Pe e mann, Sö en; Ha is, Eloisa; Schönwälde , Ka en
A icle — Published Ve sion
Unde s anding Suppo o Di e si y: The Role o
Fundamen al Belie s
KZ SS Kölne Zei sch i ü Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
Sp inge Na u e
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Pe e mann, Sö en; Ha is, Eloisa; Schönwälde , Ka en (2025) : Unde s anding
Suppo o Di e si y: The Role o Fundamen al Belie s, KZ SS Kölne Zei sch i ü Soziologie und
Sozialpsychologie, ISSN 1861-891X, Sp inge Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, Wiesbaden, Vol. 77,
Iss. 1, pp. 53-74,
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11577-025-00997-z
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/323565
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/deed.de
ABHANDLUNGEN
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11577-025-00997-z
Köln Z Soziol (2025) 77:53–74
Unde s anding Suppo o Di e si y:
The Role o Fundamen al Belie s
Sö en Pe e mann · Eloisa Ha is · Ka en Schönwälde
Recei ed: 8 May 2024 / Accep ed: 18 Ma ch 2025 / Published online: 8 May 2025
© The Au ho (s) 2025
Abs ac Unde s anding popula esponses o immig a ion and sociocul u al di e -
si ica ion is an impo an conce n. Some imes hey a e seen as key o a new clea age
di iding democ a ic socie ies. P e ious esea ch has o en ocused on a i udes o-
wa ds le els and ypes o new mig a ion, and mainly analysed hos ili y owa ds
immig a ion. Ye Eu opean socie ies ha e also accommoda ed sociocul u al di e si-
ica ion esul ing om decades o immig a ion. How can we unde s and he suppo
o such di e si y? In his pape , we a gue ha such posi i i y owa ds di e si y, o
di e si y assen , is associa ed wi h undamen al belie s abou he de elopmen o
socie y. Employing no el da a om a su ey o a ound 3000 esiden s o Ge man
ci ies and mul iple s a is ical echniques, we demons a e ha mul iple dimensions
o di e si y assen a e associa ed wi h speci ic undamen al belie s, bu no qui e in
he way one migh expec . Impo an ly, egali a ian and p o-di e si y belie s a e no
in con lic bu a e posi i ely associa ed. The mos impo an basis o di e si y assen
is humani a ianism, a belie ha cap u es no only a willingness o help he needy
bu also a gene al o ien a ion owa ds an inclusi e socie y. By disen angling he
ela ionship be ween unde lying belie s and a i udes owa ds di e en dimensions
Online Appendix: www.kz ss.uni-koeln.de/si es/kz ss/pd /Pe e mann-e -al.pd
S. Pe e mann
Facul y o Social Science, Ruh -Uni e si y Bochum
Uni e si ä ss aße 150, 44801 Bochum, Ge many
E-Mail: soe en.pe e mann@ ub.de
E. Ha is
Swiss G adua e School o Public Adminis a ion, Uni e si y o Lausanne
1015 Lausanne, Swi ze land
E-Mail: eloisa.ha [email protected]
K. Schönwälde
Max Planck Ins i u e o he S udy o Religious and E hnic Di e si y
He mann-Föge-Weg 11, 37073 Gö ingen, Ge many
E-Mail: schoenwaelde @mmg.mpg.de
K
54 S. Pe e mann e al.
o di e si y suppo , he pape con ibu es o a be e unde s anding o esponses o
socie al di e si ica ion and he ways hey a e in e linked wi h mo e gene al social
de elopmen s.
