Understanding Support for Diversity: The Role of Fundamental Beliefs

Petermann, Sören; Harris, Eloisa; Schönwälder, Karen Article — Published Version Understanding Support for Diversity: The Role of Fundamental Beliefs KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie Provided in Cooperation with: Springer Nature Suggested Citation: Petermann, Sören; Harris, Eloisa; Schönwälder, Karen (2025) : Understanding Support for Diversity: The Role of Fundamental Beliefs, KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, ISSN 1861-891X, Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, Wiesbaden, Vol. 77, Iss. 1, pp. 53-74, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-025-00997-z This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/323565 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. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.de ABHANDLUNGEN https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-025-00997-z Köln Z Soziol (2025) 77:53–74 Understanding Support for Diversity: The Role of Fundamental Beliefs Sören Petermann · Eloisa Harris · Karen Schönwälder Received: 8 May 2024 / Accepted: 18 March 2025 / Published online: 8 May 2025 © The Author(s) 2025 Abstract Understanding popular responses to immigration and sociocultural diversification is an important concern. Sometimes they are seen as key to a new cleavage dividing democratic societies. Previous research has often focused on attitudes towards levels and types of new migration, and mainly analysed hostility towards immigration. Yet European societies have also accommodated sociocultural diversification resulting from decades of immigration. How can we understand the support for such diversity? In this paper, we argue that such positivity towards diversity, or diversity assent, is associated with fundamental beliefs about the development of society. Employing novel data from a survey of around 3000 residents of German cities and multiple statistical techniques, we demonstrate that multiple dimensions of diversity assent are associated with specific fundamental beliefs, but not quite in the way one might expect. Importantly, egalitarian and pro-diversity beliefs are not in conflict but are positively associated. The most important basis of diversity assent is humanitarianism, a belief that captures not only a willingness to help the needy but also a general orientation towards an inclusive society. By disentangling the relationship between underlying beliefs and attitudes towards different dimensions Online Appendix: www.kzfss.uni-koeln.de/sites/kzfss/pdf/Petermann-et-al.pdf S. Petermann Faculty of Social Science, Ruhr-University Bochum Universitätsstraße 150, 44801 Bochum, Germany E-Mail: [email protected] E. Harris Swiss Graduate School of Public Administration, University of Lausanne 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland E-Mail: [email protected] K. Schönwälder Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity Hermann-Föge-Weg 11, 37073 Göttingen, Germany E-Mail: [email protected] K 54 S. Petermann et al. of diversity support, the paper contributes to a better understanding of responses to societal diversification and the ways they are interlinked with more general social developments. Keywords Migration · Sociocultural cleavage · Humanitarianism · Egalitarianism · Self-interest Warum Vielfalt befürwortet wird: Zur Bedeutung grundlegender Überzeugungen Zusammenfassung Reaktionen der Bevölkerung auf Einwanderung und soziokulturelle Diversifizierung besser zu verstehen, ist ein wichtiges Anliegen. Manche Beobachter sehen hier den Schlüssel für die Herausbildung einer neuen Spaltungslinie in demokratischen Gesellschaften. Die Forschung hat sich bislang vorrangig mit Einstellungen zu Ausmaß und Arten zukünftiger Migration befasst und dabei insbesondere feindselige Haltungen untersucht. Europäische Gesellschaften haben aber seit Jahrzehnten Einwanderungsprozesse verarbeitet und eine soziokulturelle Diversifizierung erlebt. Wie können wir die Akzeptanz und Wertschätzung dieser gesellschaftlichen Vielfalt erklären? Dieser Artikel argumentiert, dass solche positiven Haltungen, diversity assent, mit grundlegenden Überzeugungen zur Entwicklung der Gesellschaft zusammenhängen. Gestützt auf die Auswertung neuer Daten aus einer Befragung von ca. 3000 Bewohnerinnen und Bewohnern deutscher Städte, für die unterschiedliche statistische Verfahren genutzt werden, zeigen wir, dass die Akzeptanz von Diversität mit bestimmten grundlegenden Überzeugungen zusammenhängt – allerdings nicht ganz so, wie man erwarten könnte. Egalitäre und Pro-Diversitätsüberzeugungen widersprechen sich nicht, sondern sind positiv assoziiert. Die wichtigste Grundlage der Akzeptanz von Diversität sind humanitäre Überzeugungen, die nicht nur den Willen umfassen, Bedürftigen zu helfen, sondern eine allgemeinere Befürwortung einer inklusiven Gesellschaft zum Ausdruck bringen. Indem er die Beziehung zwischen Diversitätseinstellungen und grundlegenden Überzeugungen klärt, trägt der Artikel zu einem besseren Verständnis von Reaktionen auf gesellschaftliche Diversifizierungsprozesse und deren Verknüpfung mit allgemeineren sozialen Entwicklungen bei. Schlüsselwörter Zuwanderung · Soziokulturelle Spaltungslinie · Humanitarismus · Egalitarismus · Eigeninteresse 1 Introduction Sociodemographic and sociocultural diversity have come to define many industrialised societies. In European countries, much scholarly, media, and political attention has been paid to the question of how residents perceive, respond to, or accept diversity in their societies. Some studies have pointed to a contentious or polarising K Understanding Support for Diversity: The Role of Fundamental Beliefs 55 nature of, in particular, immigration and migration-related diversity, suggesting that society is divided between proand anti-immigrant publics. As Hutter and Kriesi (2021, p. 1) maintain, “conflicts over immigration are part and parcel of a new structuring divide in European societies and politics”, based on values, beliefs, and identity, rather than class or income groups. Other scholars, however, have voiced doubts as to whether, indeed, such a new and clearly distinct divide has emerged across different countries (Mau et al. 2023; Teney and Rupieper 2023). The question of whether and how attitudes to diversity and immigration are systematically linked with more fundamental orientations towards the development of society is at the centre of controversies about the nature of a changing political space. Yet empirical studies often underestimate the role of