Suchergebnisse

Abstract
This article examines how empathic concern and perspective-taking influence different exclusionary attitudes towards refugees. More specifically, we investigate how empathic competence underpins social distance towards refugees and the opposition to granting them civil rights. Furthermore, we explore the potential constraints of this relationship by investigating the moderating role of different refugee characteristics via a survey-experimental approach using single-wave data from the GESIS Panel, a representative survey conducted in Germany. The refugee characteristics relate to having a Muslim vs. Christian background and having high vs. low qualifications, implying different levels of intergroup threat. The results indicate that higher levels of perspective-taking and empathic concern are associated with lower social distance towards refugees and opposition to granting rights to refugees. Furthermore, while the respondents' exclusionary attitudes were higher towards refugee groups, implying higher levels of intergroup threat, empathic concern and perspective-taking predicted more positive attitudes towards the different groups of refugees equally. This implies that the effect of empathy does not depend on outgroup characteristics.

The COVID-19 pandemic has a profound impact on the everyday lives of people around the world. This includes economic issues, social isolation and anxieties directly related to the coronavirus. Some of these phenomena relate to social disintegration, which in turn has been linked to negative outgroup sentiments. However, the tenuous connection between pandemic developments and international migration processes calls into question whether a link between pandemic concomitants and immigration-related attitudes exists empirically. Arguments based on political cues and media effects even suggest that the widespread focus on the COVID-19 pandemic suppresses the issue salience of immigration and negative immigration sentiments. To test these propositions, we employ data from a newly collected cross-sectional study carried out in November and December 2020 in 11 European countries. We distinguish between general migration-related threats and blaming the pandemic on immigration as outcome variables. The results suggest that pandemic-related concerns increase both threat perceptions and perceptions that immigration is driving the pandemic, but more clearly so for the latter. On the macro level, we find that where the pandemic is more severe, respondents are less likely to blame immigrants. This suggests that a country-level suppression of salience of immigration is indeed taking place.

Abstract
Taking the well-documented high educational expectations among immigrant parents as a point of departure, we explore how average achievement in a class influences parental educational expectations. Specifically, we investigate whether reference group (i.e., big-fish-little-pond) effects can account for immigrant parents' higher educational expectations for their children compared to nonimmigrant parents. We address this question by applying a multilevel (mediation) analysis to a representative sample of German fourth graders and their parents. To test how robust our findings are to our data-analytical decisions, we additionally conduct a multiverse analysis. We find consistent evidence across 4,608 model specifications that parents' educational expectations are higher when their child attends a low-achieving class compared to a high-achieving class, even after controlling for students' individual school performance, socioeconomic background, and a variety of performance related confounders. Furthermore, (average) class achievement partially mediates the relationship between immigrant status and parental expectations. Students with immigrant parents are more likely to attend low-achieving classes, which is positively related to higher parental expectations. Our results suggest that big-fish-little-pond effects also operate in parents' evaluation processes of their children's educational attainment.

Abstract
This study explores the implications of early between-school tracking within educational systems – a practice that involves sorting students into different educational pathways based on their achievement levels. We examine two potential effects of this process: (i) the promotion of homogeneous learning environments through tracking, and (ii) the potential for tracking to exacerbate social segregation among schools. To scrutinize these effects, we analyze data from the assessment studies PISA, TIMSS, and PIRLS (1995–2019). Additionally, we investigate whether school selectivity influences the tracking effects. Using difference-in-differences models combined with multiverse analyses, our findings demonstrate that early between-school tracking indeed contributes to the homogeneity of learning environments and can lead to increased social school segregation. However, our results do not indicate a moderating role of school selectivity.