Keywo ds Mig a ion · Sociocul u al clea age · Humani a ianism · Egali a ianism ·
Sel -in e es
Wa um Viel al be ü wo e wi d: Zu Bedeu ung g undlegende
Übe zeugungen
Zusammen assung Reak ionen de Be ölke ung au Einwande ung und soziokul-
u elle Di e si izie ung besse zu e s ehen, is ein wich iges Anliegen. Manche
Beobach e sehen hie den Schlüssel ü die He ausbildung eine neuen Spal ungs-
linie in demok a ischen Gesellscha en. Die Fo schung ha sich bislang o angig
mi Eins ellungen zu Ausmaß und A en zukün ige Mig a ion be ass und dabei
insbesonde e eindselige Hal ungen un e such . Eu opäische Gesellscha en haben
abe sei Jah zehn en Einwande ungsp ozesse e a bei e und eine soziokul u elle
Di e si izie ung e leb . Wie können wi die Akzep anz und We schä zung diese
gesellscha lichen Viel al e klä en? Diese A ikel a gumen ie , dass solche posi-
i en Hal ungen, di e si y assen , mi g undlegenden Übe zeugungen zu En wick-
lung de Gesellscha zusammenhängen. Ges ü z au die Auswe ung neue Da en
aus eine Be agung on ca. 3000 Bewohne innen und Bewohne n deu sche S äd-
e, ü die un e schiedliche s a is ische Ve ah en genu z we den, zeigen wi , dass
die Akzep anz on Di e si ä mi bes imm en g undlegenden Übe zeugungen zu-
sammenhäng – alle dings nich ganz so, wie man e wa en könn e. Egali ä e und
P o-Di e si ä sübe zeugungen wide sp echen sich nich , sonde n sind posi i as-
soziie . Die wich igs e G undlage de Akzep anz on Di e si ä sind humani ä e
Übe zeugungen, die nich nu den Willen um assen, Bedü igen zu hel en, sonde n
eine allgemeine e Be ü wo ung eine inklusi en Gesellscha zum Ausd uck b in-
gen. Indem e die Beziehung zwischen Di e si ä seins ellungen und g undlegenden
Übe zeugungen klä , äg de A ikel zu einem besse en Ve s ändnis on Reak-
ionen au gesellscha liche Di e si izie ungsp ozesse und de en Ve knüp ung mi
allgemeine en sozialen En wicklungen bei.
Schlüsselwö e Zuwande ung · Soziokul u elle Spal ungslinie ·
Humani a ismus · Egali a ismus · Eigenin e esse
1 In oduc ion
Sociodemog aphic and sociocul u al di e si y ha e come o de ine many indus i-
alised socie ies. In Eu opean coun ies, much schola ly, media, and poli ical a en ion
has been paid o he ques ion o how esiden s pe cei e, espond o, o accep di-
e si y in hei socie ies. Some s udies ha e poin ed o a con en ious o pola ising
K
Unde s anding Suppo o Di e si y: The Role o Fundamen al Belie s 55
na u e o , in pa icula , immig a ion and mig a ion- ela ed di e si y, sugges ing ha
socie y is di ided be ween p o- and an i-immig an publics. As Hu e and K iesi
(2021, p. 1) main ain, “con lic s o e immig a ion a e pa and pa cel o a new
s uc u ing di ide in Eu opean socie ies and poli ics”, based on alues, belie s, and
iden i y, a he han class o income g oups. O he schola s, howe e , ha e oiced
doub s as o whe he , indeed, such a new and clea ly dis inc di ide has eme ged
ac oss di e en coun ies (Mau e al. 2023; Teney and Rupiepe 2023).
The ques ion o whe he and how a i udes o di e si y and immig a ion a e sys-
ema ically linked wi h mo e undamen al o ien a ions owa ds he de elopmen o
socie y is a he cen e o con o e sies abou he na u e o a changing poli ical space.
Ye empi ical s udies o en unde es ima e he ole o such undamen al belie s is-à-
is he commonly es ed sociodemog aphic and socioeconomic cha ac e is ics. Fu -
he , whe e gene al belie s a e add essed, we ind di e gen expec a ions ega ding
he belie s ha align wi h a i udes o di e si y. This is illus a ed by con lic ing
a gumen s in he li e a u e ha some imes po ay suppo o di e si y as supe i-
cial, po en ially p omo ing ma ke libe alism, quick p o i , and indi idualism, and
as con adic ing egali a ian and an i acis objec i es (Aquino e al. 2022, pp. 268,
273; Ahmed 2007). O he s associa e di e si y wi h cosmopoli anism, humani a ian
aims, and equal pa icipa ion (see Ve o ec 2012, pp. 305–307; Zick and Küppe
2010, pp. 62–63). The ways in which a i udes o di e si y a e linked wi h impo -
an gene al o ien a ions and lines o con lic a e desc ibed a he di e en ly. Gi en
his unsa is ac o y knowledge and unde s anding o he phenomenon, schola s ha e
called o esea ch con ibu ing o a deepe unde s anding o suppo o di e si y
and an inclusi e socie y (I a s la en and Snide man 2022, p. 146; see also Dennison
and Geddes 2019;Newmane al.2013). We espond o such calls and a ge he
ollowing ques ion: In wha ways a e a i udes o di e si y and speci ic undamen al
belie s sys ema ically linked, i a all?