such fundamental beliefs vis-àvis the commonly tested sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics. Further, where general beliefs are addressed, we find divergent expectations regarding the beliefs that align with attitudes to diversity. This is illustrated by conflicting arguments in the literature that sometimes portray support for diversity as superficial, potentially promoting market liberalism, quick profit, and individualism, and as contradicting egalitarian and antiracist objectives (Aquino et al. 2022, pp. 268, 273; Ahmed 2007). Others associate diversity with cosmopolitanism, humanitarian aims, and equal participation (see Vertovec 2012, pp. 305–307; Zick and Küpper 2010, pp. 62–63). The ways in which attitudes to diversity are linked with important general orientations and lines of conflict are described rather differently. Given this unsatisfactory knowledge and understanding of the phenomenon, scholars have called for research contributing to a deeper understanding of support for diversity and an inclusive society (Ivarsflaten and Sniderman 2022, p. 146; see also Dennison and Geddes 2019;Newmanetal.2013). We respond to such calls and target the following question: In what ways are attitudes to diversity and specific fundamental beliefs systematically linked, if at all? In this article, we focus on attitudes towards diversity and related policies, henceforth, “diversity assent”, which allows for our theoretical framework to distinguish between different dimensions of support for diversity. We operationalise diversity attitudes using the concept of diversity assent, a two-dimensional concept between (a) positive views of societal diversity and (b) desirable consequences for institutions and the distribution of resources (Harris et al. 2024). Further, we follow scholarship that argues for a distinction of broader beliefs or values and attitudes (Davidov et al. 2020; Bandelow 2015;Kriesi2010). As “fundamental beliefs”, we depict more general guiding principles of how society should be. Drawing from previous literature, we derive expectations about the effect of four key fundamental beliefs on attitudes towards diversity: humanitarianism, traditionalism, egalitarianism, and self-interest. Crucially, we expect different effects across the four fundamental beliefs and the two diversity assent dimensions. We tested these differences using data from a telephone survey (redacted), covering around 3000 residents of German cities in 2019–2020. Running bivariate and multivariate analyses, we find that diversity assent is certainly associated with specific fundamental beliefs, but not quite in the way one might expect. Humanitarian, nontraditionalist, and egalitarian beliefs are influential to different degrees, suggesting that the subsuming of diversity attitudes into a “sociocultural” axis, juxtaposing K 56 S. Petermann et al. a distributive one, is misleading (see also Mau et al. 2023). The most important basis of diversity assent, however, is what is commonly understood as humanitarianism, apparently a belief that captures not only a willingness to help those in need but a general orientation towards an inclusive society. Egalitarianism, conceptualised as distribution related, apparently does not to the same extent convey this general sense of inclusivity. This article contributes to existing scholarship in several ways: The paper contextualises diversity support in debates in political sociology regarding the role of values and beliefs in structuring the political space. Our analysis helps us better understand popular support for diversity and its systematic foundations, a key issue for the development of inclusive societies. 2 Previous Scholarship and Theoretical Assumptions This paper examines the foundations of individual attitudes to sociocultural diversity. It draws from a broad scholarship holding values and core or fundamental beliefs as distinct from attitudes. This hierarchical structure of individuals’ views enables the more general to be divided from the specific and, likewise, the more durable from the more situational (Abels 2019; Dalton and Welzel 2014; Rokeach 1973; Hitlin and Piliavin 2004, pp. 360–361; Davidov et al. 2008b; Jenkins-Smith et al. 2014, p. 484). Terminologies differ somewhat for what we call “fundamental beliefs”, ranging from “social preferences” (Emmenegger and Klemmensen 2013, p. 227) and “normative orientations” (Hülle et al. 2018) to “justice judgements” (Liebig 2002), but the general intention is similar across different scholarly traditions. For example, scholars linked with the Advocacy Coalition Framework refer to “core beliefs” as an “abstract core of general aims and perceptions” (Bandelow 2015, p. 310, translated by the authors), which are resistant to change, apply across policy domains, and reflect a “deeply held personal philosophy” (Jenkins-Smith et al. 2014, p. 485; see also Converse 2006). Other scholars argue that views on more “general” principles such as equality or tradition are separate from those on more “transient political issues of the day” that express favourable or nonfavourable responses to more immediate challenges and situations (Hitlin and Piliavin 2004, pp. 360–361; Heath et al. 1993, p. 115). Davidov et al. (2008a, p. 421) suggest that “[v]alues may enable people to organize their political evaluations in a relatively consistent manner; they may provide a general structure to political attitudes”. Similarly, Heath et al. (1993, p. 115) suggest that individuals adopt a stance towards “general moral and political principles like equality” and that such “enduring core beliefs can account in part for the individual’s attitudes towards the more transient political issues of the day”. In sum, fundamental beliefs are distinct from attitudes in that they are more general, are stable across situations and over time, and serve as “evaluative standards” (Bayram 2015, p. 453). In the field of immigration attitudes, many antecedent studies focus on sociodemographic and socioeconomic variables, such as education level, class, migration background, and occupational status in their explanations of attitudes, sometimes alongside selected political views but without systematically distinguishing fundaK Understanding Support for Diversity: The Role of Fundamental Beliefs 57 mental beliefs from attitudes (for a recent overview of political science research, see Dražanová 2022, pp. 90–93). Yet recent research has argued for relative stability of individual immigration attitudes (Kustov et al. 2021), as they tend to be underpinned by