1

Standard errors in parentheses
***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05

13
 P. Velásquez

toward other ethnic minorities, thus supporting hypothesis H2a. In addition,

separate analyses were conducted for each immigrant group in Tables A1-A5
in the Appendix. These analyses show a consistent relationship between higher
levels of education and more positive attitudes toward other ethnic minorities
among all immigrant groups, except for Poles’ and Bulgarians’ attitudes toward
Turks, where no effect of education is found (Tables A3-A4).
Models 3–10 in Table 2 also show respondents who are currently in some type of
education to hold more positive attitudes toward the other immigrant groups, except
for Turks, when compared to those who are unemployed. Similarly, as in previous
models, those who perceive more discrimination toward their own ethnic group hold
less positive attitudes toward other ethnic minorities, while those who have more
contact with the native Dutch, hold, on average, more positive attitudes.
In Table 3, results for hypotheses H1b and H2b are presented. In model 11, time
as a continuous variable is added. This shows a negative linear trend over time for
attitudes toward the ethnic majority, providing support for H1b. In model 12, I inter-
act level of education with time and this result is illustrated in Fig. 3. Additional
analyses using an alternative dependent variable, and a balanced panel (Tables A6-
A7 in the Appendix) confirm these results.
In models 13–20, similar analyses were conducted showing attitudes toward other
ethnic minorities are, for the most part, stable over time. Attitudes toward Bulgari-
ans seem to become slightly more positive over time, whereas attitudes toward Turks
become slightly more less positive over time. These time trends, however, are not
as strong and pronounced as those captured toward the ethnic majority. Additional
analyses were conducted using an alternative dependent variable and in a balanced
sample in Tables A6-A7 in the Appendix, showing stability in attitudes toward other
ethnic minorities, thus showing support for H2b.

Conclusion

Previous research has consistently shown a relationship between higher levels of

education and lower levels of prejudice. However, studies have mostly relied on ana-
lyzing this relationship among ethnic and racial majorities and native-born, leav-
ing the question open as to whether the educational effect is indeed present among
immigrants toward the ethnic majority. In addition, research that has focused on
inter-minority attitudes has also failed to investigate whether the educational effect
is present among immigrants and ethnic minorities. In this study, I have sought to
contribute to this gap in the literature by analyzing attitudes toward different out-
groups among immigrants in the Netherlands, consisting of attitudes toward the
ethnic majority (native Dutch), and toward other ethnic minorities in a longitudinal
perspective.
Using four waves from the ‘New Immigrants Survey Netherlands’ (NIS2NL), my
main objectives were: (1) to investigate to what extent educational attainment was
associated with more positive inter-ethnic attitudes among four recent immigrant
ingroups in the Netherlands, as it has repeatedly been shown to be the case among
the native-born and ethnic majority (e.g., Hainmueller & Hiscox, 2007); and (2) to

13
 Table 3  Multilevel repeated measurement models of attitudes toward the ethnic majority and ethnic minorities
H1b: Ethnic majority H2b: Ethnic minorities

(11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20)
Dutch Dutch Spaniards Spaniards Poles Poles Bulgarians Bulgarians Turks Turks

Time (waves) -0.163*** -0.281*** -0.039 -0.094 -0.026 -0.019 0.062* 0.100 -0.061* -0.076
(0.020) (0.053) (0.027) (0.067) (0.030) (0.088) (0.025) (0.064) (0.027) (0.077)
Education (ref. Less than secondary)
Secondary 0.031 -0.028 0.369*** 0.361** 0.634*** 0.681*** 0.238* 0.274* 0.011 0.063
(0.082) (0.090) (0.101) (0.110) (0.140) (0.154) (0.107) (0.116) (0.123) (0.131)
Tertiary 0.046 -0.044 0.872*** 0.813*** 1.362*** 1.347*** 1.054*** 1.074*** 0.688*** 0.649***
(0.076) (0.084) (0.098) (0.107) (0.131) (0.143) (0.096) (0.103) (0.113) (0.121)
Interaction Education X Time (ref. Less than Secondary)
Secondary X Time 0.102 0.016 -0.081 -0.067 -0.099
(0.064) (0.080) (0.104) (0.081) (0.090)
Tertiary X Time 0.149* 0.099 0.019 -0.036 0.064
Education and Inter‑Ethnic Attitudes among Recent Immigrants…

