Contextual factors and prejudice at the beginning of the migrant influx: The Moroccan case in Seville, Spain

CONTEXTUAL FACTORS AND PREJUDICE 1 ! Contextual Factors and Prejudice at the Beginning of the Migrant Influx: The Moroccan Case in Seville, Spain Ricardo Iglesias-Pascual Universidad Pablo de Olavide Virginia Paloma and Manuel García-Ramírez Universidad de Sevilla Author Note Ricardo Iglesias-Pascual, Department of Geography, History, and Philosophy, Universidad Pablo de Olavide; Virginia Paloma and Manuel García-Ramírez, Department of Social Psychology, Universidad de Sevilla. This research project was funded by grants from the Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness of the Spanish Government (CSO2014-55780-C3-1-P; SEJ2006-14470) and from the Department of Migrant Policy of the Regional Government of Andalusia (2007/87). Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Ricardo Iglesias- Pascual, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Edificio nº 2, Ctra. de Utrera, km. 1, 41013 Sevilla, Spain. E-mail: [email protected] CONTEXTUAL FACTORS AND PREJUDICE 2 ! Abstract Studies addressing contextual factors associated with anti-immigrant prejudice have focused on out-group size and rapid demographic changes in receiving locations. However, the territorial concentration and distribution of ethnic minorities at a local and intra-urban level has received little attention. We analyze the relationship between emerging territorial concentration points – alongside other contextual variables – by Moroccans and receiving society’s growing prejudice towards them in a city experiencing the start of a migrant influx. We combine survey and census data from five Seville districts (southern Spain). Our results show how rapid changes in the general population’s ethnic composition, coupled with Moroccan and economic migrants’ territorial concentration, correlate strongly with negative attitudes towards Moroccans at this early stage. However, a weaker relationship between the immigrant percentage and degree of prejudice by the receiving group is observed. We also discuss guidelines for ensuring good, local diversity management to prevent socioterritorial fragmentation in multicultural cities. Keywords: cultural diversity management; demographic change; immigrants; out-group size; prejudice; territorial concentration. CONTEXTUAL FACTORS AND PREJUDICE 3 ! Contextual Factors and Prejudice at the Beginning of the Migrant Influx: The Moroccan Case in Seville, Spain The arrival of immigrants to the world’s wealthiest societies has brought about changes to their physiognomy, structure and dynamics, creating new cultural opportunities, socioeconomic benefits and demographic enrichment (Skeldon, 2013; United Nations, 2001). However, these changes often generate social uncertainty and feelings of insecurity, fear and rejection among part of the receiving population. The emergence of prejudice among the receiving population is a reaction that can be traced back to the formation of new ethnic groups, whether for reasons of resettlement or new migration flows (Gorodzeisky & Semyonov, 2015; Quillian, 2006; Sennett, 2011). The concept of anti-immigrant prejudice is understood as a reaction that the receiving society’s majority dominant group has towards these newcomers, who are seen as a threat to the status quo and a danger to their privileged social position (Quillian, 1995; Valentine, 2010). These reactions manifest in various ways across different countries, ranging from an explicit and public protest action in the neighbourhood (Gruner, 2010; Iglesias-Pascual, 2016) to more subtle approaches such as having misgivings and only occasional contact with foreigners (Huijts, Kraaykamp, & Scheepers, 2014; Søholt & Lynnebakke, 2015). These negative attitudes make living together difficult and put social cohesion at risk in local contexts (Amin, 2002; Peterson, 2017; Putnam, 2007; Sturgis, Brunton-Smith, Kuha, & Jackson, 2014). Moreover, this perceived discrimination is among the main stressors in the lives of immigrants (Segal & Mayadas, 2005), which have a severe negative impact on their physical and mental health (Finch & Vega, 2003). Taking things further, anti-immigrant prejudice is also apparent in the difficulties that the out-group faces when accessing the labour market, who are pushed into living in impoverished and marginalized neighbourhoods (Portes & CONTEXTUAL FACTORS AND PREJUDICE 4 ! Rumbaut, 2006; Schwartz, Unger, Zamboanga, & Szapocznik, 2010). In fact, antiimmigrant prejudice is considered a key determinant when it comes to understanding the dynamics of receiving contexts (Pettigrew, Wagner, & Christ, 