slower-changing belief systems. A number of studies have thus addressed the relationship between values or core beliefs on the one hand and attitudes towards immigration on the other: Using the “Schwarz values scale” in the European Social Survey (see Davidov et al. 2008b, p. 585), Davidov et al. have assumed two “unified values” of “self-transcendence” (universalism, benevolence) and “conservation” (security, conformity, tradition) and studied to what extent they underlie certain immigration attitudes (Davidov and Meuleman 2012; Davidov et al. 2014). Whereas self-transcendence and universalism predict pro-immigration attitudes, conservation values predict anti-immigration attitudes, even beyond the power of most sociodemographic variables (Davidov and Meuleman 2012, p. 767). Others refer to values or beliefs such as “humanitarianism”, which increases opposition to restrictive immigration policies and support for government programmes that support immigrants or specifically refugees (Newman et al. 2013, p. 603; Leong and Ward 2006;Fraser and Murakami 2022). Eisentraut (2019) demonstrated reciprocal longitudinal effects of values and attitudes towards minorities. Altogether, while the importance of fundamental beliefs or values has been demonstrated, definitions of the influential core beliefs or values are not uniform across these studies. For example, some authors include egalitarian values in universalism (Davidov et al. 2014), whereas others see values regarding equality as linked with national membership, not universal humanity (Kymlicka 2015). This makes it difficult to compare and conclude the effect of beliefs across studies. Other relevant literature suggests that beliefs and attitudes are not only related but are consumed within a new sociocultural cleavage in political competition. This cleavage divides society along two poles between “cosmopolitanism” and “communitarianism”, or “universalism” and “particularism”, or “authoritarian” and “libertarian” (Bornschier 2010; Hooghe and Marks 2018, p. 123; Kriesi 2010, p. 683). Here, views on immigration and diversity are seen as crucial, along with others on globalisation, gender issues, and cultural liberalism/tradition, for structuring electoral conflict. “Cutting across the ‘old’ distributional axis, a cultural line of conflict with opposing libertarian and authoritarian values had come to structure the attitudes of voters” (Bornschier 2010, p. 421). Typical for this view is a dyadic picture, in which attitudes and beliefs form starkly distinct bundles (see Mau et al. 2023,p.13). Andreas Reckwitz (2017) also assumes alternative poles, which he calls “culturalisation regimes”, but does not necessarily understand them as political camps. Other scholars have argued against jumping to the conclusion that core beliefs “constitute an integrated ideology” (Heath et al. 1993, p. 116). Indeed, newer work that has aimed at disentangling assumed political polarisation along sociocultural issues shows that, for instance, attitudes towards gender equality and immigration have developed rather independently of each other (Caughey et al. 2019). Mau et al. (2023) also criticise a picture of two opposed-opinion syndromes and, instead, distinguish four sites or arenas of conflict, with migration/inclusion and identity/ recognition sorted into different sites. These studies call into question the analytical leverage of “mega-dimensions” such as communitarianism and cosmopolitanism. We K 58 S. Petermann et al. engage with this critique of the cleavages literature and investigate the links between distinct beliefs and attitudes in the remainder of this paper. We focus specifically on diversity, that is, sociocultural heterogeneity and its consequences, not solely immigration. Furthermore, we argue that it is useful to distinguish different dimensions of support for diversity. We first present our concept of “diversity assent” and then introduce our theoretical expectations of which beliefs underpin such support for diversity. 2.1 Conceptualising Diversity Assent We use a conceptualisation of diversity assent developed elsewhere (Harris et al. 2024). Following other scholars’ work on related concepts (Hjerm et al. 2020; Knight and Brinton 2017), we understand the concept as multidimensional. Thus, we conceptualise assent in different forms, rather than as “less” versus “more”. More precisely, diversity assent is defined as a certain set of attitudes capturing positive views of the sociocultural heterogeneity of the social environment and support for adjusting institutions and resource allocations in light of such heterogeneity. We denote, first, evaluation assent, namely, the evaluation of diversity as affecting society and individuals, assuming that individuals evaluate how diversity affects their environment and lives and that they thereby form perceptions of existing diversity and its effects as positive, neutral, or negative. Second, to capture assent to possible consequences of sociocultural diversity, such as the reflection of diversity in institutions and in the allocation of societal resources, we introduce participation assent. This group of attitudes pertains to supporting the reflection of sociocultural diversity of society in its institutions, politics, and public sphere (and may exist regardless of individuals’ general evaluation of diversity). Theoretically, we assume that the determinants of the two diversity dimensions may differ. In this analysis, we tend to capture attitudes to diversity in general and to immigration-related diversity. 2.2 Conceptualising Diversity-Relevant Fundamental Beliefs This paper tests whether and in what ways assent to diversity is associated with “fundamental beliefs”. We use this term here to avoid confusion with existing specific conceptualisations of human values or core beliefs. It refers to general views regarding the development of society and the direction of politics (similar to Hülle et al. 2018). We derive our theoretical framework from a broad range of literature, including scholarship on immigration attitudes and underlying beliefs, the cleavages literature, and also literature on cosmopolitanism, humanitarianism, and value change. From this literature, we identified beliefs assumed to matter for views on societal diversity. We integrated our understanding of diversity into these discussions to disentangle which fundamental beliefs are important, and why, in the theoretical framework. Following widespread practice in the scholarly literature, we assume that humanitarianism informs attitudes to social