(0.058) (0.076) (0.094) (0.070) (0.082)

Current activity (ref. Unemployed)
Employed 0.071 0.073 0.044 0.045 0.236** 0.237** 0.182* 0.183* -0.103 -0.101
(0.061) (0.061) (0.078) (0.078) (0.090) (0.090) (0.076) (0.076) (0.086) (0.086)
Non-employed 0.065 0.065 -0.048 -0.051 -0.104 -0.107 -0.021 -0.022 -0.109 -0.118
(0.092) (0.092) (0.113) (0.113) (0.144) (0.144) (0.115) (0.115) (0.128) (0.128)
In Education -0.068 -0.061 0.698*** 0.704*** 0.575*** 0.574*** 0.623*** 0.622*** 0.123 0.123
(0.082) (0.082) (0.113) (0.113) (0.110) (0.110) (0.110) (0.110) (0.115) (0.115)
Perceived group discrimination (ref. Never/Almost Never)
Sometimes -0.491*** -0.491*** -0.407*** -0.405*** -0.511*** -0.513*** -0.597*** -0.597*** -0.539*** -0.538***
(0.052) (0.052) (0.079) (0.079) (0.073) (0.073) (0.064) (0.064) (0.069) (0.069)

13
 Table 3  (continued)
H1b: Ethnic majority H2b: Ethnic minorities

(11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20)

13
Dutch Dutch Spaniards Spaniards Poles Poles Bulgarians Bulgarians Turks Turks

Often/Very Often -1.153*** -1.150*** -0.602*** -0.601*** -0.948*** -0.955*** -1.184*** -1.185*** -1.162*** -1.168***
(0.064) (0.064) (0.089) (0.089) (0.101) (0.101) (0.082) (0.082) (0.085) (0.085)
Do not know -0.256** -0.255** -0.236* -0.235* -0.291** -0.292** -0.183 -0.183 -0.027 -0.022
(0.081) (0.081) (0.117) (0.117) (0.113) (0.113) (0.100) (0.100) (0.110) (0.110)
Contact with native Dutch (ref. Never)
Less often 0.224** 0.225** 0.272** 0.274** 0.409** 0.409** 0.177 0.178 0.065 0.067
(0.083) (0.083) (0.101) (0.101) (0.142) (0.142) (0.101) (0.101) (0.110) (0.110)
Several times a year 0.201* 0.198* 0.438*** 0.435*** 0.729*** 0.723*** 0.316** 0.315** 0.290* 0.283*
(0.090) (0.090) (0.114) (0.114) (0.159) (0.159) (0.109) (0.109) (0.118) (0.118)
Few times a month 0.464*** 0.467*** 0.421*** 0.421*** 0.743*** 0.745*** 0.431*** 0.430*** 0.481*** 0.481***
(0.078) (0.078) (0.100) (0.100) (0.128) (0.128) (0.095) (0.095) (0.106) (0.106)
Several times a week 0.540*** 0.544*** 0.426*** 0.430*** 0.721*** 0.724*** 0.352*** 0.352*** 0.394*** 0.396***
(0.078) (0.078) (0.100) (0.100) (0.127) (0.127) (0.097) (0.097) (0.108) (0.108)
Every day 0.862*** 0.864*** 0.614*** 0.615*** 0.903*** 0.905*** 0.428*** 0.427*** 0.481*** 0.482***
(0.082) (0.082) (0.105) (0.105) (0.133) (0.133) (0.101) (0.101) (0.112) (0.112)
Female 0.022 0.023 0.084 0.084 0.108 0.111 0.187** 0.187** -0.025 -0.022
(0.052) (0.052) (0.071) (0.071) (0.079) (0.079) (0.067) (0.067) (0.074) (0.074)
Age 0.025*** 0.025*** 0.011** 0.012** 0.007 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.019*** 0.020***
(0.003) (0.003) (0.004) (0.004) (0.005) (0.005) (0.004) (0.004) (0.004) (0.004)
Constant 6.514*** 6.574*** 4.393*** 4.415*** 3.469*** 3.457*** 3.548*** 3.527*** 3.740*** 3.738***
(0.154) (0.157) (0.198) (0.200) (0.249) (0.253) (0.199) (0.201) (0.223) (0.225)
P. Velásquez
 Table 3  (continued)
H1b: Ethnic majority H2b: Ethnic minorities