2007). From this perspective, numerous studies emphasize the key role that contextual variables play in explaining prejudice (Valentine, 2010; Wilson, 2011; 2013), arguing for the need to explore in greater depth the relationship between the geographical context and the receiving population’s social attitudes (Hjerm, 2009; Pottie-Sherman & Wilkes, 2017; Schlueter & Scheepers, 2010). Most studies that have turned their efforts to examining the relationship between anti-immigrant prejudice and contextual factors have observed the role played by outgroup size (Hjerm, 2007, 2009; Quillian, 1995; McLaren, 2003) and ethnic composition changes in settlement locations (DeWaard, 2015; Newman & Velez, 2014). However, these studies have paid little attention to the spatial distribution and concentration patterns imposed by the receiving society in the early days of influx. Although it is widely acknowledged that these patterns are highly relevant to the level of cohesion and social integration in the city (Alba & Logan, 1993; Bolt & van Kempen, 2010; Massey, 1985; Massey & Denton, 1993; Wright & Ellis, 2000), there are few studies exploring a possible relationship between this territorial concentration and the anti-immigrant prejudices shown by the receiving society (e.g., Schlueter, 2012; Schlüter, Ullrich, Glenz, & Schmidt, 2017). This study sheds light on the role played by the territorial distribution and concentration of immigrants, alongside other contextual variables (e.g., foreign population size, ethnic composition changes in geographical settlement areas), in the growing prejudice that the receiving population’s dominant group shows towards Moroccans at a local level, for this purpose focusing on the city of Seville. The incipient CONTEXTUAL FACTORS AND PREJUDICE 5 ! nature of the migration inflow into Seville over a relatively short space of time (2000 to 2008) — the latter being the year which saw the beginning of the largest wave of immigration to the city and when the data underpinning this study was collected — allows us to focus our research on the consequences that the start of the foreign influx has had on the receiving population’s social attitudes. First, we review the main contextual variables linked to the receiving society’s reaction towards minority groups’ presence in a given geographical setting. Second, we take a closer look at the scope of the study and show the methodological approach developed. After detailing the main results, we discuss these results and suggest guidelines for an appropriate treatment of ethnic diversity at a local level. A Contextual Approach to Anti-immigrant Prejudice Researchers analyzing the role of contextual variables in anti-immigrant prejudice agree that out-group size and demographic changes intensify the perceived threat among the receiving population, which ultimately feeds prejudice among them. In this study, we place emphasis on the territorial distribution and concentration of immigrants in host societies, as this approach brings to the forefront pending issues that reveal how contextual factors and receiving society’s anti-immigrant prejudice are related. Out-group Size Numerous research studies link a rise in the immigrant population to the growing prejudice on the part of the receiving society. These studies come under the theoretical approach ‘group threat theory’ (Blalock, 1967; Bobo, 1983). In this case, prejudice towards members outside of the host society (e.g., foreigners, immigrants, ethnic minorities) is explained by the social perception, be it real or imagined, of competition for economic resources and the threat to cultural identity. In general, these CONTEXTUAL FACTORS AND PREJUDICE 6 ! studies show how anti-immigrant prejudice increases the larger the out-group size (Quillian, 1995; Semyonov et al., 2004), especially when this population is of non- Western origin (Schneider, 2008). However, research studies grouped under the theoretical approach ‘contact theory’ play down this point of view. Their findings reveal that a stronger immigrant presence increases the chances of coming into contact with the local population, which in the long term would help reduce prejudice towards this immigrant population and likely improve coexistence (DeWaard, 2015; Hjerm, 2009; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006; Pettigrew, Wagner, & Christ, 2007). These studies show that aspects like greater contact with the out-group and an immigrant’s length of stay in the receiving society may reduce the occurrence of prejudice and help bring about more receptive attitudes towards immigrants (DeWaard, 2015). However, although fleeting encounters among diverse