diversity. Humanitarianism is a common and widely applied concept, understood as a pro-social orientation that emphasises seeing people as fellow human beings, and it includes responsibilities towards those K Understanding Support for Diversity: The Role of Fundamental Beliefs 59 Table 1 Hypothesised associations of fundamental beliefs and diversity assent Evaluation assent Participation assent Humanitarianism + ? Traditionalism – – Egalitarianism ? + Self-interest + – in need (Newman et al. 2013, p. 585; Feldman and Steenbergen 2001a, p. 370). It has been defined as “the belief that people have responsibilities towards their fellow human beings and should come to the assistance of others in need” (Feldman and Steenbergen 2001b, p. 659). In parts of the literature, the terms universalism or cosmopolitanism are preferred to humanitarianism (e.g. Vertovec and Cohen 2002; Mau et al. 2008). Conceptualisations of the three terms somewhat overlap. Thus, the definition of cosmopolitanism used by Mau et al. (2008, p. 2) includes “the approval of political responsibility at the supranational and global level”. Following Martha Nussbaum (see Lamont and Aksartova 2002, p. 2), we define cosmopolitanism as “moral commitment to universals”. However, as the concept often includes attitudes to diversity (pointedly in the definition used by Inglehart and Norris 2016,p.7), 1 using it risks conflating the two concepts. Conceptualisations of universalism, e.g. by Lipset (1963, p. 209),2may include egalitarian elements, while we intend to separate humanitarian and egalitarian views. Thus, to avoid conflating concepts, we theorise solely on the relationship between humanitarianism, grounded in a concern for the welfare of fellow human beings and a belief in personal and societal responsibility for helping those in need (Barnett 2011, p. 11), and diversity assent. Concern for those in need, regardless of nationality, in theory should be associated with openness regardless of differences, thus positively related to the evaluation dimension of diversity assent. However, participation assent regards attitudes that go beyond helping the weak or those in need. Equal rights for disadvantaged groups to participate in political, economic, and social life are in theory unrelated to attitudes towards openness. We thus do not have firm expectations regarding the association of humanitarian beliefs and participation assent (for a full overview of our theoretical expectations, see Table 1). Second, in different ways, various literature suggests a central belief around a high regard for homogeneity and continuity. In the literature on “cleavages”, for instance, the opposing pole to “universalist” and “humanitarian” values is “traditionalism” or “demarcation”, in which the “particular”, such as national customs or culture, is preferred to the “universal” (Kriesi 2010). We follow previous scholarship and assume an importance of traditionalism for diversity assent. Traditionalism implies adherence to sociocultural patterns of thought and behaviour supposedly inherited from prior generations, guaranteeing social stability and security. In the literature, 1They define cosmopolitanism as “the value of open national borders, shared multicultural values, diversity of peoples and lifestyles in outward-looking and inclusive societies”. 2Lipset juxtaposed universalism, meaning that all people should be treated according to the same standard, and particularism, meaning they should be treated according to their qualities or group membership. See also Lamont and Aksartova (2002), Note 4, for a helpful summary of different definitions. K 60 S. Petermann et al. the term “particularism” is sometimes used in a related sense (e.g. Häusermann and Kriesi 2015), which relates to the prioritisation of national to non-national, of the culturally defined national in-group to the other. In order to keep immigrationrelated aspects separate, we define traditionalism first and foremost as an aversion to change; a traditionalist fundamental belief is characterised by worries about change and a preference for retaining traditions. We theorise that societal diversification may be perceived as a threat to cultural unity and as endangering tradition and an established order. We expect a strong traditionalist fundamental belief to reduce the likelihood of pro-diversity attitudes, both in terms of evaluation and participation assent, as neither the appreciation of diversity nor the extension of participation for disadvantaged groups aligns well with traditionalist views of how society should be. Third, beyond humanitarianism and traditionalism, other beliefs regarding the just distribution of resources in society are potentially of high relevance for diversity assent, particularly participation assent: Support for extending political, economic, and social participation to disadvantaged groups is likely to be related to one’s understanding of a fair distribution of resources and the role of the state in it. Egalitarianism is a widely applied concept capturing a preference for redistribution, state intervention, and equality of both “outcomes” and “opportunities” (Feldman and Steenbergen 2001a, p. 373; see also Emmenegger and Klemmensen 2013; Hülle et al. 2018). This fundamental belief is characterised by support for state intervention in economic processes and an emphasis on equal life chances and outcomes—as distinct from a belief in the equality of people as human beings. Such a belief should thus align with the equal participation of people regardless of their diverse backgrounds. However, egalitarian and pro-welfare state beliefs are sometimes seen as potentially in conflict with openness to diversity, as solidarity may be reserved for established members of a community (Kymlicka 2015). Generally, the literature on the relationship between redistribution and immigration preferences suggests otherwise: In the most part, in Western Europe, support for redistribution and equality is correlated to preferences for extending rights to immigrants (Attewell 2020; Harris 2023). We expect strong egalitarian beliefs to support participation-related diversity attitudes. We do not see theoretical reasons to assume an association of egalitarian beliefs and the evaluation of diversity; theoretically, they may be associated both with a positive or a negative assessment of the effects of sociocultural heterogeneity. Finally, diversity assent may, as mentioned in the introduction, be associated with individual or group-level interest promotion: Personal pleasure and consumption may be important