Intergroup Contact as a Potential Path to Neutralize the Detrimental Effect of National Identification on Xenophobia in Germany

Genkova, Petia; Schaefer, Christoph Daniel; Karch, Simone Article — Published Version Intergroup Contact as a Potential Path to Neutralize the Detrimental Effect of National Identification on Xenophobia in Germany Journal of International Migration and Integration Provided in Cooperation with: Springer Nature Suggested Citation: Genkova, Petia; Schaefer, Christoph Daniel; Karch, Simone (2021) : Intergroup Contact as a Potential Path to Neutralize the Detrimental Effect of National Identification on Xenophobia in Germany, Journal of International Migration and Integration, ISSN 1874-6365, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, Vol. 23, Iss. 4, pp. 1903-1919, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-021-00919-w This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/287430 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Vol.:(0123456789) https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-021-00919-w 1 3 Intergroup Contact asaPotential Path toNeutralize theDetrimental Effect ofNational Identification onXenophobia inGermany PetiaGenkova1 · ChristophDanielSchaefer1· SimoneKarch2 Accepted: 12 November 2021 / © The Author(s) 2021 Abstract Proceeding globalization and the increase in global mobility entail that a growing proportion of people in economically developed countries have a migration background, so that cultural diversity has become an integral characteristic of many societies. Consequently, national identifications and attitudes towards immigrants are gaining importance in both international and intra-societal contexts. Previous studies revealed that in some countries, including Germany, national identification is associated with negative attitudes towards outgroups. In the present article, the interplay between national identification and intergroup contact is analyzed, with xenophobia as the criterion. The study is based on a cross-sectional survey amongst members of the majority population in Germany. It was predicted and found that the association between national identification and xenophobia is moderated by intergroup contact. There was only an association between national identification and xenophobia in participants with below-average or average levels of contact, whilst for those with above-average levels of contact, there was no significant association. Thus, the results point to the importance of contact experiences as a path to neutralize the effects of national identification on xenophobia, possibly by assisting in a redefinition of national belonging. Keywords National identification· Xenophobia· Prejudice against immigrants· Contact hypothesis· Neutralizing effect of contact * Petia Genkova p.genko[email protected] 1 Department ofEconomic andSocial Sciences, University ofApplied Sciences Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany 2 University ofPassau, Passau, Germany Published online: 29 November 2021 Journal of International Migration and Integration (2022) 23:1903–1919 1 3 Introduction Globalization, technological progress, and political processes entail that global mobility is increasing. The consequences of these developments include an increase of the proportion of immigrants in many economically developed countries. According to the German Federal Statistical Office, about a quarter of the German population (26%) had an immigration background in 2019 (i.e. they are immigrants themselves or are descendants of immigrants) (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2020). Sixty-four percent of those had immigrated themselves and 52% had German citizenship (Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge, 2020). For 35% of people with an immigration background living in Germany, the country of birth or their parents’ country of birth was another country of the EU; for 30%, their or their parents’ country of birth was another European (non-EU) country (13%Turkey; 7% Russian federation); for 22%, it was an Asian country; for 5%, it was an African country (other: 3%; unknown: 6%; Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge, 2020).Thirty-six percent of those who immigrated themselves arrived in Germany less than 10 years ago (Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge, 2020). Similar to the situation in many other countries, debates on immigration have tended to politically polarize the German majority population. Some parts of the population have been reacting to a rising number of immigrants with xenophobia, that is with rejection of the cultural, linguistic, and/or “ethnic” otherness (Decker etal., 2018). Xenophobia is a relevant problem for societies, undermining societal cohesion and productive potential. Xenophobia affects societal cohesion by reducing societal identification of those confronted with xenophobia. In the context of Germany, it was found, for example that the extent to which Muslims or people with a Turkish migration background experience rejection is associated with less societal identification (Holtz etal., 2013; Martinovic & Verkuyten, 2012; Schaefer & Simon, 2019). Additionally, xenophobia has detrimental effects on the health of the members