(11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20)
Dutch Dutch Spaniards Spaniards Poles Poles Bulgarians Bulgarians Turks Turks

Random-effects parameters
Random slope (waves) 0.006 0.004 0.052 0.050 0.008 0.007 0.040 0.040 0.039 0.034
(0.016) (0.016) (0.027) (0.027) (0.028) (0.028) (0.025) (0.025) (0.028) (0.028)
Between-individual 1.377 1.376 1.886 1.888 2.191 2.193 2.227 2.226 2.938 2.935
(0.070) (0.069) (0.110) (0.110) (0.130) (0.130) (0.107) (0.107) (0.127) (0.127)
Within-individual 2.437 2.437 3.046 3.046 3.275 3.273 2.957 2.957 3.082 3.084
(0.058) (0.058) (0.087) (0.087) (0.100) (0.100) (0.079) (0.079) (0.084) (0.084)
log likelihood -17431.515 -17428.131 -13121.165 -13119.732 -11846.673 -11845.496 -15720.794 -15720.447 -15669.869 -15665.874
Observations 8,523 8,523 6,030 6,030 5,350 5,350 7,195 7,195 6,994 6,994
Individuals 4,323 4,323 3,069 3,069 2,701 2,701 3,636 3,636 3,563 3,563

New Immigrant Survey Netherlands (NIS2NL) waves 1–4

Education and Inter‑Ethnic Attitudes among Recent Immigrants…

Standard errors in parentheses

***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05

13
 P. Velásquez

7.5
Attitudes toward ethnic majority

6.5

6
1 2 3 4
waves

Less than secondary Secondary Tertiary

Fig. 3  Attitudes toward the ethnic majority over time, by level of education

examine if these attitudes had different trajectories over time. Hypotheses H1a and
H1b tested the effect of education from the country of origin on attitudes toward
the ethnic majority. Consistent with the integration paradox, I found support for
both hypotheses, inasmuch as higher levels of educational attainment are not associ-
ated with more positive attitudes toward the ethnic majority, and that these attitudes
become less positive over time. Hypotheses H2a and H2b, were derived from strong
theoretical expectations of the universality of the educational effect on outgroup atti-
tudes. I hypothesized that higher levels of educational attainment were associated
with more positive attitudes toward other ethnic minorities, and that these attitudes
were stable over time. The results also provided support for these hypotheses.
I acknowledgements several limitations of the present study. First, this research can-
not rule out potential self-selection mechanisms into higher education (e.g. Lancee &
Sarrasin, 2015), and the effect of field of study on prejudice (Feldman & Newcomb,
1969; Guimond et al., 2003; Guimond & Palmer, 1996). Due to data limitations, I am
not able to address these issues, which become more complex when taking into account
the different educational systems from the immigrants’ country of origin. Moreover, it
is also fair to assume there are selection processes that drive migration, something that
is endemic to this type of study. For example, it could be the case that migrants who
already were more positively disposed toward the native Dutch, moved to the Nether-
lands in greater numbers. Particularly, this applies to individuals from countries that
were outside the European Union at the time of migration, due to being required to pass
an exam measuring their knowledge of the Dutch language and society (Joppke, 2007).
However, even if this was the case, selection effects are not able to explain the
worsening of attitudes toward the native Dutch (regardless of level of education)
on the one hand, and on the other hand, the stable educational effect found toward