neighbours can contribute towards a greater sense of familiarity (Peterson, 2017; Wilson, 2017), evidently community spaces that encourage repeated encounters have the potential to create deeper and more meaningful interactions which lead to lasting relationships with ‘the other’ (Amin, 2002; Valentine, 2013). Based on this approach, closer contact of this kind should mitigate both the threat and anti-immigrant attitudes, whereas more superficial contact can have the opposite effect (Dixon, 2006; Valentine, 2008, 2010). Thus, a wealth of academic literature reveals a positive relationship between outgroup size and manifestations of prejudice (e.g., Blalock, 1957; Coenders, 2001; Gorodzeisky & Semyonov, 2015; Quillian, 1995, 1996; Scheepers, Gijsbert, & Coenders, 2002; Semyonov, Raijman, & Gorodzeisky, 2006), whereas other literature finds no such evidence (e.g., Coenders et al., 2005; Hjerm, 2007, 2009; McLaren, 2003; Semyonov et al., 2004) and even identifies a negative relationship (e.g., Lubbers, CONTEXTUAL FACTORS AND PREJUDICE 7 ! Coenders, & Scheepers, 2006). This controversial discussion can be tackled if we take into account aspects such as the scale of the scope of study (van Heerden & Ruedin, 2017; Kaufmann & Harris, 2015; Pottie-Sherman & Wilkes, 2017; Rodon & Franco- Guillen, 2014); the opportunities that the receiving society offers for meaningful interethnic contact (Dinesen & Sønderskov, 2015); and other contextual variables to help interpret the results obtained. Demographic Change to the Territory of Settlement Other research has focused attention on the rapid change to the ethnic composition of the receiving society when it comes to explaining the occurrence of prejudice. The ‘salience of change hypothesis’ (Newman & Velez, 2014), based on Hopkins’ ‘defended neighbourhood hypothesis’ (2009, 2010), views drastic changes in the ethno-racial composition as being responsible for receiving society’s attitudes of rejection. The sudden changes in the ethnic composition stimulate the perception of sociocultural competition in a community, especially when the receiving society’s economic level is lower (Semyonov et al., 2006). In the same vein, authors including DeWaard (2015) consider the temporal dynamics of migration flow and greater spatial mobility more important than out-group size when it comes to explaining the formation of social attitudes. In situations marked by rapid demographic change, attitudes towards immigration that come into play on a social level are often characterized by the persistence of prejudice towards the immigrant individual (Rozin & Royzman, 2001). Nevertheless, an emerging literature addresses the multiple methods that the receiving society uses in order to estimate demographic changes in out-group size within their neighbourhoods and local communities. Laméris, Kraaykamp, Ruiter, and Tolsma (2018) highlight how ethnic segregation, economic deprivation and crime prevalence in the neighbourhood and in surrounding neighbourhoods are attributed to a rise in out- CONTEXTUAL FACTORS AND PREJUDICE 8 ! group size, shaping perceptions of threat and anti-immigrant prejudice. Moreover, all neighbourhoods within a municipality are interconnected and their residents move across and in-between urban spaces throughout their daily lives; the receiving population uses the information garnered from experience in attributing demographic changes to their neighbourhood (Wodtke, Harding, & Elwert, 2011). Territorial Distribution and Concentration of the Immigrant Population Using out-group size and demographic change as contextual predictors of antiimmigrant prejudice places the emphasis on migration flows rather than on the receiving population’s reactions, who often force newcomers to settle in segregated and impoverished areas. This distribution is decided by the receiving society when migrants start to arrive according to the former’s self-interests, the social position reserved for immigrants, and their inclination to consider different ethnic backgrounds as less trustworthy. To address this gap, we suggest that the key role most likely played by territorial distribution and concentration in explaining prejudice should figure among the most influential contextual variables. Traditionally, the analysis of territorial distribution and concentration of immigrants has focused on describing the spatial patterns of residential segregation (e.g., Alba & Logan, 1993; Alba et al., 1999; Holloway, Wright, & Ellis, 2011; Johnston, Poulsen, & Forrest, 2009; Massey, 1985; Wright, Ellis, Holloway, & Wong, 2014). However, we maintain that the immigrants’ patterns of residential and spatial behaviours are