priorities for individuals holding such beliefs and lead them to support diversity, as it can potentially be seen as increasing choice and variety in the living environment. On the societal level, diversity might be appreciated because it fuels the country’s economic development. The concept of self-interest is therefore of use here, as this underlying belief captures normative evaluations in terms of rational utility for a specific society or the person concerned. Thus, an individual’s positive evaluation of diversity may be related to self-interested dispositions or to placing one’s priorities above others. On the other hand, calls for interventions to ensure more equal participation could run counter to a principle of individual effort and responsibility. We thus expect self-interest to be positively associated with evaluation assent, as the effects of diversification are perceived as positive, but not K Understanding Support for Diversity: The Role of Fundamental Beliefs 67 humanitarian belief traditionalist belief egalitarian belief self-interested belief age gender migration background education low equivalised income high equivalised income East Germany fundamental beliefs: controls: -.6 -.5 -.4 -.3 -.2 -.1 0.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 Fig. 3 Fundamental beliefs and evaluation assent (coefficients plot for regression model) Fig. 4 Fundamental beliefs and participation assent (coefficients plot for regression model) K 68 S. Petermann et al. Next, we use the same regression models to determine the relative importance of the fundamental beliefs by investigating the strength of their relationship with diversity assent.11 Humanitarian orientations have the strongest relationship with evaluation assent (adjusted R2=13.4%) and participation assent (adjusted R2=13.8%). Traditionalist beliefs follow in second place. Their influence on evaluation assent (adjusted R2=4.7%) and participation assent (adjusted R2=3.2%) is less than half as strong as that of humanitarian beliefs. The strength of the relationships of egalitarian beliefs to evaluation assent (adjusted R2=0.5%) and participation assent (adjusted R2=1.7%) are significantly weaker. Consistent with our expectations about the relationship between egalitarian beliefs and diversity attitudes, the strength of the relationship with participation assent is three times as strong as the strength of the relationship with evaluation assent. Finally, the strength of relationships of selfinterested beliefs to evaluation assent (adjusted R2=0.2%) and participation assent (adjusted R2=0.1%) is negligible. 4.3 Robustness Checks To test the robustness of the regression results, we carried out two additional analyses. First, we used multiple imputations of the missing values in the independent variables. Second, we calculated the two dependent variables of diversity assent with an alternative (nonadditive) index, which counteracts a potential tendency to agree with diversity attitudes for reasons of social desirability. Item nonresponse led to about 8% of cases missing in the regression models. In those models, missing values for the control variable income were already accounted for by a dummy variable for missing income data. Multiple imputations were calculated to estimate the robustness for all missing values of the independent variables, including the income variable. The two regression models12 for evaluation and participation assent were recalculated using these imputed values. When comparing the regressions with and without imputed values, the directions and strengths of the effects are largely consistent. In particular, the regression coefficients for fundamental beliefs are almost unchanged. However, with imputed values, the standard errors are better estimated, which means that regression coefficients are no longer significant in some cases. This applies in particular to the regression model of participation assent. In this case, the significant coefficients of the fundamental beliefs remain significant, but not the coefficients of the control variables (migration background, education, income). Thus, the effects of the relationships between fundamental beliefs and diversity assent, which are the focus of this study, remain even when imputed missing values are used. A second robustness test uses an alternative calculation of the indices for diversity assent. The background to this is the high approval ratings for the diversity attitudes, which can only be partially offset by the additive index. We take an approach in 11 To determine the strength of a relationship, we used the difference in adjusted R2between the full model and another model that excluded the respective fundamental belief (see the adjusted R2in Table A4 in the Online Appendix). 12 Results are not shown but are available from the authors on request. K Understanding Support for Diversity: The Role of Fundamental Beliefs 69 which negative attitudes towards at least one of the three items lead to a negative attitude in the index. We accept a lower variation in the index width and distinguish three groups: assenters, noncommitting, and dissenters, an approach we successfully used elsewhere (Harris et al. 2024). For evaluation assent, the share of assenters changes from 75%13 to 63% and the share of dissenters from 5%14 to 22%. For participation assent, the share of assenters drops from 61% to 49%, and the share of dissenters rises from 10% to 36%. By according more weight to negative answers, we may counteract a potential social desirability bias. Although the changes in the proportions for both independent variables are substantial, we find few differences when comparing the regression results. Deviations arise only in the strength but not in the direction or significance of the effects. The only exceptions are the regression coefficients of low income and region in the regression model of participation assent. With regard to the central relationships between fundamental beliefs and diversity assent, we have stable results with the second robustness check. 