13
Education and Inter‑Ethnic Attitudes among Recent Immigrants…

other ethnic minorities over time. Indeed, the whole premise of the integration
paradox is that better structurally- and socially-integrated migrants do not exhibit
more positive attitudes toward the ethnic majority, as one would expect. Perhaps,
this is due to a “honeymoon” effect, where migrants quickly become disillusioned
in the host society, after a period of high spirits, due to, among other things, their
low sense of belonging, their (unmet) cultural, economic and political expecta-
tions of the host society, experiencing exclusion in the host society, and feelings
of attachment to their country of origin (Geurts et al., 2021).
In conclusion, these analyses reveal that higher levels of education among
immigrants only have a so-called “liberalizing” effect toward subordinate groups
in a host society, but not toward the ethnic majority. This sheds new light on the
universality of the educational effect by delineating scope conditions to this spe-
cific phenomenon, highlighting the importance of ethnic group positions in the
social hierarchy. For example, while Hagendoorn and Hraba (1987) assessed an
ethnic hierarchy in the Netherlands for the first time among the native Dutch;
their results show a striking resemblance with how immigrants view other groups
in this study (Fig. 2), with respondents expressing the most social distance toward
Turks, and the least toward Spaniards, among others. Subsequent studies have
also shown that the ethnic hierarchy of the Dutch toward other ethnic groups has
not changed much since the 1980’s (Hagendoorn, 1995; Hagendoorn & Pepels,
2003) with Turks and Moroccans evaluated the most negatively and Northern
Europeans the most positively (Coenders et al., 2008; Verkuyten et al., 1996).
This ethnic hierarchy is likely derived from the racialization of migrants from
certain countries (Garner, 2007). This process of racialization of migrants is not
just limited to physical features but may deem certain migrants as unassimilable
due to notions of cultural incompatibility related to the idea of who constitutes a
nation and national identity (Balibar, 1991; Schnapper, 1994, 1995), and who is
included as a full member of society (Ivarsflaten & Sniderman, 2022; Velásquez
et al., 2023). This may also explain, to some extent, why higher levels of educa-
tion among Poles and Bulgarians were not associated with more positive attitudes
toward Turks.
With these persistent ethnic group status hierarchies in mind, the results of the
current study imply that higher levels of education has the potential to improve
attitudes toward ethnic outgroups that are deemed lower in status by members of
a given ethnic group. When individuals of a certain ethnic group evaluate another
ethnic group similarly to theirs, or higher in status, then an educational effect is
absent. Future research would benefit by investigating the possible mechanisms
underpinning the integration paradox (e.g., Geurts et al., 2021, 2022), including
immigrants’ negative and positive experiences (Geurts & Lubbers, 2022), as well
as exploring whether these attitudes differ by educational attainment between
immigrants in a receiving country and citizens in their countries of origin. This
would not only shed light in the relationship between education and prejudice,
but also on whether immigrants as a group are more likely to hold a particular set
of attitudes as compared to those who do not migrate.

13
 P. Velásquez

Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s12134-​023-​01061-5.

Acknowledgements The author would like to express gratitude to Marcel Lubbers and everyone at The
European Research Centre on Migration and Ethnic Relations (ERCOMER) at Utrecht University for
their helpful comments and suggestions, and for providing important clarifications regarding the New
Immigrants Survey Netherlands data. I would also like to thank Mikael Hjerm, Maureen A. Eger, Moa
Bursell, and Eva Jaspers for their useful comments at various stages of this manuscript.

Author Contributions Paolo Velásquez is a Senior Research Assistant in the Department of Sociology
at Umeå University. He earned his PhD at Umeå University in 2023, and holds a MSc. from Stockholm
University and B.A. from the City College of New York. Dr.Velásquez’s current research interests
are prejudice, ethnic relations, social stratification, immigrant integration, and the history of sociology.
His research has been published in European Sociological Review and The American Sociologist.

Funding Open access funding provided by Umea University. This research was supported by the Swedish
Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare (Forskningsrådet för hälsa, arbetsliv och välfärd
[FORTE]) Grant No. 2016–07177, and the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet [VR]) Grant No.
2019–02996.

Declarations
Conflict of Interest The author declares no competing interests.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as
you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is
not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission
directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​
ses/​by/4.​0/.

References
Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
Alwin, D. F. (1997). Feeling thermometers versus 7-point scales: Which are better? Sociological
Methods and Research, 25(3), 318–340. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​00491​24197​02500​3003
Balibar, E. (1991). Racism and nationalism. In E. Balibar & I. Wallerstein (Eds.), Race, Nation, State,
Class. Ambiguous Identities. (pp. 37–67). Verso.
Bobo, L., & Licari, F. C. (1989). Education and Political Tolerance : Testing the Effects of Cognitive
Sophistication and Target Group Affect. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 53(3), 285–308. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1086/​269154
Ceobanu, A. M., & Escandell, X. (2010). Comparative Analyses of Public Attitudes Toward Immi-
grants and Immigration Using Multinational Survey Data: A Review of Theories and Research.
Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 309–328. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1146/​annur​ev.​soc.​012809.​102651
Coenders, M., Lubbers, M., Scheepers, P., & Verkuyten, M. (2008). More than two decades of chang-
ing ethnic attitudes in the Netherlands. Journal of Social Issues, 64(2), 269–285. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1111/j.​1540-​4560.​2008.​00561.x
Craig, M. A., & Richeson, J. A. (2012). Coalition or derogation? How perceived discrimination influ-
ences intraminority intergroup relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(4),
759–777. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​a0026​481