In his a icle, we ocus on a i udes owa ds di e si y and ela ed policies, hence-
o h, “di e si y assen ”, which allows o ou heo e ical amewo k o dis inguish
be ween di e en dimensions o suppo o di e si y. We ope a ionalise di e si y
a i udes using he concep o di e si y assen , a wo-dimensional concep be ween
(a) posi i e iews o socie al di e si y and (b) desi able consequences o ins i u ions
and he dis ibu ion o esou ces (Ha is e al. 2024). Fu he , we ollow schola ship
ha a gues o a dis inc ion o b oade belie s o alues and a i udes (Da ido e al.
2020; Bandelow 2015;K iesi2010). As “ undamen al belie s”, we depic mo e gen-
e al guiding p inciples o how socie y should be. D awing om p e ious li e a u e,
we de i e expec a ions abou he e ec o ou key undamen al belie s on a i udes
owa ds di e si y: humani a ianism, adi ionalism, egali a ianism, and sel -in e es .
C ucially, we expec di e en e ec s ac oss he ou undamen al belie s and he
wo di e si y assen dimensions.
We es ed hese di e ences using da a om a elephone su ey ( edac ed), co -
e ing a ound 3000 esiden s o Ge man ci ies in 2019–2020. Running bi a ia e and
mul i a ia e analyses, we ind ha di e si y assen is ce ainly associa ed wi h spe-
ci ic undamen al belie s, bu no qui e in he way one migh expec . Humani a ian,
non adi ionalis , and egali a ian belie s a e in luen ial o di e en deg ees, sugges -
ing ha he subsuming o di e si y a i udes in o a “sociocul u al” axis, jux aposing
K
56 S. Pe e mann e al.
a dis ibu i e one, is misleading (see also Mau e al. 2023). The mos impo an basis
o di e si y assen , howe e , is wha is commonly unde s ood as humani a ianism,
appa en ly a belie ha cap u es no only a willingness o help hose in need bu
a gene al o ien a ion owa ds an inclusi e socie y. Egali a ianism, concep ualised as
dis ibu ion ela ed, appa en ly does no o he same ex en con ey his gene al sense
o inclusi i y.
This a icle con ibu es o exis ing schola ship in se e al ways: The pape con-
ex ualises di e si y suppo in deba es in poli ical sociology ega ding he ole o
alues and belie s in s uc u ing he poli ical space. Ou analysis helps us be e
unde s and popula suppo o di e si y and i s sys ema ic ounda ions, a key issue
o he de elopmen o inclusi e socie ies.
2 P e ious Schola ship and Theo e ical Assump ions
This pape examines he ounda ions o indi idual a i udes o sociocul u al di e si y.
I d aws om a b oad schola ship holding alues and co e o undamen al belie s as
dis inc om a i udes. This hie a chical s uc u e o indi iduals’ iews enables he
mo e gene al o be di ided om he speci ic and, likewise, he mo e du able om
he mo e si ua ional (Abels 2019; Dal on and Welzel 2014; Rokeach 1973; Hi lin
and Pilia in 2004, pp. 360–361; Da ido e al. 2008b; Jenkins-Smi h e al. 2014,
p. 484). Te minologies di e somewha o wha we call “ undamen al belie s”,
anging om “social p e e ences” (Emmenegge and Klemmensen 2013, p. 227)
and “no ma i e o ien a ions” (Hülle e al. 2018) o “jus ice judgemen s” (Liebig
2002), bu he gene al in en ion is simila ac oss di e en schola ly adi ions. Fo
example, schola s linked wi h he Ad ocacy Coali ion F amewo k e e o “co e
belie s” as an “abs ac co e o gene al aims and pe cep ions” (Bandelow 2015,
p. 310, ansla ed by he au ho s), which a e esis an o change, apply ac oss policy
domains, and e lec a “deeply held pe sonal philosophy” (Jenkins-Smi h e al. 2014,
p. 485; see also Con e se 2006). O he schola s a gue ha iews on mo e “gene al”
p inciples such as equali y o adi ion a e sepa a e om hose on mo e “ ansien
poli ical issues o he day” ha exp ess a ou able o non a ou able esponses o
mo e immedia e challenges and si ua ions (Hi lin and Pilia in 2004, pp. 360–361;
Hea h e al. 1993, p. 115). Da ido e al. (2008a, p. 421) sugges ha “[ ]alues may
enable people o o ganize hei poli ical e alua ions in a ela i ely consis en manne ;
hey may p o ide a gene al s uc u e o poli ical a i udes”. Simila ly, Hea h e al.
