Social

Status and Intergroup Contact

Among Native and Immigrant Groups
in
Philadelphia

MICHAEL JONES-CORREA
POLITICAL SCIENCE, CORNELL UNIVERSITY

HELEN MARROW
SOCIOLOGY, TUFTS UNIVERSITY

DINA OKAMOTO
SOCIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS

LINDA R. TROPP
PSYCHOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST

Challenges and Opportunities of Diversity

in New Immigrant Destinations
Trinity College, October 11, 2013


Overview

Research questions
Philadelphia pilot survey
Selection of Site, Groups,
Status Markers, and
Institutional Spaces

Pilot survey and ndings

Some preliminary conclusions and future
directions

Limitations of Prior Contact Research

Focus on relations between only two groups:

blacks/whites

Dierent indicators used to assess contact across

disciplines: what does contact mean?

Little knowledge of contact eects in distinct

institutional spaces: work, neighborhood, public

spaces

Status markers beyond race/ethnicity and socio-

economic status rarely examined: religion,
language, legal status, skin tone

Research Questions

What do patterns of intergroup contact look like

among immigrants and natives?
How do these patterns vary by social spaces : work,
neighborhood, public?

How doe these patterns dier across status markers:

religion, language, legal status, skin tone?

How do contact experiences shape intergroup trust?

How does contact, trust shape civic engagement?

Philadelphia Pilot Survey Project

Randomized telephone survey of native-born

and immigrant groups

Conducted spring 2012:
target groups (N = 421)
Administered to four
Native-born Whites and Blacks
Foreign-born Mexican and South Asian
Indians
Full survey Philadelphia/Atlanta(N= 2,000) 2013

Philadelphia:

An Old/Re-emerging Immigrant Destination

Economic, residential, & political context

Deindustrialization, suburbanization, and population
redistribution (central city outer suburbs)
Ward-based, strong-mayor city

Demographic change
Historically binary black-white, now rapidly

diversifying
Suburban immigrant settlement (both inner & outer
ring); two largest immigrant groups Mexican and
Indian
Immigrants more dispersed than blacks


Groups

Immigrants

Mexicans: Quintessential low status

immigrant laborers
South Asian Indians: Quintessential highly-
skilled immigrant professionals
Are the two largest immigrant groups in the
metro area
Indians (10.3%) / Mexicans (8.4%) in 2006

Native-born
Whites: Native-born majority group
Blacks: Native-born minority group



Status
Markers
SES / Race and Ethnicity
Predict will remain as major inuences on

contact and intergroup relation patterns (in

various ways)

Other Status Markers: Various hypotheses
Citizenship and legal status (esp. for
Mexicans)
Skin color (black or darker phenotype)
Language ability and accent
Religion (esp. for Indians)



Institutional
Spaces
Well-studied in the literature
Workplaces
Neighborhoods
More novel
Public spaces
And (eventually) schools, civic
organizations, places of worship

 Findings: Contact

People are more isolated in

neighborhoods than workplaces

Mexicans appear to be the mostsocially
isolated
Mexicans are the least trus:ng, Indians
are the most trus:ng

Cross-Group Interactions

Frequency Friendship
Percent Indicating No Friends

Black
Indian
Mexican
White

BL

IND

MX

WH

2
25
47
21

72
5
78
57

73
70
3
77

26
8
26
2

Cross-Group Interactions

Frequency Work Interactions
Percent Indicating Never

Black
Indian
Mexican
White

BL

IND

MX

WH

0
6
33
5

41
4
77
28

42
27
9
40

2
0
8
3

Cross-Group Interactions

Frequency Neighborh0od Interactions
Percent Indicating Never

Black
Indian
Mexican
White

BL

IND

MX

WH

3
41
48
27

73
20
90
59

66
66
12
58

11
4
19
4

Immigrants Lack of Contact

with Native Groups
45"
40"
35"
30"
25"
20"
15"
10"
5"
0"

Mexican"""
Indian"

Blacks"

Whites"

Workplace"

Blacks"

Whites"

Neighborhood"

Na:ves Lack of Contact

with Immigrant Groups
80"
70"
60"
50"
40"

Blacks"
Whites"

30"
20"
10"
0"
Indian"

Mexican"