13
Education and Inter‑Ethnic Attitudes among Recent Immigrants…

Creighton, M. J., Capistrano, D., & da Silva Pedroso, M. (2023). Educational Mobility and Attitudes
Towards Migration from an International Comparative Perspective. Journal of International
Migration and Integration, 24, 817–841. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12134-​022-​00977-8
de Vroome, T., Martinovic, B., & Verkuyten, M. (2014). The integration paradox: Level of educa-
tion and immigrants’ attitudes towards natives and the host society. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 20(2), 166–175. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​a0034​946
Feldman, K. A., & Newcomb, T. M. (1969). The Impact of College on Students. Transaction Publishers.
Garner, S. J. (2007). The european union and the racialization of immigration, 1985–2006. Race/Ethnicity: Mul-
tidisciplinarity Global Contexts, 1(1), 61–87.
Geurts, N., & Lubbers, M. (2022). The Good and the Bad: Do Immigrants’ Positive and Negative Evalua-
tions of Life After Migration Go Hand in Hand? Journal of International Migration and Integration.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12134-​022-​00993-8
Geurts, N., Lubbers, M., & Spierings, N. (2020). Structural position and relative deprivation among
recent migrants: A longitudinal take on the integration paradox. Journal of Ethnic and Migration
Studies, 46(9), 1828–1848. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​13691​83X.​2019.​16754​99
Geurts, N., Davids, T., & Spierings, N. (2021). The lived experience of an integration paradox: Why
high-skilled migrants from Turkey experience little national belonging in the Netherlands. Journal
of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 47(1), 69–87. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​13691​83X.​2020.​17700​62
Geurts, N., Davids, T., Lubbers, M., & Spierings, N. (2022). A cosmopolitan explanation of the integra-
tion paradox: A mixed methods approach. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 45(16), 412–434. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1080/​01419​870.​2022.​20936​13
Guimond, S., Dambrun, M., Michinov, N., & Duarte, S. (2003). Does social dominance generate preju-
dice? Integrating individual and contextual determinants of intergroup cognitions. In Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 697–721. Turner. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0022-​3514.​84.4.​
697
Guimond, S., & Palmer, D. L. (1996). The Political Socialization of Commerce and Social Science Stu-
dents : Epistemic Authority and Attitude Change. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26(22),
1985–2013. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1559-​1816.​1996.​tb017​84.x
Hagendoorn, L. (1995). Intergroup Biases in Multiple Group Systems: The Perception of Ethnic Hierar-
chies. European Review of Social Psychology, 6(1), 199–228. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​14792​77944​
30000​58
Hagendoorn, L., & Hraba, J. (1987). Social distance toward Holland’s minorities: Discrimination against
and among ethnic outgroups. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 10(3), 317–333. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
01419​870.​1987.​99935​71
Hagendoorn, L., & Pepels, J. (2003). Why the Dutch maintain more social distance from some ethnic
minorities than others: A model explaining the ethnic hierarchy. In W. Vollebergh, J. Veenman, &
L. Hagendoorn (Eds.), Integrating Immigrants in the Netherlands: Cultural Versus Socio-Economic
Integration (1st ed., pp. 41–62). Routledge.
Hainmueller, J., & Hiscox, M. J. (2007). Educated preferences: Explaining attitudes toward immigration in
Europe. International Organization, 61(2), 399–442. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1017/​S0020​81830​70701​42
Heisig, J. P., & Schaeffer, M. (2019). Why you should always include a random slope for the lower-
level variable involved in a cross-level interaction. European Sociological Review, 35(2), 258–279.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​esr/​jcy053
Hello, E., Scheepers, P., & Gijsberts, M. (2002). Education and Ethnic Prejudice in Europe: Explanations
for cross-national variances in the educational effect on ethnic prejudice. Scandinavian Journal of
Educational Research, 46(1), 5–24. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​00313​83012​01155​89
Hello, E., Scheepers, P., & Sleegers, P. (2006). Why the more educated are less inclined to keep ethnic
distance: An empirical test of four explanations. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 29(5), 959–985. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1080/​01419​87060​08140​15
Hindriks, P., Verkuyten, M., & Coenders, M. (2014). Interminority Attitudes: The Roles of Ethnic and
National Identification, Contact, and Multiculturalism. Social Psychology Quarterly, 77(1), 54–74.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​01902​72513​511469
Hjerm, M. (2001). Education, xenophobia and nationalism: A comparative analysis. Journal of Ethnic
and Migration Studies, 27(1), 37–60. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​13691​83012​4482
Hooghe, M., Meeusen, C., & Quintelier, E. (2013). The impact of education and intergroup friendship on the
development of ethnocentrism. A latent growth curve model analysis of a five-year panel study among bel-
gian late adolescents. European Sociological Review, 29(6), 1109–1121. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​esr/​jcs086