5 Discussion and Conclusion This article analysed in what ways attitudes to diversity are underpinned by more general fundamental beliefs regarding the development of society. Using the results of a survey of around 3000 inhabitants, we exploit a strong battery of items on sociocultural diversity to measure two dimensions of diversity assent—its evaluation as positive for society and individuals and the demand for equal participation. We follow previous scholarship in assuming that attitudes are underpinned by more fundamental beliefs regarding the development of society. Following mean comparison and regression analyses to investigate the relationship between selected fundamental beliefs and attitudes to diversity, our results can be summarised as follows. Our analyses confirmed that humanitarianism, traditionalism, and egalitarianism are systematically related to both the evaluation of societal diversity and to views about reflecting such diversity in a society’s institutions, controlling for sociodemographic factors. However, the ways in which humanitarianism and egalitarianism are linked to diversity attitudes are surprising on two counts. First, in line with previous scholarship showing the importance of humanitarian beliefs for helping refugees (Drouhot et al. 2023), our results show humanitarian beliefs as highly relevant for assent to diversity, both for evaluation and, unexpectedly, also for participation assent. Similar findings are present for egalitarianism, which is positively associated with both evaluation and participation assent. Traditionalism is negatively associated with support for both types of diversity, whereas self-interest is only negatively associated with evaluation assent and is nonrelated to participation assent. In contrast to assumptions popular in the political discourse, diversity assent in its evaluation dimension is only weakly associated with self-interested beliefs, convictions we see as related to individualist and egoistic liberalism. The common fear that stronger 13 Grouped values of the additive index from 32 3to 5. 14 Grouped values of the additive index from 1 to 21 3. K 70 S. Petermann et al. commitments to diversity are associated with market-liberal views and contradict egalitarian aims for participation assent seems unfounded. These results point to two separate conclusions with repercussions for studying attitudes towards diversity. The first is that humanitarianism is by far the strongest factor associated with assent to diversity. Not only the general evaluation of societal diversity but also attitudes about reflecting such diversity in a society’s institutions and public funding policy are particularly strongly linked with humanitarian beliefs. This general belief may be an underrated factor in the explanation of political beliefs and actions. Thus, in discussions of solidarity with refugees in Europe witnessed since their mass arrival in 2015–2016, humanitarian beliefs were sometimes dismissed as apolitical and superficial (see Drouhot et al. 2023). However, humanitarianism as measured with established items apparently appeals to solidarity among humans in a sense that includes aspects of participation, presence, and recognition—as in our participation dimension of diversity assent. It apparently captures not only a willingness to help the needy, but a general orientation towards an inclusive society. Second, the finding that egalitarianism is associated with participation assent—that is, assent to reflecting diversity in institutions and the distribution of public resources—confirms our expectations but also runs counter to a common juxtaposition of support for redistribution and assent to sociocultural diversity. Debates in political sociology regarding the juxtaposition of pro-diversity and proredistribution views, as suggested in the literature on multidimensional political competition (Kriesi 2010), are apparently misguided, or our findings at least suggest that the two dimensions of “cultural” and “economic” align more closely than is given credit. Both humanitarian and egalitarian beliefs align with diversity assent. Such assent is thus arguably founded in different convictions, which we argue is an important finding. There are a number of limitations to our findings: First, they are based on a representative sample of the population of German cities with at least 50,000 inhabitants. Our generalisations thus hold only for the urban population. Still, while the distributions of diversity assent and fundamental beliefs in the urban and rural population may differ, we see no theoretical reasons to assume that the ways in which such beliefs and attitudes on diversity are related would be any different. The latter may well be the case if, in different national or regional populations, humanitarianism or egalitarianism acquire other meanings. We are not aware of any research indicating that such differences exist between urban and more rural populations in Germany. Even though we were able to show in depth that some core beliefs are more strongly related to diversity attitudes than others, our cross-sectional survey is limited to correlation analyses. Whether core beliefs remain stable over time and thus underlie attitudes can be analysed only with panel data, and we encourage future researchers to engage in this endeavour. In sum, our study offers a contribution to the as yet little developed study of attitudes about diversity and of support for an inclusive society. The findings contribute to ongoing survey research in understanding attitudes towards diversity in modern societies, including different questions on attitudes towards diversity, not just immigration of “non-nationals”, as included in many studies. Future research K Understanding Support for Diversity: The Role of Fundamental Beliefs 71 can continue this agenda by including diversity attitudes—more systematically in established surveys alongside statements on fundamental beliefs. Our paper illustrates that, ultimately, diversity assent is underpinned by both humanitarianism and egalitarianism, importantly in both evaluation and participation assent. Acknowledgements We thank Lucas Drouhot, Margherita Cusmano, and Nicolas Fliess for their comments. Lucas Drouhot also played an important role in designing the survey. Further, Steven Vertovec contributed to the development of the study. Funding The study was funded by the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity. Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. Conflict of interest S. Petermann, E. Harris, and K. Schönwälder declare that they have no competing interests. Open Access Dieser Artikel wird unter der Creative Commons Namensnennung 4.0 International Lizenz veröffentlicht, welche die Nutzung, Vervielfältigung, Bearbeitung, Verbreitung und Wiedergabe in jeglichem Medium und Format erlaubt, sofern Sie den/die ursprünglichen Autor(en) und die Quelle ordnungsgemäß nennen, einen Link zur Creative Commons Lizenz beifügen und angeben, ob Änderungen vorgenommen wurden. Die in diesem Artikel enthaltenen Bilder und sonstiges Drittmaterial unterliegen ebenfalls der genannten Creative Commons Lizenz, sofern sich aus der Abbildungslegende nichts anderes ergibt. Sofern das betreffende Material nicht unter der genannten Creative Commons Lizenz steht und die betreffende Handlung nicht nach gesetzlichen Vorschriften erlaubt ist, ist für die oben aufgeführten Weiterverwendungen des Materials die Einwilligung des jeweiligen Rechteinhabers einzuholen. Weitere Details zur Lizenz entnehmen Sie bitte der Lizenzinformation auf http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/deed.de. References Abels, Heinz. 