Many believe that integration has failed. Immigrants in Sweden participate less not only in the labour market (and have lower wage levels), but they are also less involved in political debate, live in less prosperous areas and have more health problems than the native population. There is no simple explanation for this situation, but we can discern a number of factors that research has shown affect integration. While such national institutions as the welfare state affect people’s experience in every country, they work for immigrants as a liaison to orient themselves in a new country. To get to know and adapt to new laws, regulations and bureaucratic rules are important for everyday life, because these factors ultimately determine immigrants’ opportunities.

Inclusive immigration and integration policies are also important, since integration rests on access to employment and participation in public life. The human capital (i.e., the training, skills and knowledge) that immigrants possess when they come to the country naturally also affects the possibilities of integration.

Ultimately, public opinion regarding immigrants and political discourse on immigration are central to integration. Xenophobic beliefs – whether it’s about subtle bias or overt discrimination – may undermine integration in two important ways: first, discrimination prevents active participation in the labour market. Second, xenophobic perceptions reduce immigrants’ motivation to participate in society. In the end, these negative attitudes undermine the trust between people and groups that are so central to the functioning of liberal democracies.

Given that the attitudes towards immigrants and immigration affect the chances of integration, they are important to understand. Fortunately, there is much research that helps us to explain the origin of such attitudes. One of the key insights so far is that the factors that explain xenophobic attitudes are more or less universal.

The factors that contribute to anti-immigrant perceptions are, in other words, the same in Sweden as in the U.S. or Portugal. Although much of the early research in this area was conducted in the United States (to understand white Americans’ attitudes towards African Americans), most of these studies in recent decades have been replicated in many parts of the world – especially in Europe.

So let us look at what we know about the variables that determine xenophobic beliefs. First, the sociological research shows unequivocally that education is very good at countering xenophobic attitudes. In general, the more educated one is (in terms of number of study or degrees), the less likely one is to harbour negative attitudes toward immigrants. Interestingly, it is not clear exactly why further education reduces xenophobic beliefs. However, there are four possible causes. The first explanation is straightforward: self-selection. In other words, the people who stay in school and in higher education are the people who already harbour tolerant attitudes or cosmopolitan values.

The other possible mechanism that may underlie the apparent relationship between education and xenophobic beliefs is cognitive development. When students pursue university studies and higher education, they will develop skills such as abstract thinking and the ability to analyse complex phenomena. Students are, therefore, less likely to rely on stereotypes and simplistic explanations, so they also are less likely to dismiss people just because they are members of a strange group.

The third possible mechanism is socialisation. The education system is partly responsible for the child’s socialisation, and therefore seeks to teach basic social values, which may include egalitarianism, social justice and respect for ethnic diversity. Research shows that education focused on multiculturalism and other themes related to xenophobic attitudes is effective in reducing such negative attitudes. So we know that it is possible to teach students tolerance.

The fourth possibility takes in norms in order to avoid social sanctions. What this means is that people with higher education do not necessarily value diversity or social justice, yet have learned to be wary of expressing themselves intolerantly. The desire for social acceptance thus functions as a reason for not appearing prejudiced or formulating negative perceptions of immigrants. Previous research has found that the first three mechanisms have some explanatory power, while there is little empirical support for the hypothesis of social acceptance.

Research also shows that socio-economic status is important for xenophobic attitudes. According to the so-called ‘group threat theory’, the dominant explanation of prejudice and xenophobia is a reaction to a perceived threat from a foreign group, depending on the competition between groups for scarce resources and political power, jobs or social benefits. Therefore, xenophobic attitudes are expected to increase as natives feel their interests are threatened by the presence of immigrants. But the strength of the threat, or how different individuals experience the supposed competition, depends on their place in the social structure. Reactions differ between different social classes, according to their vulnerability and the extent to which they compete with immigrants for jobs and other economic resources. A third factor to predict xenophobia is age. Research shows that younger age groups are less likely to harbour negative attitudes towards immigrants. The reason for this could be that xenophobic perceptions increase with age, perhaps related to the perceived threat amongst those who have retired and become more dependent on the welfare state.

A more feasible explanation is that individual attitudes tend to be fairly stable throughout life, and that the older generation in general has the same attitudes today as they were when they were young. People who grew up in earlier times had less experience of immigration and ethnic diversity, and may not have developed positive attitudes towards either. It is important to note that this does not mean that tolerance and appreciation of diversity will automatically increase with time. People are affected by the zeitgeist. Given the electoral success that explicitly xenophobic parties on the right have had all over Europe, it is quite reasonable to expect that these younger generations will be less tolerant than their parents.

A fourth factor is religion, but religiosity’s impact on xenophobic attitudes is more complex. American research has shown that strong believers have stronger xenophobic attitudes than others. This result is usually perceived as a paradox, since religious people (read Christians, then all early studies focused on this group) should be less xenophobic, given that this is more in line with Christian tradition’s teachings. The picture is further complicated by the fact that the correlation between religiosity and xenophobia, in the American context, appears to decrease (i.e., the differences in attitudes between religious people and others are less today than they have been in previous decades). Moreover, the relationship between religiosity and xenophobia is not the same the world over. Rather, it seems to vary from country to country, so that the correlation in some countries, in fact, is negative.