of discriminated communities (Suleman etal., 2018). Previous studies have found an association between national identification and xenophobia (Billiet etal., 2003; Maddens etal., 2000; Pehrson et al., 2009; Triandafyllidou, 2000; Weiss, 2003). These results are compatible with social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and self-categorization theory (Turner, 1987). According to the social identity theory, group members strive to be positively distinctive from other groups, by favouring their own group at the expense of other groups, with the aim of a positive self-worth (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Self-cate- gorization theory (Turner, 1987) as the more encompassing theory, stipulates that ingroup liking depends on the degree to which group members are seen to correspond to the ideal self and to the prototype of positively evaluated ingroups. Analogously, outgroup members are devalued to the extent that the outgroup or its prototype is perceived as deviating from the prototype of an appreciated ingroup. It has been observed that national identification of majority members is associated with prejudice against immigrants in some countries (Pehrson etal., 2009). As a moderating factor on the relationship between national identification and anti-immigrant prejudice, it was examined on which criteria inhabitants based their definition of national belonging (Pehrson etal., 2009). In particular, it was investigated whether belonging 1904 P. Genkova et al. 1 3 was defined as depending on language or on citizenship. The authors regarded language as indicating a cultural definition of national belonging, while citizenship was viewed as an indication of a civic definition. The relationship between national identification and prejudice was revealed to be stronger for inhabitants defining national belonging as being based on language. While this result can be interpreted as indicating that a cultural definition of belongingness is less open to integrating immigrants than a civic definition, it is debatable whether language is a valid marker of an exclusionary cultural view on national belonging, since the acquisition of a country’s language is, at least in principle, open to people from various cultural backgrounds. However, an informative supplement to this result is constituted by a study which examined various indicators of an “ethnic”, essentialist definition of national belonging (Pehrson etal., 2011). These items aimed to assess to what extent participants viewed nationality as being determined by descent, and thus as being clearly distinguishable from other national groups. Only among individuals with such an essentialist definition of national belongingness, a relationship between national identification and a rejection of immigrants was found. Thus, an exclusionary conception of nationhood leads to a devaluation of immigrants with a diverging background when national identification is high. A result pointing in a similar direction was obtained by studies which analyzed variations within nations (Bauer & Hannover, 2020). It was demonstrated that viewing the criteria which define national belonging as fixed (versus malleable) led to a sharper perceived divide between ingroup and outgroup as well as to an increase in prejudice against immigrants. Thus, the understanding or definition of society appears to influence both the degree of prejudice and the strength of the association between national identification and prejudice. These results are in accordance with self-categorization theory (Turner, 1987). A perspective that defines the criteria of national belonging as fixed and essentialist, notably by basing the national belonging on descent, can mark immigrants as incompatible with the national prototype. To the extent that the national group constitutes an appreciated ingroup, the deviation of immigrants from the national prototype constitutes a deviation from the ideal self, which, according to self-categorization theory, leads to dislike. Thus, an essentialist conception of the ingroup and an appreciation of the national ingroup are both theoretically and empirically related to prejudice against immigrants. Fitting to this theoretical outlook is also the role of symbolic threats indicated by intergroup threat theory (Stephan & Stephan, 2013). Symbolic threats are conceptualized as perceived threats to the ingroup’s system of values. When an appreciated national ingroup is defined as being based on a fixed system of values that is distinguished from the values of immigrants, a high number of immigrants can be perceived as potentially diluting the appreciated ingroup prototype. Especially when national groups and their values are perceived, in an essential way, as fixed, the appreciation of the ingroup should be associated with a devaluation of immigrants that are perceived as different and as diluting the perceived essence of the group, either on the basis of assumed cultural differences (as a form of symbolic threat) or on the basis of assumed biological or “ethnic” differences (when a community of descent is assumed). Another variety of a perceived threat to an appreciated ingroup is constituted by threats to an ingroup’s well-being, power, or even existence, termed “realistic threats”, in the taxonomy of Stephan and Stephan (2013). When viewing 1905Intergroup Contact as a Potential Path to Neutralize the… 1 3 the ingroup in essentialist cultural or ethnic terms, the group borders should be perceived as sharper, so that the perception of immigrants as being a source of competition for material resources and wealth might increase. Thus, an essentialist view of a national ingroup in combination with a high national group identification might increase the likelihood of xenophobia also via this route. Since the effects of national identification depend on the understanding of the nation as essentialist versus open, it is of special relevance for intergroup relations to identify factors affecting these national self-definitions. Intergroup contact has been demonstrated to affect both the perception of group boundaries (Brown, 2002; Dovidio etal., 2007) and intergroup attitudes (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). The positive effect of contact on intergroup relations has also been indicated for the relations between majority and minorities within societies. Contact between members of the majority population and members of minorities was observed to reduce prejudice (Binder etal., 2009; Pettigrew, 1997). It is important to note that the contact hypothesis originally formulated by Allport (1954) does not state that any type of contact leads to an improvement of attitudes. Instead, Allport (1954) specified that the contact has to adhere to four conditions in order to precipitate its positive effects: members from the two groups should have equal status in the interaction, share common goals, cooperate to achieve these common goals, and experience that the contact is supported by an authority or salient values. A meta-analysis found that direct contact typically improves intergroup attitudes, even when Allport’s contact conditions are not met, while the fulfilment of these conditions increases the degree of contact’s positive effect (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). This result does not, however, imply that superficial contact is sufficient for the improvement of attitudes. Erasmus (2010), for example refers to instances in South Africa in which exclusion and conflict between groups have persisted despite intergroup contact. Amongst the examples on which Erasmus (2010) draws is a desegregated beach (Durrheim & Dixon, 2005) or a medical school with black and white students (Erasmus & De Wet, 2003/2011). In the context of the desegregated beach, the study authors report that nearly all of the attending groups were “racially” homogeneous (Durrheim & Dixon, 2005). Also in the context of the medical school, students reportedly remained in racially homogenous groups even in classrooms (Erasmus & De Wet, 2003/2011). These results are in line with earlier indications that proximity does not guarantee positive interaction or mitigating effects on prejudice (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Importantly, Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) did only include studies in their meta-analysis in which there was direct intergroup interaction between groups. It is also likely that conditions of underlying inequality which are entrenched in the respective national or local history and structures further hamper positive effects of contact. In the study of the medical school in South Africa, for example several black students reported marginality and powerlessness vis-à-vis white students and staff (Erasmus & De Wet, 2003/2011), thus expressing distinct unequal status of the groups. Such manifestations of inequality and power asymmetries are probably not limited to formerly segregated countries, but might also be persistent during some intergroup contact situations within Germany between majority and minority members. For example, people with a migration background in Germany report that physical characteristics that differentiate them from “autochthone” Germans lead to a lack of acceptance, indicating that parts of the population stick to an essentialist 1906 P. Genkova et al. 1 3 conception of belongingness which implies unequal status (Holtz et al., 2013). In such contexts of deficits in societal acceptance, it might be particularly important that intergroup contact situations are characterized by direct interactions on an equal footing. Contact can improve intergroup attitudes via various routes, including the perception of intergroup similarities and a re-definition of intergroup boundaries. In case of the so-called “recategorisation” approach, it is attempted to foster identification with a superordinate group, which comprises former ingroup and outgroup members under the umbrella of a common group, possibly fostered by working on a joint goal (Brown, 2002; Gaertner etal., 1993). Extending the group boundaries, so that former outgroup members become ingroup members, entails that the consequences of ingroup assimilation and liking are also applied to these former outgroup members (Dovidio etal., 2007). Thus, the awareness of a superordinate and common group identification is a possible route to improve intergroup relationships. More generally, intergroup contact appears to entail the potential to modify members’ understanding of intergroup relations. The Present Study Due to this potential of changing the view on intergroup relations, it is hypothesized in the present study that intergroup contact modifies the relationship between national identification and xenophobia. For both West and East Germany, it has been demonstrated that national identification is associated with prejudice towards immigrants (Pehrson etal., 2009). The association between national identification and prejudice seems to be stronger amongst countries defining national community “ethnically” (or possibly culturally), instead of based on citizenship (Pehrson etal., 2009, 2011). Thus, these results suggest that more ethnically charged definitions of national communities may emphasize intergroup differences. Intergroup differences, in turn, are associated with outgroup devaluations, to the degree that the outgroup (prototype) is perceived to be different from the ideal self (Turner, 1987). Therefore, identifying with a country whose citizenry is defined “ethnically” exclusive is likely to be associated with contrasting the own group towards other groups perceived to be ethnically different, which can imply a devaluation of outgroups. In contrast, if the definition of the national group is wide enough to include diverse groups, immigrants from other backgrounds are possibly perceived as part of the national ingroup. Based on previous results (Pehrson etal., 2009, 2011) and on the assumption that national belonging in Germany is related to the concept of “ethnicity”, we hypothesized that we could replicate the association between national identification and xenophobia in Germany (H1). “Ethnicity” should not be regarded in essentialist terms, in the sense of a naturally given category that pre-defines fixed boundaries between individuals, since the borders between ethnicities and their definitional content have developed in social interactions instead of being predetermined by innate differences (see Brubaker, 2004). Thus, whilst the capacity of social categorizations is fundamental to human cognition, emotion, and action (Turner, 1987), the concept of ethnicity is historically and culturally bound. At the same time, the consequences of classifying people 1907Intergroup Contact as a Potential Path to Neutralize the… 1 3 into ethnicities on thinking, feeling, and acting are tangible when this classification is shared by a large number of people (see Brubaker, 2004).To the degree that the view on the national group is modifiable from an ethnically exclusive to an inclusive understanding of the national self, the association between national identification and xenophobia could also be changed. It has been indicated that contact can transform intergroup relations by redefining intergroup boundaries. Additionally, positive effects of intergroup contact are mediated by increased knowledge about the outgroup and by empathy (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008). These mediators are likely to change the content of the group categorizations and thereby possibly their inclusiveness. In the context of the present analysis, it was therefore hypothesized that intergroup contact changes the association between national identification and xenophobia. More precisely, it was hypothesized that the effect of national identification on xenophobia would be moderated by contact (H2). It was also expected that “ethnic” identification has a main effect on xenophobia (H3), as a high identification with such an “ethnically” exclusive group should render the differences to other “ethnicities” more salient. To the extent that these other groups are perceived to be deviating from the ideal self, a high ethnic identification should entail devaluation of other “ethnic” groups. Additionally, it was expected that outgroup contact moderates this effect (H4). Although the borders of an ethnic identification cannot easily be withdrawn to include other “ethnicities” without undermining the basis of the categorization, the content of the categories and the relationship between the groups can still be changed. In particular, contact can foster knowledge about the outgroup and empathy (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008). Increased background knowledge of the outgroup’s values and empathy with their situation, in turn, could induce that the effect of ethnic identification on xenophobia is buffered. Method Procedure The participants of the study were recruited by snowball sampling, starting with personal acquaintances, thus constituting a convenience sample. The participants completed a printed questionnaire. Prior to participation, they were informed about voluntariness and anonymity, and that data were used only for scientific purposes, according to the agreement with the ethics committee of the University of Applied Sciences Osnabrück. Following the information, participants gave their informed consent on the participation. Measures Demographic Variables Participants were asked for demographic information, such as age, gender, formal education, size of the municipality of residence, country of 1908 P. Genkova et al. 1 3 residence, citizenship, and mother tongue. Age, gender, and education served as control variables in the main analyses of this