2019. Einführung in die Soziologie. Vol. 2. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Ahmed, Sara. 2007. The language of diversity. Ethnic and Racial Studies 30(2):235–256. Aquino, Kristine, Laavanya Kathiravelu and Emma Mitchell. 2022. Locating race in migration and diversity studies. In Introduction to Migration Studies, ed. Peter Scholten, 265–280. IMISCOE Research Series. Springer. Attewell, David. 2020. Deservingness perceptions, welfare state support and vote choice in Western Europe. West European Politics 44(3):611–634. Bandelow, Nils C. 2015. Advocacy Coalition Framework. In Handbuch Policy-Forschung,eds.Georg Wenzelburger and Reimut Zohlnhöfer, 305–324. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien. Barnett, Michael. 2011. Empire of Humanity: A History of Humanitarianism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Bayram, A. Burcu. 2015. What drives modern Diogenes? Individual values and cosmopolitan allegiance. European Journal of International Relations 21(2):451–479. Bornschier, Simon. 2010. The new cultural divide and the two-dimensional political space in Western Europe. West European Politics 33(3):419–444. Caughey, Devin, Tom O’Grady and Christopher Warshawn. 2019. Policy ideology in European mass publics, 1981–2016. American Political Science Review 113(3):674–693. Converse, Philip E. 2006. The nature of belief systems in mass publics (1964). Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 18:1–74. Dalton, Russell J., and Christian Welzel. 2014. The civic culture transformed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Davidov, Eldad, and Bart Meuleman. 2012. Explaining attitudes towards immigration policies in European countries: The role of human values. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 38:757–775. Davidov, Eldad, Peter Schmidt and Shalom H. Schwartz. 2008a. Bringing values back in: the adequacy of the European social survey to measure values in 20 countries. Public Opinion Quarterly 72:420–445. K 72 S. Petermann et al. Davidov, Eldad, Bart Meuleman, Jaak Billiet and Peter Schmidt. 2008b. Values and support for immigration: a cross-country comparison. European Sociological Review 24:583–599. Davidov, Eldad, Bart Meuleman, Shalom H. Schwartz and Peter Schmidt. 2014. Individual values, cultural embeddedness and anti-immigration sentiments: Explaining differences in the effect of values toward immigration across Europe. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 66:263–285. Davidov, Eldad, Daniel Seddig, Anastasia Gorodzeisky, Rebeca Raijman, Peter Schmidt and Moshe Semyonov. 2020. Direct and indirect predictors of opposition to immigration in Europe: individual values, cultural values, and symbolic threat. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 46(3):553–573. Dennison, James, and Andrew Geddes. 2019. A rising tide? The salience of immigration and the rise of anti-immigration political parties in Western Europe. The Political Quarterly 90:107–116. Dražanová, Lenka. 2022. Sometimes it is the little things: A meta-analysis of individual and contextual determinants of attitudes toward immigration (2009–2019). International Journal of Intercultural Relations 87:85–97. Drouhot, Lucas G., Sören Petermann, Karen Schönwälder and Steven Vertovec. 2021. The “Diversity Assent” (DivA) Survey – Technical Report. Working Papers WP 21-20. Göttingen: Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity. Drouhot, Lucas G., Karen Schönwälder, Sören Petermann and Steven Vertovec. 2023. Who supports refugees? Diversity assent and pro-refugee engagement in Germany. Comparative Migration Studies 11(1):4. Eisentraut, Marcus. 2019. Explaining attitudes toward minority groups with human values in Germany—What is the direction of causality? Social Science Research 84:102324. Emmenegger, Patrick, and Robert Klemmensen. 2013. What motivates you? The relationship between preferences for redistribution and attitudes toward immigration. Comparative Politics 45(2):227–246. Feldman, Stanley, and Marco Steenbergen. 2001a. Social welfare attitudes and the humanitarian sensibility. In Citizens and Politics. Perspectives from Political Psychology, ed. James H. Kuklinski, 366–400. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Feldman, Stanley, and Marco Steenbergen. 2001b. The humanitarian foundation of public support for social welfare. American Journal of Political Science 45:658–677. Fraser, Nicholas A. R., and Go Murakami. 2022. The role of humanitarianism in shaping public attitudes toward refugees. Political Psychology 43:255–275. Harris, Eloisa. 2023. Educational divides and class coalitions: How mainstream party voters divide and unite over immigration issues. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 49(17):4481–4500. Harris, Eloisa, Karen Schönwälder, Sören Petermann and Steven Vertovec. 2024. Diversity assent: conceptualisation and an empirical application. Ethnic and Racial Studies 47(15):3212–3236. Häusermann, Silja, and Hanspeter Kriesi. 2015. What do voters want? Dimensions and configurations in individual-level preferences and party choice. In The Politics of Advanced Capitalism, eds. Pablo Beramendi, Silja Häusermann, Herbert Kitschelt and Hanspeter Kriesi, 202–230. New York: Cambridge University Press. Heath, Anthony, Geoffrey Evans and Jean Martin. 1993. The measurement of core beliefs and values: The development of balanced socialist/laissez faire and libertarian/authoritarian scales. British Journal of Political Science 24:115–132. Hitlin, Steven, and Jane Allyn Piliavin. 2004. Values: reviving a dormant concept. Annual Review of Sociology 30:359–393. Hjerm, Mikael, Maureen A. Eger, Andrea Bohman and Filip Fors Connolly. 2020. A new approach to the study of tolerance: Conceptualizing and measuring acceptance, respect, and appreciation of difference. Social Indicators Research 147(3):897–919. Hooghe, Liesbet, and Gary Marks. 