13
 P. Velásquez

Hopkins, D. J., & Washington, S. (2020). The rise of trump, the fall of prejudice? tracking white ameri-
cans’ racial attitudes via a panel survey, 2008–2018. In Public Opinion Quarterly, 84(1), 119–140.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​poq/​nfaa0​04
Ivarsflaten, E., & Sniderman, P. M. (2022). The Struggle for Inclusion: Muslim Minorities and the Demo-
cratic Ethos. University of Chicago Press.
Joppke, C. (2007). Beyond national models: Civic integration policies for immigrants in Western Europe.
West European Politics, 30(1), 1–22. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​01402​38060​10196​13
Lancee, B., & Sarrasin, O. (2015). Educated Preferences or Selection Effects? A Longitudinal Analysis
of the Impact of Educational Attainment on Attitudes Towards Immigrants. European Sociological
Review, 31(4), 490–501. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​esr/​jcv008
Lubbers, M., Gijsberts, M., Fleischmann, F., & Maliepaard, M. (2018). The New Immigrant Survey – The
Netherlands (NIS2NL). A four wave panel study. NWO-Middengroot, file number 420–004. DANS/
EASY archive.
Martinovic, B., Van Tubergen, F., & Maas, I. (2009). Dynamics of interethnic contact: A panel study of
immigrants in the Netherlands. European Sociological Review, 25(3), 303–318. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1093/​esr/​jcn049
McGinnity, F., & Gijsberts, M. (2018). The experience of discrimination among newly arrived Poles in
Ireland and the Netherlands. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 41(5), 919–937. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
01419​870.​2017.​13323​76
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Net-
works. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.
Meeusen, C., de Vroome, T., & Hooghe, M. (2013). How does education have an impact on ethnocen-
trism? A structural equation analysis of cognitive, occupational status and network mechanisms.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37(5), 507–522. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijint​rel.​
2013.​07.​002
Meeusen, C., Abts, K., & Meuleman, B. (2019). Between solidarity and competitive threat?: The ambiva-
lence of anti-immigrant attitudes among ethnic minorities. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 71, 1–13. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijint​rel.​2019.​04.​002
Mulders, A. M., & van Tubergen, F. (2022). The Role of Education in Native Dutch Adolescents’ Muslim
Population Size Perceptions. Journal of International Migration and Integration. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s12134-​022-​00995-6
Philip, C. L., Mahalingam, R., & Sellers, R. M. (2010). Understanding east indians’ attitudes toward afri-
can americans: Do mainstream prejudicial attitudes transfer to immigrants? Journal of Ethnic and
Migration Studies, 36(4), 651–671. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​13691​83090​35253​99
Roth, W. D., & Kim, N. Y. (2013). Relocating prejudice: A transnational approach to understanding
immigrants’ racial attitudes. International Migration Review, 47(2), 330–373. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1111/​imre.​12028
Schaeffer, M., & Kas, J. (2023). The integration paradox: A review and meta-analysis of the complex
relationship between integration and reports of discrimination. International Migration Review,
1–26. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​01979​18323​11708​09
Schnapper, D. (1994). The Debate on Immigration and the Crisis of National Identity. West European
Politics, 17(2), 127–139. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​01402​38940​84250​18
Schnapper, D. (1995). The Idea of Nation. Qualitative Sociology, 18(2), 177–187.
Statistics Netherlands. (2019). Population; sex, age, migration background and generation. https://​opend​
ata.​cbs.​nl/​statl​ine/#/​CBS/​en/​datas​et/​37325​eng/​table?​ts=​16013​89777​887. Accessed 19 November
2020
Steinmann, J. P. (2019). The paradox of integration: Why do higher educated new immigrants perceive
more discrimination in Germany? Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 45(9), 1377–1400.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​13691​83X.​2018.​14803​59
Teije, I. T., Coenders, M., & Verkuyten, M. (2013). The paradox of integration: Immigrants and their
attitude toward the native population. Social Psychology, 44(4), 278–288. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1027/​
1864-​9335/​a0001​13
Thijssen, L., Coenders, M., & Lancee, B. (2021). Ethnic Discrimination in the Dutch Labor Market: Dif-
ferences Between Ethnic Minority Groups and the Role of Personal Information About Job Appli-
cants—Evidence from a Field Experiment. Journal of International Migration and Integration,
22(3), 1125–1150. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12134-​020-​00795-w