(1993, p. 115) sugges ha indi iduals adop a s ance owa ds “gene al mo al and
poli ical p inciples like equali y” and ha such “endu ing co e belie s can accoun
in pa o he indi idual’s a i udes owa ds he mo e ansien poli ical issues o
he day”. In sum, undamen al belie s a e dis inc om a i udes in ha hey a e
mo e gene al, a e s able ac oss si ua ions and o e ime, and se e as “e alua i e
s anda ds” (Bay am 2015, p. 453).
In he ield o immig a ion a i udes, many an eceden s udies ocus on sociode-
mog aphic and socioeconomic a iables, such as educa ion le el, class, mig a ion
backg ound, and occupa ional s a us in hei explana ions o a i udes, some imes
alongside selec ed poli ical iews bu wi hou sys ema ically dis inguishing unda-
K
Unde s anding Suppo o Di e si y: The Role o Fundamen al Belie s 57
men al belie s om a i udes ( o a ecen o e iew o poli ical science esea ch,
see D ažano á 2022, pp. 90–93). Ye ecen esea ch has a gued o ela i e s abili y
o indi idual immig a ion a i udes (Kus o e al. 2021), as hey end o be unde -
pinned by slowe -changing belie sys ems. A numbe o s udies ha e hus add essed
he ela ionship be ween alues o co e belie s on he one hand and a i udes owa ds
immig a ion on he o he : Using he “Schwa z alues scale” in he Eu opean Social
Su ey (see Da ido e al. 2008b, p. 585), Da ido e al. ha e assumed wo “uni-
ied alues” o “sel - anscendence” (uni e salism, bene olence) and “conse a ion”
(secu i y, con o mi y, adi ion) and s udied o wha ex en hey unde lie ce ain im-
mig a ion a i udes (Da ido and Meuleman 2012; Da ido e al. 2014). Whe eas
sel - anscendence and uni e salism p edic p o-immig a ion a i udes, conse a ion
alues p edic an i-immig a ion a i udes, e en beyond he powe o mos sociode-
mog aphic a iables (Da ido and Meuleman 2012, p. 767). O he s e e o alues
o belie s such as “humani a ianism”, which inc eases opposi ion o es ic i e im-
mig a ion policies and suppo o go e nmen p og ammes ha suppo immig an s
o speci ically e ugees (Newman e al. 2013, p. 603; Leong and Wa d 2006;F ase
and Mu akami 2022). Eisen au (2019) demons a ed ecip ocal longi udinal e ec s
o alues and a i udes owa ds mino i ies. Al oge he , while he impo ance o un-
damen al belie s o alues has been demons a ed, de ini ions o he in luen ial co e
belie s o alues a e no uni o m ac oss hese s udies. Fo example, some au ho s
include egali a ian alues in uni e salism (Da ido e al. 2014), whe eas o he s see
alues ega ding equali y as linked wi h na ional membe ship, no uni e sal human-
i y (Kymlicka 2015). This makes i di icul o compa e and conclude he e ec o
belie s ac oss s udies.
O he ele an li e a u e sugges s ha belie s and a i udes a e no only ela ed
bu a e consumed wi hin a new sociocul u al clea age in poli ical compe i ion. This
clea age di ides socie y along wo poles be ween “cosmopoli anism” and “commu-
ni a ianism”, o “uni e salism” and “pa icula ism”, o “au ho i a ian” and “libe -
a ian” (Bo nschie 2010; Hooghe and Ma ks 2018, p. 123; K iesi 2010, p. 683).
He e, iews on immig a ion and di e si y a e seen as c ucial, along wi h o he s on
globalisa ion, gende issues, and cul u al libe alism/ adi ion, o s uc u ing elec-
o al con lic . “Cu ing ac oss he ‘old’ dis ibu ional axis, a cul u al line o con lic
wi h opposing libe a ian and au ho i a ian alues had come o s uc u e he a i udes
o o e s” (Bo nschie 2010, p. 421). Typical o his iew is a dyadic pic u e, in
which a i udes and belie s o m s a kly dis inc bundles (see Mau e al. 2023,p.13).