Workplace"

Indian"

Mexican"

Neighborhood"

Natives Perceptions of Very Friendly

Contact with Immigrant Groups
60"
50"
40"
30"

Blacks"
Whites"

20"
10"
0"

Indian"

Mexican"

Workplace"

Indian"

Mexican"

Neighborhood"

Immigrants Percep:ons of Very Friendly

Contact with Na:ve Groups
60"
50"
40"
30"

Mexican"""
Indian"

20"
10"
0"
Blacks"

Whites"

Workplace"

Blacks"

Whites"

Neighborhood"

Cross-Group Interactions
Trust Native-Born Blacks

Black
Indian
Mexican
White

3
1
41
4

4
7
23
9

65
42
26
45

28
50
9
42

(Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often)

Cross-Group Interactions

Trust Native-Born Whites

Black
Indian
Mexican
White

6
0
13
4

4
5
19
5

61
27
43
42

28
68
25
48

(Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often)

Cross-Group Interactions

Trust Foreign-Born Indians

N
Black
Indian
Mexican
White

14
0
67
8

R
5
3
9
7

70
31
17
47

11
66
7
39

(Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often)

Cross-Group Interactions

Trust Foreign-Born Mexicans

Black
Indian
Mexican
White

10
3
3
7

10
8
14
6

64
52
41
54

16
38
41
34

(Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often)

Reported Levels of Trust

in Mexican Immigrants
70"
60"
50"
Never"
Rarely"
SomeAmes"
ODen"

40"
30"
20"
10"
0"
Black"

Indian"

Mexican""

White"

Reported Levels of Trust

in Indian Immigrants
80
70
60
50

Never
Rarely

40

Some:mes

30

OUen

20
10
0
Black

Indian

Mexican

White

Reported Levels of Trust in Na:ve-Born

Blacks
70"

60"

50"

Never"
Rarely"
SomeAmes"
ODen"

40"

30"

20"

10"

0"

Black"

Indian"

Mexican""

White"

Reported Levels of Trust in Na:ve-Born

Whites
80"
70"
60"
50"

Never"
Rarely"
SomeBmes"
OEen"

40"
30"
20"
10"
0"

Black"

Indian"

Mexican""

White"

Reported Levels of Never/Rarely Trust

80"

70"

60"

50"

Blacks"
Mexican"
Indians"
Whites"

40"

30"

20"

10"

0"

Black"

Indian"

Mexican""

White"

 Findings: Discrimination

Legal status doesnt appear to maWer
Language/accent and racial

discrimina:on in workplaces and public

spaces
Neighborhoods perceived as safe spaces

Perceptions of Unfair Treatment

by
Social Arena
Legal Status: Percent Indicating No
Neighborhood
Indian
Mexican

98
95

Public

Work

97
97

96
91

Perceptions of Unfair Treatment

by
Social Arena
Religion: Percent Indicating No
Neighborhood
Black
Indian
Mexican
White

98
93
97
95

Public

Work

94
95
99
99

96
95
98
98

Perceptions of Unfair Treatment

by
Social Arena
Language: Percent Indicating No
Neighborhood
Black
Indian
Mexican

97
93
95

Public

Work

96
82
86

98
84
79

Perceptions of Unfair Treatment

by
Social Arena
Race: Percent Indicating No
Neighborhood
Black
Indian
Mexican
White

89
81
84
95

Public

Work

54
69
86
91

63
67
76
93

Percent Repor:ng Racial Discrimina:on

50
45
40
35
30

Neighborhood

25

Workplace

20

Public Space

15
10
5
0
Black

Indian

Mexican

White

 Findings: Contact and Trust

Quality rather than frequency of contact

increases intergroup trust

Secondary transfer eects: friendly contact

with one group increases trust in others

Racial discrimina:on mediates intergroup

trust: experience of discrimina:on translates

into lower levels of trust

1
0
-1
-2
-3

Quality of Contact, Trust and Discrimination

Unfriendly

-1

Neutral

Quality of Workplace Contact

Discrimination

No Discrimination

Friendly

Quality of Contact, Trust and Discrimination

Summary

Race continues to be a key status marker for
immigrants and natives

For all groups, contact across dierent social
spaces shapes trust

Thank you!
* * *