study. National Identification To measure national identification, five items were used from an adapted version of the scale of social identity by Orth etal., (1996; e.g. “I feel German”) with a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (not true at all) to 7 (completely true). Cronbach’s α was very good, reaching 0.91. Ethnic Identification To assess ethnic identification, a subscale of the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measures (MEIM; Phinney, 1992) was employed, namely “affirmation and belonging”. This subscale consists of five items and targets emotional aspects of identification (e.g. “I have a strong sense of belonging to my own ethnic group” or “I am happy that I am a member of the group I belong to”) and was translated to German. The response scale was a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strong rejection) to 5 (high approval). Cronbach’s α of this scale was good: 0.83. Contact Contact with people with a migration background was surveyed using the following four items of the MEIM (Phinney, 1992): “I enjoy meeting and getting to know people from other ethnic groups”, “I often spend time with people from other ethnic groups”, “I do not try to participate in activities with people from other ethnic groups” (reversed item), and “I am involved in activities with people from other ethnic groups”. These items were translated to German. The response scale was a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strong rejection) to 5 (high approval). Cronbach’s α of this scale was 0.82. Xenophobia Xenophobic attitudes were measured on the basis of nine items, which constitute a shortened version of the scale from the survey instrument for student interviews conducted by the Criminological Research Institute of Lower Saxony by Wetzels etal. (1998), using a 4-point Likert scale from 0 (not true at all) to 3 (completely true). An example item of the scale is “Those who cannot adapt in Germany should leave the country”. Cronbach’s α was 0.82. Sample A total of 100 respondents took part in the survey, 49% of whom were female. On average, the participants were 38years old (SD = 12.00). Thirty-six percent had a low educational qualification, 43% had at least a medium qualification (“Mittlerer Reife”/about GCSE or “Abitur”/about A level), and 21% had a university or college degree. Twelve percent were living in a large city (above 100,000 inhabitants), 24% lived in a small city or town, while 64% lived in a village. All participants were born in Germany, had German citizenship, and had German as their mother tongue. 1909Intergroup Contact as a Potential Path to Neutralize the… 1 3 Results Means, standard deviations, and correlations of the variables used in the analyses are presented in Table1. As displayed in Table 1, national and ethnic identification correlated by 0.59, indicating that the two concepts are associated with one another, while also having substantial unique shares of variance. We also tested by a main component analysis whether the items of the national identification measure and those of the ethnic identification measure are statistically distinguishable. Applying the Kaiser-Guttman- Criterion (i.e. eigenvalues > 1), the main component analysis yielded indeed two components, together explaining 68.99% of the variance. The item loadings suggested assignments of items that precisely corresponded to the distinction between ethnic identification and national identification. After varimax rotation, the items of the national identification scale had loadings between 0.71 and 0.90 on the first component, while the items of the ethnic identification scale had loadings between 0.59 and 0.82 on the second component. A multiple regression analysis was employed to test whether contact moderates the relationship between national identification and xenophobia, using the product term of national identification and contact as the main predictor. National identification and contact were included as further predictors, while age, gender, and education (no university/college degree vs. university/college degree) served as control variables. We centred both national identification and contact prior to computing the product term and included the variables into the regression analysis, since centring variables which are part of the interaction enables a more meaningful interpretation of their main effects. The regression analysis reached a high coefficient of determination (R = 0.720, R2 = 0.518, R2 adj = 0.486, F(6, 90) = 16.127, p < 0.001). As expected, a positive effect for national identification on xenophobia was found (b = 0.094, SE = 0.035, β = 0.218, t = 2.69, p = 0.008). Additionally, there was a negative effect of contact on Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for the variables Note. Higher mean scores indicate a higher level of the construct in question. The coding for gender was 0—female; 1—male; for education: 0—no university/college degree; 1—university or college degree. The scores for the national identification could range from 1 to 7, ethnic identification and contact could range from 1 to 5, and xenophobia could range from 0 to 3. Owing to missing values, ns varied between 97 and 100 *p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01; ***p ≤ 0.001 (all two-tailed) Measure M SD 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Age 38.10 12.18 0.18 − 0.13 0.09 0.08 − 0.09 0.11 2. Gender − 0.08 0.01 0.06 − 0.19 0.04 3. Education − 0.21* − 0.06 0.44*** − 0.57*** 4. National identification 5.37 1.23 0.59*** − 0.30** 0.34*** 5. Ethnic identification 3.85 0.72 − 0.08 0.25* 6. Contact 3.13 0.90 − 0.58*** 7. Xenophobia 1.08 0.52 1910 P. Genkova et al. 1 3 References Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison Wesley. Bauer, C. A., & Hannover, B. (2020). Changing “us” and hostility towards “them” – Implicit theories of national identity determine prejudice and participation rates in an anti-immigrant petition. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(4), 810–826. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ ejsp. 2666. Billiet, J., Maddens, B., & Beerten, R. (2003). National identity and attitude toward foreigners in a multinational state: A replication. Political Psychology, 24(2), 241–257. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ 0162- 895X. 00327. Binder, J., Zagefka, H., Brown, R., Funke, F., Kessler, T., Mummendey, A., Maquil, A., Demoulin, S., & Leyens, J.-P. (2009). Does contact reduce prejudice or does prejudice reduce contact? A longitudinal test of the contact hypothesis among majority and minority groups in three European countries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 843–856. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0013 470. Brown, R. (2002). Beziehungen zwischen Gruppen. [Relationships between groups.] In W. Stroebe, K. Jonas, K. Hewstone, & M. Hewstone (eds.), Sozialpsychologie: Eine Einführung (pp. 537–576). Springer. Brubaker, W. R. (1990). Immigration, citizenship, and the nation-state in France and Germany: A comparative historical analysis. International Sociology, 5, 379–407. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 02685 80900 05004 003. Brubaker, R. (2004). Ethnicity without groups. Harvard University Press. Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge (2020). Partnerschaften für Demokratie. Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge. Charta der Vielfalt (2021). Social Media-Aktion zum #DDT21 [Social Media Campaign for the Day of German Diversity 2021]. Berlin, Germany: Charta der Vielfalt e. V. https:// www. chartader- vielf alt. de/ filea dmin/ user_ upload/ Diver sity- Tag/ 2021/ DDT21_ Hando ut_ Social_ Media_ Aktio n__ DDT21. pdf. Christoph, V. (2012). The role of the mass media in the integration of migrants. Mind, Brain, and Education, 6(2), 97–107. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1751- 228X. 2012. 01142.x. Davies, K., Tropp, L. R., Aron, A., Pettigrew, T. F., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Cross-Group Friendships and Intergroup Attitudes: A Meta-Analytic Review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(4), 332–351. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10888 68311 411103. Decker, O., Brähler, E., Baier, D., & Bergmann, M. C. (2018). Flucht ins Autoritäre: Rechtsextreme Dynamiken in der Mitte der Gesellschaft: die Leipziger Autoritarismus-Studie 2018. [Escape into the authoritarian: Right-wing extremist dynamics in the middle of society: The Leipzig Authoritarianism Study 2018.] Psychosozial-Verlag. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Saguy, T. (2007). Another view of “we”: Majority and Minority group perspectives on a common ingroup identity. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 296–330. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10463 28070 17261 32. Durrheim, K., & Dixon, J. (2005). Studying talk and embodied practices: Toward a psychology of materiality of ‘race relations.’ Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 15, 446–460. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ casp. 839. Erasmus, Z. (2010). Contact theory: Too timid for “race” and racism. Journal of Social Issues, 66(2), 387–400. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1540- 4560. 2010. 01651.x. Erasmus, Z., & De Wet, J. (2003/2011). Not naming race: some medical students’ perceptions and experiences of ’race’ and racism at the Health Sciences Faculty of the University of Cape Town. Cape Town, South Africa: University of Cape Town. http:// hdl. handle. net/ 11427/ 7571. Evangelisches Werk für Diakonie und Entwicklung (2021). ELIA – Ehrenamt leben im Alltag [Volunteering in everyday life]. Retrieved from https:// www. diako niekenne nlern en. de/ proje kt/ eliaehren amtleben- imalltag/. Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 4(1), 1–26. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14792 77934 30000 04. Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford publications. 1917Intergroup Contact as a Potential Path to Neutralize the… 1 3 Holtz, P., Dahinden, J., & Wagner, W. (2013). German Muslims and the “integration debate”: Negotiating identities in the face of discrimination. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 47(2), 231–248. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12124- 012- 9227-6. Maddens, B., Billiet, J., & Beerten, R. (2000). National identity and the attitude towards foreigners in multi-national states: The case of Belgium. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 26(1), 45–60. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13691 83001 15633. Martinovic, B., & Verkuyten, M. (2012). Host national and religious identification among Turkish Muslims in Western Europe: The role of ingroup norms, perceived discrimination and value incompatibility. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 893–903. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ ejsp. 1900. Masson, C. N., & Verkuyten, M. (1993). Prejudice, ethnic identity, contact and ethnic group preferences among Dutch young adolescents. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23(2), 156–168. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1559- 1816. 1993. tb010 58.x. Miller-Idriss, C. (2006). Everyday understandings of citizenship in Germany. Citizenship Studies, 10(5), 541–570. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13621 02060 09549 78. Orth, B., Broszkiewicz, A. & Schütte, A. (1996). Skalen zur sozialen Identität, Eigengruppen- Favorisierung und Ego-Stereotypisierung. [Scales for social identity, ingroup favouritism, and egostereotyping.] Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 17, 262–267. Pehrson, S., Vignoles, V. L., & Brown, R. (2009). National identification and anti-immigrant prejudice: Individual and contextual effects of national definitions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72(1), 24–38. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01902 72509 07200 104. Pehrson, S., Brown, R., & Zagefka, H. (2011). When does national identification lead to the rejection of immigrants? Cross-sectional and longitudinal evidence for the role of essentialist in-group definitions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 61–76. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1348/ 01446 6608X 288827. Pettigrew, T. F. (1997). Generalized Intergroup Contact Effects on Prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(2), 173–185. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01461 67297 232006. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0022- 3514. 90.5. 751. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(6), 922–934. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ ejsp. 504. Phinney, J. S. (1992). The multigroup ethnic identity measure: A new scale for use with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7(2), 156–176. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 07435 54892 72003. Schaefer, C. D., & Simon, B. (2017). Opportunities for immigrants’ acculturation and identification varieties. Political Psychology, 38(6), 959–975. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ pops. 12381. Smith, A. D. (1986). The Ethnic Origins of Nations. Basil Blackwell. Statistisches Bundesamt. (2020). Bevölkerung mit Migrationshintergrund: Ergebnisse des Mikrozensus 2019 [Population with immigration background: Results of the microcensus 2019]. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt. Retrieved from https:// www. desta tis. de/ DE/ Themen/ Gesel lscha ft- Umwelt/ Bevoe lker u ng/ Mig ra tion- Integ ration/ Publi katio nen/ Downl oads- Migra tion/ migra tions hinte rgrund- 20102 20197 004. html. Stephan, W. S., & Stephan, C. W. (2013). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 33–56). Psychology Press. Suleman, S., Garber, K. D., & Rutkow, L. (2018). Xenophobia as a determinant of health: An integrative review. Journal of Public Health Policy, 39, 407–423. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ s41271- 018- 0140-1. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (eds.), Organizational identity: A reader, 56, 33–47. Triandafyllidou, A. (2000). The political discourse on immigration in southern Europe: A critical analysis. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 10(5), 373–389. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ 1099- 1298(200009/ 10) 10:5% 3c373:: AIDCASP5 95% 3e3.0. CO;2-R. Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. Basil Blackwell. Wagner, J. (2021). Vielfalt gewinnt [diversity succeeds]. Retrieved from https:// www. deuts chland. de/ de/ topic/ leben/ diver sityvielf altin- unter nehmen. Weiss, H. (2003). A cross-national comparison of nationalism in Austria, the Czech and Slovac Republics, Hungary, and Poland. Political Psychology, 24(2), 377–401. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ 0162- 895X. 00332. 1918 P. Genkova et al. 1 3 Wetzels P., Enzmann D., Mecklenburg E. & Pfeiffer C. (1998). Gewalterfahrungen und Kriminalitätsfurcht von Schülerinnen und Schülern in Stuttgart. Kriminologisches Forschungsinstitut Niedersachen. Wigger, I. (2019). Anti-Muslim racism and the racialisation of sexual violence: ‘intersectional stereotyping’ in mass media representations of male Muslim migrants in Germany. Culture and Religion, 20(3), 248–271. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14755 610. 2019. 16586 09. Zambon, K. (2017). Negotiating new German identities: Transcultural comedy and the construction of pluralistic unity. Media, Culture & Society, 39(4), 552–567. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01634 43716 663640. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 1919Intergroup Contact as a Potential Path to Neutralize the…