And eas Reckwi z (2017) also assumes al e na i e poles, which he calls “cul u ali-
sa ion egimes”, bu does no necessa ily unde s and hem as poli ical camps.
O he schola s ha e a gued agains jumping o he conclusion ha co e belie s
“cons i u e an in eg a ed ideology” (Hea h e al. 1993, p. 116). Indeed, newe wo k
ha has aimed a disen angling assumed poli ical pola isa ion along sociocul u al
issues shows ha , o ins ance, a i udes owa ds gende equali y and immig a ion
ha e de eloped a he independen ly o each o he (Caughey e al. 2019). Mau
e al. (2023) also c i icise a pic u e o wo opposed-opinion synd omes and, ins ead,
dis inguish ou si es o a enas o con lic , wi h mig a ion/inclusion and iden i y/
ecogni ion so ed in o di e en si es. These s udies call in o ques ion he analy ical
le e age o “mega-dimensions” such as communi a ianism and cosmopoli anism. We
K
58 S. Pe e mann e al.
engage wi h his c i ique o he clea ages li e a u e and in es iga e he links be ween
dis inc belie s and a i udes in he emainde o his pape . We ocus speci ically on
di e si y, ha is, sociocul u al he e ogenei y and i s consequences, no solely immi-
g a ion. Fu he mo e, we a gue ha i is use ul o dis inguish di e en dimensions
o suppo o di e si y. We i s p esen ou concep o “di e si y assen ” and hen
in oduce ou heo e ical expec a ions o which belie s unde pin such suppo o
di e si y.
2.1 Concep ualising Di e si y Assen
We use a concep ualisa ion o di e si y assen de eloped elsewhe e (Ha is e al.
2024). Following o he schola s’ wo k on ela ed concep s (Hje m e al. 2020;
Knigh and B in on 2017), we unde s and he concep as mul idimensional. Thus,
we concep ualise assen in di e en o ms, a he han as “less” e sus “mo e”. Mo e
p ecisely, di e si y assen is de ined as a ce ain se o a i udes cap u ing posi i e
iews o he sociocul u al he e ogenei y o he social en i onmen and suppo o
adjus ing ins i u ions and esou ce alloca ions in ligh o such he e ogenei y. We
deno e, i s , e alua ion assen , namely, he e alua ion o di e si y as a ec ing so-
cie y and indi iduals, assuming ha indi iduals e alua e how di e si y a ec s hei
en i onmen and li es and ha hey he eby o m pe cep ions o exis ing di e si y
and i s e ec s as posi i e, neu al, o nega i e. Second, o cap u e assen o possible
consequences o sociocul u al di e si y, such as he e lec ion o di e si y in ins i u-
ions and in he alloca ion o socie al esou ces, we in oduce pa icipa ion assen .
This g oup o a i udes pe ains o suppo ing he e lec ion o sociocul u al di e si y
o socie y in i s ins i u ions, poli ics, and public sphe e (and may exis ega dless
o indi iduals’ gene al e alua ion o di e si y). Theo e ically, we assume ha he
de e minan s o he wo di e si y dimensions may di e . In his analysis, we end
o cap u e a i udes o di e si y in gene al and o immig a ion- ela ed di e si y.
2.2 Concep ualising Di e si y-Rele an Fundamen al Belie s
This pape es s whe he and in wha ways assen o di e si y is associa ed wi h
“ undamen al belie s”. We use his e m he e o a oid con usion wi h exis ing spe-
ci ic concep ualisa ions o human alues o co e belie s. I e e s o gene al iews
ega ding he de elopmen o socie y and he di ec ion o poli ics (simila o Hülle
e al. 2018).
We de i e ou heo e ical amewo k om a b oad ange o li e a u e, including
schola ship on immig a ion a i udes and unde lying belie s, he clea ages li e a u e,
and also li e a u e on cosmopoli anism, humani a ianism, and alue change. F om
his li e a u e, we iden i ied belie s assumed o ma e o iews on socie al di e si y.
We in eg a ed ou unde s anding o di e si y in o hese discussions o disen angle
which undamen al belie s a e impo an , and why, in he heo e ical amewo k.
