Panel25:Socialcohesion,diversityand

publicpolicies.Friday,June30th08:15to10:15

(BlockB3- 3)

ICPP,Singapore28-30June2017

Trustinpolice:effectsofreligiousandnationalattachment.

AstudyofadolescentsinFranceandGermany.

TheSchoolsurveyofthe“Polis”project.

SebastianRoché &DietrichOberwittler (PIs)Anina Schwartzenbach,SandrineAstor

Roadmap“POLIS”study

• Introduction• 1/HYPOTHESES• 2/DATA• 3/FINDINGS• 4/SUMMARY• 5/DISCUSSION

1HYPOTHESES

Trustinpolice

Nationalidentification

GovernmentRepresentsnation

Police(institutedbygovernment)

Public

Institutivelegitimacy Relationallegitimacy

(1)Does thepublicfeel partofthenation?Identity basedlegitimacy

(1)(2)

(2)Does thepublictrustthepolice?Relational legitimacy

3 waystothinkaboutAttitudestowardsthepolice(ATP)

• Interactionswithpolice(interactionalorder):• =>biasinselection+processes(PJ/relationalmodelofauthority)

• Locallevelcitystructure(concentrateddisadvantages)

• Societylevelcleavages(social/politicalorder):religion,nationalidentification,

• =>asocietalmodelofauthority/trust/socialcohesion

Acloserlookatsocialcleavages• 1.Policeorganizationsaredesignedtocompelpeopletoobey(whethertheylikeitornot),toconformthemselveswiththeexistingpoliticalorder,

• 2.Policeorganizationsareinstitutedanddirectedby“superiorauthorities”(institutiveauthorities)thatrepresent“thepeople”,

• 3.Feelingsofattachmenttopoliticalcommunitiescouldexplaintheattributionoftrust/legitimacytopolice

• =>Ethnicity/religion• =>Socio/ethnic-spatialexclusion

Hypotheses(noninteractionalcauses)

TrustPolice

Religiosity

Nationalidentif.

Neighbor.effects

SocialCleavages

ETHNICITY

ETHNICITY

ETHNICITY

2DATA,MEASURMENTS

The« POLIS »survey

German-FrenchresearchFrance:SebastianRoché (teamleader),Jacquesde

Maillard,SandrineAstor andcolleaguesAllemagne:DietrichOberwittler (teamleader),Anina

Schwarzenbach andcolleagues

2quitesimilar

countries

“Polis”(2011):specificities

• Notnationalaveragesofadultpopulationbut• =>citybasedsurveys(4):n=22.000.• =>adolescents:moretenserelationswithpolice,

• =>preciseminorityrepresentation(randomsamplesofclassesinschools)

• =>precise“neighborhoodlevel”measures(geocodingofaddresses)

Dependentvariable:Constructofattitudestowardthepolice• Scale:stronglyagree– agree– disagree– stronglydisagree• Items

ThepoliceprotectadolescentsOneshouldinanycasefollowtheinstructionsofthepolice

Overallthepolicecanbetrusted

Thepolicedisrespectadolescents

Evenifhavingaseriousproblem,IwouldnevercontactthepoliceIfadolescentsprotestviolentlyandwithriotsagainstthepolice,IwouldjointhemThepolicetreatforeignersworsethannatives

negativeitems

positiveitems

13

Religion,religiosity&nationalidentification

• Religion:ethnicityworksasaproxyforreligion(Turkish>90%Muslim,Maghrebian >90%Muslim)

• Religiosity:Howimportantisreligioninyourlife?

• Nationalidentification:Generallyspeaking,doyoufeelasaGerman[French]orasamemberofyourgroupoforigin?

• Ifeel…completelyGerman[French]– moreGerman[French]– divided– moreasmemberofgroupoforigin– completelyasmemberofgroupoforigin

14

3POLISFINDINGS

3.1• RELIGIOSITYandETHNICBACKGROUND

• INTERACTIONEFFECTS:ETHNICITYANDRELIGIOUS/NATIONALIDENTITYonATP

Religiosityandethnicbackground

0%# 20%# 40%# 60%# 80%# 100%#

na#ve&&

Turk.(D)/Magh.(F)&

other&migra#on&back.&&

na#ve&&

Turk.(D)/Magh.(F)&

other&migra#on&back.&&

Germ

any&

Fran

ce&

not#important#

fairily#important#

important#

very#important#

T#test:##Germany#(M=2.5,#SD=1.07)#France#(M=2.4,#SD=1.15),#p<0.000##Germany#Pearson's#Χ2##=##2.3e+03,#p<0.000#Cramérs'#V#=#0.4246##France#Pearson's#Χ2##=#4.8e+03#p<0.000#Cramérs'#V#=#0.4708##

DemographyinFrance/EU(geography)

• “94%ofMuslimsdeclaredin2008andaged18-50areimmigrantsorchildrenofimmigrants”(Tribalat,INED),

• 63%ofMuslimsaged18-50areresidingin3regions:Paris,MarseilleandRhône-Alpes(GrenobleandLyon).

• In5%mostdeprivedneighborhoods(IRIS),Muslimsrepresent37%ofthepopulation(against8%onaverageinFrance).

ATP:religiosity*ethnicitycontrollingforsocio-demographicvariables

19

22.

53

3.5

Line

ar P

redi

ctio

n

not important at all fairily important important very importantimportance of religion

native EuropeTurkey

Predictive Margins of ethnic2 with 95% CIs

22.