crucial for understanding how receiving society-led anti-immigrant prejudice evolves. This is based on previous studies that have shown how immigrant territorial concentration impacts on interaction among different ethnic groups at a local level (Iglesias-Pascual, 2017a; Smith, 2018); perceived competition for labour resources (Blalock, 1967); and the degree of social cohesion, collective efficacy, and a sense of CONTEXTUAL FACTORS AND PREJUDICE 9 ! community among residents (Finney & Jivraj, 2013; Wright & Ellis, 2000; Wright et al., 2014). All of the above are relevant dimensions in anti-immigrant prejudice formation. The present study aims to identify which contextual variables are predictive of the prejudice shown by native-born residents across five districts in Seville, the largest city in southern Spain. The decision to limit the research to the local context and to the intra-urban variation of immigrant population concentration in different districts is because these areas are where we observe more direct social interaction among the different ethnic groups. In addition, this is of particular interest when implementing management measures aimed at overturning prejudices (Nelson & Dunn, 2017). Method Study Context Seville is the capital of Andalusia, the southernmost region of Spain and Europe which, together with Sicily and the Greek islands, constitutes Europe’s southern border for seaborne migration. The foreign-born population in Andalusia represents 9.16%, with the Moroccan community being the largest immigrant population living in the region (OPAM, 2017). Moroccans usually move there to overcome the lack of employment opportunities and social inequalities in their home country. However, given the history between Spain and Morocco, the Andalusian population often labels these immigrants with the pejorative term ‘los moros’ [the Moors] (Flesler, 2008). Up against a Christian majority, this category refers to persons of mixed Arab and Berber descent who settled in the Iberian Peninsula during the Middle Ages and were later expelled following the Spanish Reconquest (García-Sánchez, 2014). This social imaginary contributes to the existence of a segmented labour market where Moroccans work in the most precarious positions in terms of harsh working conditions, instability CONTEXTUAL FACTORS AND PREJUDICE 16 ! Our results suggest that rapid immigrant population growth (Moroccans and economic migrants in general) as well as territorial concentration play a key role when it comes to understanding the prejudice exhibited by the receiving society’s dominant group. However, the size of this population in certain geographical areas within the city seems to only be tenuously linked to the degree of prejudice shown by the resident receiving population in these areas. The fact that the greatest impact on social attitudes towards the Moroccan population in Seville is associated with population increase in a short space of time, which encompasses Moroccans as well as other nationalities linked to economic migration, empirically supports the proposed approach from a ‘salience of change’ hypothesis perspective. Thus, the rapid growth in the foreign-born population within a short timeframe does not seem to be time enough for the new conditions surrounding inter-ethnic coexistence to become internalized, thereby impacting on emerging prejudices. Furthermore, the territorial concentration level for the immigrant population in very specific neighbourhoods appears to be linked to the degree of prejudice shown by the receiving society. This has already been shown at a municipal level in the south of Spain, where the concentration of a high percentage of immigrants in a particular territorial area encouraged prejudice and discriminatory conduct by the receiving population (Herranz de Rafael, 2008). Thus, these high concentrations are associated with a social discourse that labels these sectors as undesirable areas in which to live owing to the immigrant presence, a higher crime rate, and a greater perceived competition for social and economic resources (Iglesias-Pascual, 2016, 2017a; Semyonov, Raijman, & Gorodzeisky, 2008). Because this study reveals immigrant territorial concentration to be a greater predictor of prejudice by the receiving society than the percentage or size of the immigrant population at a local level, we can consider CONTEXTUAL FACTORS AND PREJUDICE 17 ! and apply this new indicator to those studies grouped under group threat theory. At the same time, our study, which emphasizes the importance of the relationship between territorial concentration and prejudice,!points to a notable gap in the literature when analyzing