Following widesp ead p ac ice in he schola ly li e a u e, we assume ha hu-
mani a ianism in o ms a i udes o social di e si y. Humani a ianism is a common
and widely applied concep , unde s ood as a p o-social o ien a ion ha emphasises
seeing people as ellow human beings, and i includes esponsibili ies owa ds hose
K
Unde s anding Suppo o Di e si y: The Role o Fundamen al Belie s 59
Table 1 Hypo hesised associa-
ions o undamen al belie s and
di e si y assen
E alua ion assen Pa icipa ion assen
Humani a ianism + ?
T adi ionalism – –
Egali a ianism ? +
Sel -in e es + –
in need (Newman e al. 2013, p. 585; Feldman and S eenbe gen 2001a, p. 370). I
has been de ined as “ he belie ha people ha e esponsibili ies owa ds hei ellow
human beings and should come o he assis ance o o he s in need” (Feldman and
S eenbe gen 2001b, p. 659). In pa s o he li e a u e, he e ms uni e salism o
cosmopoli anism a e p e e ed o humani a ianism (e.g. Ve o ec and Cohen 2002;
Mau e al. 2008). Concep ualisa ions o he h ee e ms somewha o e lap. Thus, he
de ini ion o cosmopoli anism used by Mau e al. (2008, p. 2) includes “ he app o al
o poli ical esponsibili y a he sup ana ional and global le el”. Following Ma ha
Nussbaum (see Lamon and Aksa o a 2002, p. 2), we de ine cosmopoli anism as
“mo al commi men o uni e sals”. Howe e , as he concep o en includes a i udes
o di e si y (poin edly in he de ini ion used by Ingleha and No is 2016,p.7),
1
using i isks con la ing he wo concep s. Concep ualisa ions o uni e salism, e.g.
by Lipse (1963, p. 209),2may include egali a ian elemen s, while we in end o
sepa a e humani a ian and egali a ian iews. Thus, o a oid con la ing concep s, we
heo ise solely on he ela ionship be ween humani a ianism, g ounded in a con-
ce n o he wel a e o ellow human beings and a belie in pe sonal and socie al
esponsibili y o helping hose in need (Ba ne 2011, p. 11), and di e si y assen .
Conce n o hose in need, ega dless o na ionali y, in heo y should be associa ed
wi h openness ega dless o di e ences, hus posi i ely ela ed o he e alua ion di-
mension o di e si y assen . Howe e , pa icipa ion assen ega ds a i udes ha go
beyond helping he weak o hose in need. Equal igh s o disad an aged g oups o
pa icipa e in poli ical, economic, and social li e a e in heo y un ela ed o a i udes
owa ds openness. We hus do no ha e i m expec a ions ega ding he associa ion
o humani a ian belie s and pa icipa ion assen ( o a ull o e iew o ou heo e ical
expec a ions, see Table 1).
Second, in di e en ways, a ious li e a u e sugges s a cen al belie a ound a high
ega d o homogenei y and con inui y. In he li e a u e on “clea ages”, o ins ance,
he opposing pole o “uni e salis ” and “humani a ian” alues is “ adi ionalism”
o “dema ca ion”, in which he “pa icula ”, such as na ional cus oms o cul u e,
is p e e ed o he “uni e sal” (K iesi 2010). We ollow p e ious schola ship and
assume an impo ance o adi ionalism o di e si y assen . T adi ionalism implies
adhe ence o sociocul u al pa e ns o hough and beha iou supposedly inhe i ed
om p io gene a ions, gua an eeing social s abili y and secu i y. In he li e a u e,
1They de ine cosmopoli anism as “ he alue o open na ional bo de s, sha ed mul icul u al alues, di e -
si y o peoples and li es yles in ou wa d-looking and inclusi e socie ies”.
2Lipse jux aposed uni e salism, meaning ha all people should be ea ed acco ding o he same s anda d,
and pa icula ism, meaning hey should be ea ed acco ding o hei quali ies o g oup membe ship. See
also Lamon and Aksa o a (2002), No e 4, o a help ul summa y o di e en de ini ions.