53

3.5

Line

ar P

redi

ctio

n

not important at all fairily important important very importantimportance of religion

native EuropeMaghreb and Middle East

Predictive Margins of ethnic2 with 95% CIs

Germany France

increaseinreligiosity:+trust strongerreligiosity:minority- trust

20

GERMANY• amongallethnicgroups:strongerreligiosity hasapositiveeffect

onATP(significantpositive“main”effectofreligiosity)• NodifferenceacrossethnicgroupsFRANCE• forMaghrebians:strongerreligiosityhasanegativeeffectonATP

(significantinteractioneffect)• forotherethnicgroups:Noeffect(natives)orcurvilineareffectof

religiosityonattitudestowardpolice(significantnegative“main”effectofreligiosity)

Summaryoftheinteraction:religiosity*ethnicity

Nationalidentificationandethnicbackground– minoritygroupsonly

0%# 20%# 40%# 60%# 80%# 100%#

Turk.(D)/Magh.(F)/

other/migra5on/back.//

Turk.(D)/Magh.(F)/

other/migra5on/back.//

Germ

any/

Fran

ce/

completely#G/DE#

more#G/DE#

devided#

more#group#of#origin#

completely#group#of#origin#

T#test:##Germany#(M=2.1,#SD=1.39)#France#(M=2.3,#SD=1.20),#p<0.000##Germany#Pearson's#Χ2##=##5.6e+03,#p<0.000#Cramérs'#V#=#0.6628##France#Pearson's#Χ2##=#4.6e+03,#p<0.000#Cramérs'#V#=#0.4605##

ATP:nationalidentification*ethnicitycontrollingforsocio-demographicvariables

22

1.5

22.

53

3.5

Line

ar P

redi

ctio

n

host divided originNational identification

Europe Turkey

Predictive Margins of ethnic2 with 95% CIs

1.5

22.

53

3.5

host divided originNational identification

Europe Maghreb and Middle East

Predictive Margins of ethnic2 with 95% CIs

predictivemarginsofnative

Germany France

2.88

2.56

Summaryontheinteractionnationalidentification* ethnicity

23

• InGermanyandFrance,minorityyouthsthatfeelveryclosetotheirgroupoforiginhavemorenegativeATPthannativeyouth(significant“main”effect),

• BUT:• InGermany:nodifferencebetween2minoritygroups,

• InFrance,ReligiosityhasastrongereffectonATPforMaghrebian youths(significantinteractioneffect)

3.2NEIGHBORHOODEFFECTS

(full)multilevel regression model – predicted effect ofconcentrated disadvantage onATP(DE)

noeffectofconcentrateddisadvantage

(full)multilevel regression model – predicted effect ofconcentrated disadvantage onpositiveATP(FR)

4SUMMARY

Findings(1/2):

1. Minorityethnicgroupà lesssupportiveofthepolice=YES

2. Weakidentificationwithnationalsocietyà lesssupportiveofthepolice=YES

3. Minoritydenominationà lesssupportiveofthepolice=not

4. Strongreligiositystandsforthesharingofconservativevaluesàmoresupportiveofthepolice=not

5. Mostdisadvantagedneighborhoodofcitiesà lesssupportiveofthepolice,not

28

Controllingfor:self-reporteddelinquencytypeofcontactwiththepolice

ETHNICMINORITY

NATIONALIDENTIFICATION

ATP

Findings:interactioneffects(2/2)

+RELIGIOSITY +NEIGHBORHOODDISADVANTAGE

POSITIVENEGATIVE

5DISCUSSION

Discussion

• Societiesareorganizedalongfaultlines• Ethnicity,Religiosityandeconomicstatusaresuchlines

• Theireffect(direction)andimportance(intensity)varyacrosscountries

• FranceismoredividedthanGermany• =>shouldn’tcleavagesalsoexplaintrustinthepolice?

Cleavages• Societiesaresplitalongoneormorelinesrootedinstructuraltransformationsthataretriggeredbylarge-scaleprocesses

• “cleavages”arethesociety’sfaultlinesalongwhich:• - spaceisused,• - senseofsolidaritydevelops,• - politicalattitudesform,

• Religion regardedas1ofthe2majorcleavagesbypoliticalscientists(sinceSemour Lipset &SteinRokkan,1967)

• ReligionintersectsmuchwithethnicityinEurope

Ethnicity

Smalleffect

Largeeffect

amarkerofgroupboundaries

Religiosity

Integrativeeffect

Separationeffect

amarkerofgroupboundaries

Denomination/religiousnessnopre-determinedeffectinitself,butinrelationtoreligionascleavageinagivensociety

Grouployaltyandreligion

• Atheistgroupvs religiousgroups• Variousreligiousdenominations

Nationalframingeffectofreligiosity

+Religiousindividuals

-Religious

-Religiousindividuals

+Religiousindividuals

PoliceHIGHsupport

PoliceLOWsupport

Religionadministeredbystate

Churchoutsidepublicsphere

Nationalframingeffect:identityascleavage?

• GermanyandFrancearesecularsocieties,butsecularismhasadifferenthistoryineachofthem

• SecularismismorestrictinFrance.• Meaningofreligiosityisdependentontheframingeffectofnation-state(MuslimreligiousminorityismorereluctanttoembracenationinFrancethaninGermany).

• Nationalframingeffectmightexplainlackofneighborhoodeffect(concentrationofpoverty=religiousconcentration)inGermany.

THANKYOU