the social effects of immigrant arrival and settlement patterns in the city, that is, it reaffirms the relationship between the geographic scale and social magnitude of the effects of migration (Smith, 2018). We can therefore draw the conclusion that the territorial concentration of the immigrant population and the salience of change hypothesis have an important role to play at the beginning of a migrant influx and, as such, are aspects worth taking into account in future studies to explain the emergence of anti-immigrant prejudice. However, the attitudes observed in sectors like District 6, where the small percentage of Moroccans renders their presence purely testimonial, cannot be explained by the demographic changes experienced or by territorial concentration, as would be the case of districts 2 and 4. That is to say, our study suggests that prejudice is diffused through other districts of the city, regardless of the district where anti-immigrant prejudice begins because of the contextual variables considered (i.e., the rapid growth in the foreign-born population and their concentration in space). This aspect, which has also been discussed in other research studies conducted at other geographic scales (Quillian, 1996; Riek, Mania, & Gaertner, 2006), can only be understood by taking into account the intersubjective social impact generated by the occurrence of high concentrations of Moroccans and other nationalities in specific areas of the city (Iglesias-Pascual, 2016; 2017a). As such, the uncertainty brought about by demographic change in certain geographical areas of the city determines feelings towards the Moroccan population, not only in specific places where this change occurs but also in other districts across the city. Thus, it is clear that immigrant territorial concentration, CONTEXTUAL FACTORS AND PREJUDICE 18 ! albeit sporadic in the territory, creates a social imaginary reflected in the shaping of attitudes towards the Moroccan population characterized by increased prejudice, including those neighbourhoods where their presence is merely symbolic. Moreover, and as highlighted by Bader and Krysan (2015), the social intersubjectivity built around immigration and the territories where immigrants reside play an important role in understanding how processes of socioterritorial fragmentation are maintained. In other words, anti-immigrant prejudice is what drives places to be treated as undesirable and is crucial for understanding the territorial stigmatization of neighbourhoods where immigrants, due to their territorial concentration, reach greater social visibility (Iglesias- Pascual, 2017b; Wacquant, Slater, & Pereira, 2014). Guidelines for Diversity Management Based on these results and the link between the geographic scale and social effects of migration, it is possible to develop guidelines for good diversity management in the urban context to ensure social and residence-based equality in receiving locations for migration flow. First, measures need to be implemented that have an impact on dismantling the anti-immigrant prejudices becoming widespread in the city’s social imaginary. Strategies that, following the guidelines of research coming under contact theory, promote daily and social contact at a neighbourhood level. From this perspective, there is a clear need for local environments that provide leisure areas enabling intercultural coexistence, such as public parks, playgrounds and familyfriendly spaces for free-time activities (Schaeffer, 2013). Additionally, it is necessary to launch activities that promote awareness and establish continuous, meaningful, and deliberate intercultural exchanges within grassroots social organizations, and to develop an institutional message that promotes kindness and harmonious co-existence among cultures (García-Ramírez, de la Mata, Paloma, & Hernández-Plaza, 2011; Valentine, CONTEXTUAL FACTORS AND PREJUDICE 19 ! 2010). The target population is likely to be the one that shows the highest level of antiimmigrant prejudice (i.e., unemployed individuals, those with temporary or precarious contracts, a low level of education, and a conservative ideological stance; Martín-Artiles & Meardi, 2013). For this endeavour to succeed, the mass media needs to adopt a role of mutual understanding and responsibility when it comes to sharing information with the general public. Second, there is the need to implement public housing policy that plans for an even distribution of socially excluded ethnic minorities across the city’s different districts, and a team that acts as a mediator in the property market, helping immigrants find housing in order to avoid concentrations of out-groups