For example, in Sweden, religious people are less likely to be biased than those who do not have any religious beliefs. Psychological research also finds a relationship between specific personality traits and xenophobic views. People with a penchant for internal hierarchies and a strong reverence for rules are said to have an authoritarian personality. Individuals with this personality type tend to express antipathy and hostility toward immigrants and other minority groups. The latter may come as no surprise, given that psychological dispositions like compassion, flexibility and openness to change are also effective countermeasures against xenophobia. Research shows that both nature and environment affect a person’s personality traits. The attitudes of parents and peers influence what young people learn to value and how they act, and children with permissive parents tend themselves to be more tolerant. But even if there is still a hotly debated issue in the degree to which these personality traits are genetically determined, we know that they are very stable over time. A final important element of xenophobia is actual experiences of immigrants and members of foreign ethnic groups. Research shows that contact with people from other ethnic groups reduces the use of stereotypes and ultimately reduces xenophobic beliefs. All forms of contact are not equivalent, because the superficial contact between members of different groups, particularly in environments where competition is great, can lead to conflict and only exacerbate negative attitudes. Positive outcomes are most likely when the social interaction is meaningful.

When it comes to reducing xenophobia, friendship is better than superficial interaction. Moreover, contact in situations where individuals have equal status and are working towards a common goal are more likely to reduce conflict and negative attitudes between groups. The importance of equal status and institutional sanctions is perhaps easiest to understand from the extreme example of apartheid. Although there were meaningful social interactions between white and black South Africans under apartheid, those individuals who met usually did not have equal status in the situation. Because racial segregation was institutionally sanctioned, such meetings did not lead to automatically reduced levels of xenophobia.

Recent research shows, however, that most forms of contact are better than no interaction at all. Better conditions imply a greater chance that xenophobic attitudes will decrease, but interaction often has beneficial effects even when these conditions are missing. One criticism of the contact hypothesis has to do with the causal relationship’s direction. It is possible that only people who are already tolerant actually develop friendships with people of other ethnic backgrounds. Research shows that, while people who are open to friendships outside their own ethnic group are more likely to seek social interaction with immigrants, the contact itself has an independent effect on xenophobic attitudes. There is no automatic link between attitudes and behaviour, but attitudes increase the likelihood of acting if given the opportunity. The link between attitudes and action is dependent on the context, which means that even an extremely racist individual will translate their attitudes into action if she is not given the chance. Xenophobic attitudes are also correlated with nationalism and political conservatism. It is, of course, difficult to know whether xenophobic attitudes lead to such attitudes and ideologies, or whether, conversely, the latter leads to xenophobia.

However, research shows that xenophobia is perhaps the most important factor when it comes to predicting who will vote for a radical right-wing party. Emotions are an important part of the equation, because the stronger the link between attitudes and feelings, the more likely the tolerant person who feels very strongly about racial equality is to act on the basis of their attitude, than a person who is as tolerant but does not feel as strongly about the issue. Related research shows that the most extreme attitudes often occur in men, and crime statistics show that men are behind most of the violence against immigrants and minorities.

To summarise: attitudes affect conduct, but not all the time and not always in ways that are easy to predict.

The fundamental question here is of course: how can we reduce xenophobia?

Populärt

Amnesty har blivit en aktivistklubb

Den tidigare så ansedda människorätts­orga­­­nisa­tionen har övergett sina ideal och ideologiserats, skriver Bengt G Nilsson.

Bengt G Nilsson Samhälle 2025 2

Research indicates that higher education, as well as multicultural education and increased opportunities for positive, meaningful social interaction between different ethnic groups can be a good start.

In the case of contacts between different groups, it is important that there are institutions that facilitate meaningful interaction. Where such institutions do not exist, there is always a risk that natives see immigrants as a threat rather than as people with whom to collaborate and develop friendships. Educational institutions are important not only to teach the values ??of tolerance of diversity and social justice, but also to facilitate such positive interactions. When conflict occurs, their solution depends largely on the type of conflict. Conflicts about ideas should be resolved through debate and discussion, while conflicts of interest should be resolved through mediation.

Human cognitive structure compels us to classify objects and people into different categories, in the quest to make the complex world understandable. In order to protect our sense of self and our individual interests, it is in our nature to favour the category to which we ourselves feel we belong. But the categories (at least the human ones) are not given. It is not obvious that people should be categorised into specific ethnic groups, similarly, nothing says that such categorisations are better than others. We tend to do these categorisations based on the features that are most prominent. Immigration to Europe and the ensuing ethnic diversity has made ethnicity and nationality a prominent feature, and has led many to divide Europe into ’us’ and ’them’. Experimental research in small groups has learned that ‘declassification’ is possible – that the boundaries between different groups may become less significant when the differences (real or imagined) become less prominent. All this is positive, but cannot be automatically translated into policies. Similarly, it is unclear how these insights can be transferred to society as a whole, but to start work in schools is not a bad idea.

Andrea Bohman is a PhD student at the Department of Sociology, University of Umeå.

Maureen A Eger is an American sociologist who is currently working in Sweden.

Mikael Hjerm is Professor of Sociology at Umeå University and researches on xenophobia and nationalism.