2018. Cleavage theory meets Europe’s crises: Lipset, Rokkan, and the transnational cleavage. Journal of European Public Policy 25(1):109–135. Hülle, Sebastian, Stefan Liebig and Meike Janina May. 2018. Measuring attitudes toward distributive justice: The Basic Social Justice Orientations Scale. Social Indicators Research 136:663–692. Hutter, Swen, and Hanspeter Kriesi. 2021. Politicising immigration in times of crisis. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 48(2):1–25. Inglehart, Ronald F., and Pippa Norris. 2016. Trump, Brexit, and the rise of populism: Economic have-nots and cultural backlash. Faculty Research Working Paper Series. Harvard Kennedy School Cambridge, Mass. Ivarsflaten, Elisabeth, and Paul M. Sniderman. 2022. The struggle for inclusion: Muslim minorities and the democratic ethos. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. K Understanding Support for Diversity: The Role of Fundamental Beliefs 73 Jenkins-Smith, Hank, Carol L. Silva, Kuhika Gupta and Joseph T. Ripberger. 2014. Belief system continuity and change in policy advocacy coalitions: Using cultural theory to specify belief systems, coalitions, and sources of change. Policy Studies Journal 42:484–508. Jolliffe, I.T. 2002. Principal component analysis. New York: Springer. Knight, Carly R., and Mary C. Brinton. 2017. One egalitarianism or several? Two decades of gender-role attitude change in Europe. American Journal of Sociology 122(5):1485–1532. Kriesi, Hanspeter. 2010. Restructuration of partisan politics and the emergence of a new cleavage based on values. West European Politics 33(3):673–685. Kustov, Alexander, Dillon Laaker and Cassidy Reller. 2021. The Stability of Immigration Attitudes: Evidence and Implications. Journal of Politics 83(4):1478–1494. Kymlicka, Will. 2015. Solidarity in diverse societies: beyond neoliberal multiculturalism and welfare chauvinism. Comparative Migration Studies 3(17):1–19. Lamont, Michèle, and Sada Aksartova. 2002. Ordinary cosmopolitanisms. Strategies for bridging racial boundaries among working-class men. Theory, Culture & Society 19(4):1–25. Leong, Chan-Hoong, and Colleen Ward. 2006. Cultural values and attitudes toward immigrants and multiculturalism: The case of the Eurobarometer survey on racism and xenophobia. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30:799–810. Liebig, Stefan. 2002. Gerechtigkeitseinstellungen und Gerechtigkeitsurteile. Zur Unterscheidung zweier Urteilskategorien. In Interdisziplinäre Gerechtigkeitsforschung, eds. Stefan Liebig and Holger Lengfeld, 77–102. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus. Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1963. The first new nation. The United States in historical and comparative perspective. New York: Basic Books, INC. Mau, Steffen, Jan Mewes and Ann Zimmermann. 2008. Cosmopolitan attitudes through transnational social practices? Global Networks 8:1–24. Mau, Steffen, Thomas Lux and Linus Westheuser. 2023. Triggerpunkte. Konsens und Konflikt in der Gegenwartsgesellschaft. Berlin: Suhrkamp. Newman, Benjamin J., Todd K. Hartman, Patrick L. Lown and Stanley Feldman. 2013. Easing the heavy hand: Humanitarian concern, empathy, and opinion on immigration. British Journal of Political Science 45:583–607. Oyamot Jr., Clifton M., Emily L. Fisher, Grace Deason and Eugene Borgida. 2012. Attitudes toward immigrants: The interactive role of the authoritarian predisposition, social norms, and humanitarian values. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48:97–105. Reckwitz, Andreas. 2017. Die Gesellschaft der Singularitäten. Zum Strukturwandel der Moderne. Berlin: Suhrkamp. Rokeach, Milton. 1973. The nature of human values. New York, NY: Free Press. Shen, Fuyuan, and Heidi Hatfield Edwards. 2005. Economic individualism, humanitarianism, and welfare reform: A value-based account of framing effects. Journal of Communication 55:795–809. Teney, Céline, and Li Kathrin Rupieper. 2023. A new social conflict on globalisation-related issues in Germany? A longitudinal perspective. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 75:205–234. Vertovec, Steven. 2012. “Diversity” and the social imaginary. European Journal of Sociology 53(3):287–312. Vertovec, Steven, and Robin Cohen (eds.). 2002. Conceiving cosmopolitanism: Theory, context and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zick, Andreas, and Beate Küpper. 2010. Vorurteile und Toleranz von Vielfalt – von den Fallen alltäglicher Wahrnehmung. In Diversity – transkulturelle Kompetenz in klinischen und sozialen Handlungsfeldern, eds. Eva van Keuk, Cinur Ghaderi, Lijljana Joksimovic and Dagmar M. David, 54–65. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Sören Petermann Prof. Dr., Ruhr University Bochum. Research areas: urban sociology, migration, diversity, social networks. Publications:Diversity and Contact. Immigration and Social Interaction in German Cities. Basingstoke 2016 (with K. Schönwälder, J. Hüttermann, S. Vertovec, M. Hewstone, D. Stolle, K. Schmid and T. Schmitt); Migrant Organizations: Multifunctional and Flexible Providers of Social Protection and Welfare in Changing Societies. Special Issue of Social Sciences, 2024 (ed. with K. Barglowski and T. Schlee); Personal and Social Resources as Incentives for Local Political Protest. Sociological Quarterly, 2020. K 74 S. Petermann et al. Eloisa Harris Dr., postdoctoral researcher, University of Lausanne. Research areas: migration, social policy (public attitudes, electoral politics, policy reforms). Publications: The micro-foundations of social democratic welfare chauvinism and inclusion: class demand and policy reforms in Western Europe, 1980–2018. European Political Science Review, 2023 (with M. Enggist); Social protection for mobile populations? A global perspective on immigrant social rights. Social Policy & Administration 58, 2024 (with F. Römer and J. Henninger); Educational divides and class coalitions: How mainstream party voters divide and unite over immigration issues. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 2022. Karen Schönwälder Prof. Dr., Research group leader, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity, Göttingen. Research areas: migration, diversity, political sociology, political representation, organizations. Publications: Organisationaler Wandel durch Migration? Zur Diversität in der Zivilgesellschaft. Bielefeld 2022 (ed. with H. von Unger, H. Baykara-Krumme and S. Karakayali); The immigrant presence in collaborative structures of urban politics. Governance 35, 2022 (with M. Moutselos); Diversity in local political practice. Special Issue Ethnic and Racial Studies 43, 2020, as book: London 2021. K