in particular areas of the city. Third, there is a demand for policies that address social equality, poverty reduction, and strengthening social protection services in the urban context. Community-based resources available in the city should be recognized as having professionals that not only possess the skills and knowledge to be effective in interacting with immigrants, but who also have the ability to bring about the necessary organizational changes that give this population access to quality community services (García-Ramírez, Hernández-Plaza, Albar, Luque-Ribelles, & Suarez-Balcazar, 2012). Lastly, and in a cross-sectional manner, intervention measures should not be restricted to districts with the highest share of immigrants (Iglesias-Pascual, 2017b). For these measures to be effective, interventions at a district level should alternate with municipal-wide ones. As we have seen, although social attitudes towards immigrant communities start out at a neighbourhood level, they end up spreading throughout the entire municipal territory, expressed as a widespread territorial stigma around the neighbourhoods where the immigrant population resides. Thus, the only way to mitigate this process of rejection and stop it from extending to other neighbourhoods, resulting in a property market blocked off to economic migrants, is to approach both levels at the CONTEXTUAL FACTORS AND PREJUDICE 20 ! same time. Cutting off access to the housing market translates into higher immigration concentration in the medium term, which results in processes of territorial stigmatization and residential segregation for those neighbourhoods where, owing to low prices, an informal economy, the rental of rooms, and the poor state of properties, immigrants can gain access. These are all aspects that end up hampering the well-being of immigrants and social cohesion in the host society (Paloma, García-Ramírez, & Camacho, 2014). Limitations and Future Directions This study does have some limitations. First, its cross-sectional nature and the type of statistical analysis carried out prevent us from determining the direction of causality for the variables under study. Despite this, we have succeeded in identifying a bidirectional relationship, where the contextual variables have an impact on prejudice but where social attitudes expressed through the social imaginary also likely play a role in the territorial characterization of cities. Second, the study does not cover the reality of all the city’s districts and is based on a small number of questionnaires. However, this research does represent an introduction to the effect and importance that contextual variables, specifically the rapid growth of the immigrant population and their territorial concentration, have on the emergence of anti-immigrant attitudes during the early stage of a migrant influx to a given location. Starting from this premise, it would be interesting to develop analyses that go beyond the simple use of quantitative indices of segregation and the spatial population distribution (e.g., Yao, Wong, Bailey, & Minton, 2018). An example would be a study that allows us to learn more about the relationship between the levels of residential segregation, neighbourhood stigma, and the host society’s growing attitudes towards immigration by means of more advanced statistical analyses such as hierarchical linear modeling. Similarly, it would be interesting to CONTEXTUAL FACTORS AND PREJUDICE 21 ! consider several other contextual variables, for example, the local economy, culture, the location’s history, and local politics in order to understand how anti-immigrant prejudice takes shape. We also hope to use future studies to further explore the relationship between immigrant territorial concentration and the host society’s attitudes at other territorial levels (municipal, regional and national), in other societies with a stronger tradition of receiving immigrants, and the possible variations in these attitudes towards different nationalities. As has been suggested, the exponential influx of migrants to Seville over a short period of time has translated into a high territorial concentration of immigrants in certain districts across the city. Social attitudes expressed by the receiving population linked to these settling processes highlight the need to plan a diversity management policy in the urban context that covers both territorial and social variables, thus ensuring well-being and social cohesion in receiving societies. CONTEXTUAL FACTORS AND PREJUDICE 22 ! References Alba, R.D. & Logan, J. R. (1993). Minority proximity to whites in suburbs: An individual level analysis of segregation. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 1388-1427. Alba, R. D., Logan, J. R., Stults, B. J., Marzan, G., & Zhang, W. Q. (1999). Immigrant groups in the suburbs: A reexamination of suburbanization and spatial assimilation. American Sociological Review, 64, 446-460. Amin, A. (2002). Ethnicity and the multicultural city: Living with diversity. Environment and Planning A, 34, 959–980. Astor, A. (2010). Mezquita no: The origins of mosque opposition in Spain. GRITIMUPF Working Paper Series, 3. Ayuntamiento de Sevilla (2015). Anuario Estadístico de la Ciudad de Sevilla. Sevilla: The author. Bader, M. & Krysan, M. (2015). Community attraction and avoidance in Chicago: What’s race got to do with it? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 660 (1), 261-281. Bayona, J. & López-Gay, A. (2011). Concentración, segregación y movilidad residencial de los extranjeros en Barcelona. Documents d’Anàlisi Geogràfica, 57(3), 381-412. Blalock, H. M. (1957). Percent non-White and discrimination in the South. American Sociological Review, 22, 667–82. Blalock, H. M. (1967). Toward a Theory of Minority-Group Relations. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Bobo, L. (1983). White’s opposition to busing: Symbolic racism or realistic group conflict? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(6),196-1210. CONTEXTUAL FACTORS AND PREJUDICE 23 ! Bolt, G. & Van Kempen, R. (2010). Ethnic segregation and residential mobility: Relocations of minority ethnic groups in the Netherlands. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(2), 333-354. doi: 10.1080/1369183090338745.1 Brown, L. & Chung, S.Y. (2006). Spatial segregation, segregation indexes and the geographical perspective. Population, Space and Place, 12, 125-143. Castaño-Madroñal, A. & Periañez-Bolaño, I. (2012). Digital press discourses and representations on immigration, islam and immigrant students in Andalusia. Coimbra, Portugal: TOLERACE Project Working Papers. Retrieved from https://www.ces.uc.pt/ces/projectos/tolerace/media/WP5/WorkingPapers%205_ Spain-Andalusia.pdf Cea D’Ancona, M. A., & Vallés, M. S. (2015). Evolución del racismo y la xenofobia y otras formas conexas de intolerancia en España [Informe Encuesta 2014]. Madrid: OBERAXE, Ministerio de Trabajo e Inmigración. Coenders, M. (2001). Nationalistic attitudes and ethnic exclusionism in a comparative perspective: An empirical study of attitudes toward the country and ethnic immigrants in 22 countries. Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen. Coenders, M., Lubbers, M., & Scheepers, P. (Eds.) (2005). Majority populations’ attitudes towards migrants and minorities. Vienna: European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. DeWaard, J. (2015). Beyond group-threat: Temporal dynamics of international migration and linkages to anti-foreigner sentiment. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 41(7), 1041-1067. Dinesen, P.T, & Sønderskov, K.M. (2015). Ethnic diversity and social trust: Evidence from the micro-context. American Sociological Review, 80(3), 550-573. CONTEXTUAL FACTORS AND PREJUDICE 24 ! Dixon, J. C. (2006). The ties that bind and those that don’t: Towards reconciling group threat and contact theories of prejudice. Social Forces, 84, 2179–204. Finch, B.K., & Vega, W.A. (2003). Acculturation stress, social support, and self-rated health among Latinos in California. Journal of Immigrant Health, 5(3), 109-117. Finney, N., & Jivraj, S. (2013). Ethnic group population change and neighbourhood belonging. Urban Studies, 50(16), 3323–3341. Flesler, D. (2008). The return of the Moor: Spanish responses to contemporary Moroccan immigration. West Lafayette: IN: Purdue University Press. García-Ramírez, M., de la Mata, M. L., Paloma, V., & Hernández-Plaza, S. (2011). A liberation psychology approach to acculturative integration of migrant populations. American Journal of Community Psychology, 47, 86-97. García-Ramírez, M., Hernández-Plaza, S., Albar, M. J., Luque-Ribelles, V., &Suarez- Balcazar, Y. (2012). Building healthcare stakeholder coalitions: A community psychology approach to user involvement for migrant populations. In D.Ingleby,A. Chiarenza, W. Devillé, and I. Kotsioni (Eds.), Inequalities in health care for migrants and ethnic minorities (pp. 188-204). Belgium: Garant. García-Sánchez, I.M. (2014). Language and Muslim immigrant childhoods: The politics of belonging. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. Gorodzeisky, A. & Semyonov, M. (2015). Not only competitive threat but also racial prejudice: Sources of anti-immigrant attitudes in European societies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 28, (3/1),331–354. Gruner, S. (2010). The others don’t want… small-scale segregation: Hegemonic public discourses and racial boundaries in German neighbourhoods. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(2), 275–292. CONTEXTUAL FACTORS AND PREJUDICE 25 ! Hernández-Plaza, S., García-Ramírez, M., Camacho, C., & Paloma, V. (2010). New settlement and wellbeing in oppressive contexts: A liberation psychology approach. In S.C. Carr (Ed.), The psychology of Global Mobility (pp. 235-256). New York: Springer. Herranz de Rafael, G. (2008). Xenofobia: Un estudio comparativo en barrios y municipios almerienses. Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas, 121, 107-132. Hjerm, M. (2007). Do numbers really count? Group threat theory revisited. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 33, 1253–1276. Hjerm, M. (2009). Anti-immigrant attitudes and cross-municipal variation in the proportion of immigrants. Acta Sociologica, 52(1), 47-62. Holloway, S., Wright, R., & Ellis, M. (2011). The racially fragmented city? Neighborhood racial segregation and diversity jointly considered. The Professional Geographer, 64, 63–82. Hopkins, D. J. (2009). The diversity discount: When increasing ethnic and racial diversity prevents tax increases. Journal of Politics, 71(1), 160–77. Hopkins, D. J. (2010). Politicized places: Explaining where and when immigrants provoke local opposition. American Political Science Review, 104(1), 40–60. Huete-García, M.A., & Muñoz-Moreno, R. (2011). Modelos de barrio y lógicas de localización de la población inmigrante: El caso de la ciudad de Sevilla. Scripta Nova, XV, 372. Huijts, T., Kraaykamp, G., & Scheepers, P. (2014). Ethnic diversity and informal intra- and interethnic contacts with neighbours in the Netherlands. Acta Sociologica, 57(1), 41–57. CONTEXTUAL FACTORS AND PREJUDICE 32 ! Wacquant L., Slater, T., & Pereira, V. B. (2014). Territorial stigmatization in action. Environment and Planning A, 46(6), 1270-1280. Wilson H.F. (2011). Passing propinquities in the multicultural city: The everyday encounters of bus passengering. Environment and Planning A, 43(3), 634-649. Wilson H.F. (2013). Learning to think differently: Diversity training and the ‘good encounter’. Geoforum, 45,73–82. Wilson H.F. (2017). On geography and encounter: Bodies, borders, and difference. Progress in Human Geography, 41(4), 451–471. Wodtke, G., Harding, D.J., & Elwert, F. (2011). Neighborhood effects in temporal perspective. American Sociological Review, 76(5), 713-736. Wright, R. & Ellis, M. (2000). Race, region and the territorial politics of immigration in the US. Population, Space and Place, 6, 197–211. Wright, R., Ellis, M., & Parks, V. (2005). Replacing whiteness in spatial assimilation research. City and Community, 4(2), 111–35. Wright, R., Ellis, M., Holloway, S., & Wong, S. (2014). Patterns of racial diversity and segregation in the United States: 1990–2010. The Professional Geographer, 66(2), 173-182. Yao, J., Wong, D. W., Bailey, N., & Minton, J. (2018). Spatial segregation measures: A methodological review. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie. doi:10.1111/tesg.12305 CONTEXTUAL FACTORS AND PREJUDICE 33 ! Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for Variables Included in the Study (n=120) District 10 District 5 District 6 District 2 District 4 Degree of prejudice (1-4) 1.84 (S=.58) 1.93 (S=.61) 2.10 (S=.55) 2.11 (S=.60) 2.44 (S=.57) % Moroccan immigrants (0-100) 0.92 0.42 0.23 0.78 0.81 % Economic migrants (0-100) 3.05 2.48 3.07 7.60 4.82 Growth of Moroccan immigrants 2005-2008 (0-100) -0.06 0.13 0.06 0.01 0.25 Growth of economic migrants 2005-2008 (0-100) 0.57 1.22 0.97 2.55 2.3 % Census tracts with high LQ (>2) (0-100) 17 15 0 35 35 Note. Compiled by authors based on data from their own survey and the Continuous Register 2005 and 2008 provided by the Spanish Statistical Office (INE). LQ: Location quotient. The names of the variables are followed by the range of possible values in brackets. CONTEXTUAL FACTORS AND PREJUDICE 34 ! Table 2 Effect Size Values between Contextual Variables and Prejudice against Moroccan Immigrants in Five Districts of Seville, Spain Note. LQ: Location quotient; r: Pearson r; R2: Coefficient of determination. Degree of prejudice % Moroccan immigrants r=.07 (R2=.00) % Economic migrants r=.41 (R2=.17) Growth of Moroccan immigrants 2005-2008 r=.81 (R2=.66) Growth of economic migrants 2005-2008 r=.72 (R2=.52) % Census tracts with high LQ (>2) r=.51 (R2=.26) CONTEXTUAL FACTORS AND PREJUDICE 35 ! Figure 1. Location quotient of the Moroccan population located in the city of Seville, Spain, for 2008. Compiled by authors based on data from the Spanish Statistical Office (INE).