13
Education and Inter‑Ethnic Attitudes among Recent Immigrants…

Tolsma, J., Lubbers, M., & Gijsberts, M. (2012). Education and cultural integration among ethnic minori-
ties and natives in The Netherlands: A test of the integration paradox. Journal of Ethnic and Migra-
tion Studies, 38(5), 793–813. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​13691​83X.​2012.​667994
Tuppat, J., & Gerhards, J. (2021). Immigrants’ First Names and Perceived Discrimination: A Contribu-
tion to Understanding the Integration Paradox. European Sociological Review, 37(1), 121–135.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​esr/​jcaa0​41
Van Der Zwan, R., Bles, P., & Lubbers, M. (2017). Perceived Migrant Threat among Migrants in Europe.
European Sociological Review, 33(4), 518–533. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​esr/​jcx056
van Maaren, F. M., & van de Rijt, A. (2020). No integration paradox among adolescents. Journal of
Ethnic and Migration Studies, 46(9), 1756–1772. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​13691​83X.​2018.​15511​26
van Doorn, M., Scheepers, P., & Dagevos, J. (2013). Explaining the Integration Paradox Among Small
Immigrant Groups in the Netherlands. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 14(2),
381–400. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12134-​012-​0244-6
Velásquez, P., & Eger, M. A. (2022). Does Higher Education Have Liberalizing or Inoculating Effects? A
Panel Study of Anti-Immigrant Sentiment before, during, and after the European Migration Crisis.
European Sociological Review, 38(4), 605–628. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​esr/​jcab0​62
Velásquez, P., Eger, M. A., Castañeda, H., Czymara, C. S., Ivarsflaten, E., Maxwell, R., Okamoto, D.,
& Wilkes, R. (2023). Processes and Pathways of Stigmatization and De-Stigmatization over Time.
In L. H. Yang, M. A. Eger, & B. G. Link (Eds.), Migration Stigma: Understanding Prejudice, Dis-
crimination, and Exclusion. Strüngmann Forum Report. MIT Press.
Velthuis, E., Verkuyten, M., & Smeekes, A. (2021). The Different Faces of Social Tolerance: Conceptual-
izing and Measuring Respect and Coexistence Tolerance. Social Indicators Research, 158, 1105–
1125. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11205-​021-​02724-5
Verkuyten, M. (2016). The Integration Paradox: Empiric Evidence From the Netherlands. American
Behavioral Scientist, 60(5–6), 583–596. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​00027​64216​632838
Verkuyten, M., Hagendoorn, L., & Masson, K. (1996). The ethnic hierarchy among majority and minor-
ity youth in The Netherlands. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26(12), 1104–1118. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1111/j.​1559-​1816.​1996.​tb011​27.x
Vogt, P. W. (1997). Tolerance & education: Learning to live with diversity and difference. Sage Publica-
tions, Inc.
Weber, H. (2022). The educational divide over feelings about ethnic minorities: Does more education
really lead to less prejudice? Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 48(1), 228–247. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1080/​13691​83X.​2020.​18105​40
Wodtke, G. T. (2012). The Impact of Education on Intergroup Attitudes: A Multiracial Analysis. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 75(1), 80–106. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​01902​72511​430234

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.

13