K
60 S. Pe e mann e al.
he e m “pa icula ism” is some imes used in a ela ed sense (e.g. Häuse mann
and K iesi 2015), which ela es o he p io i isa ion o na ional o non-na ional, o
he cul u ally de ined na ional in-g oup o he o he . In o de o keep immig a ion-
ela ed aspec s sepa a e, we de ine adi ionalism i s and o emos as an a e sion o
change; a adi ionalis undamen al belie is cha ac e ised by wo ies abou change
and a p e e ence o e aining adi ions. We heo ise ha socie al di e si ica ion
may be pe cei ed as a h ea o cul u al uni y and as endange ing adi ion and an
es ablished o de . We expec a s ong adi ionalis undamen al belie o educe he
likelihood o p o-di e si y a i udes, bo h in e ms o e alua ion and pa icipa ion
assen , as nei he he app ecia ion o di e si y no he ex ension o pa icipa ion o
disad an aged g oups aligns well wi h adi ionalis iews o how socie y should be.
Thi d, beyond humani a ianism and adi ionalism, o he belie s ega ding he jus
dis ibu ion o esou ces in socie y a e po en ially o high ele ance o di e si y as-
sen , pa icula ly pa icipa ion assen : Suppo o ex ending poli ical, economic,
and social pa icipa ion o disad an aged g oups is likely o be ela ed o one’s
unde s anding o a ai dis ibu ion o esou ces and he ole o he s a e in i . Egali-
a ianism is a widely applied concep cap u ing a p e e ence o edis ibu ion, s a e
in e en ion, and equali y o bo h “ou comes” and “oppo uni ies” (Feldman and
S eenbe gen 2001a, p. 373; see also Emmenegge and Klemmensen 2013; Hülle
e al. 2018). This undamen al belie is cha ac e ised by suppo o s a e in e en-
ion in economic p ocesses and an emphasis on equal li e chances and ou comes—as
dis inc om a belie in he equali y o people as human beings. Such a belie should
hus align wi h he equal pa icipa ion o people ega dless o hei di e se back-
g ounds. Howe e , egali a ian and p o-wel a e s a e belie s a e some imes seen as
po en ially in con lic wi h openness o di e si y, as solida i y may be ese ed o
es ablished membe s o a communi y (Kymlicka 2015). Gene ally, he li e a u e on
he ela ionship be ween edis ibu ion and immig a ion p e e ences sugges s o he -
wise: In he mos pa , in Wes e n Eu ope, suppo o edis ibu ion and equali y is
co ela ed o p e e ences o ex ending igh s o immig an s (A ewell 2020; Ha is
2023). We expec s ong egali a ian belie s o suppo pa icipa ion- ela ed di e si y
a i udes. We do no see heo e ical easons o assume an associa ion o egali a ian
belie s and he e alua ion o di e si y; heo e ically, hey may be associa ed bo h
wi h a posi i e o a nega i e assessmen o he e ec s o sociocul u al he e ogenei y.
Finally, di e si y assen may, as men ioned in he in oduc ion, be associa ed
wi h indi idual o g oup-le el in e es p omo ion: Pe sonal pleasu e and consump-
ion may be impo an p io i ies o indi iduals holding such belie s and lead hem
o suppo di e si y, as i can po en ially be seen as inc easing choice and a ie y in
he li ing en i onmen . On he socie al le el, di e si y migh be app ecia ed because
i uels he coun y’s economic de elopmen . The concep o sel -in e es is he e-
o e o use he e, as his unde lying belie cap u es no ma i e e alua ions in e ms o
a ional u ili y o a speci ic socie y o he pe son conce ned. Thus, an indi idual’s
posi i e e alua ion o di e si y may be ela ed o sel -in e es ed disposi ions o o
placing one’s p io i ies abo e o he s. On he o he hand, calls o in e en ions o
ensu e mo e equal pa icipa ion could un coun e o a p inciple o indi idual e -
o and esponsibili y. We hus expec sel -in e es o be posi i ely associa ed wi h
e alua ion assen , as he e ec s o di e si ica ion a e pe cei ed as posi i e, bu no
K
Unde s anding Suppo o Di e si y: The Role o Fundamen al Belie s 67
humani a ian belie
adi ionalis belie
egali a ian belie
sel -in e es ed belie
age
gende
mig a ion backg ound
educa ion
low equi alised income
high equi alised income
Eas Ge many
undamen al belie s:
con ols:
-.6 -.5 -.4 -.3 -.2 -.1 0.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6
Fig. 3 Fundamen al belie s and e alua ion assen (coe icien s plo o eg ession model)
Fig. 4 Fundamen al belie s and pa icipa ion assen (coe icien s plo o eg ession model)
K
68 S. Pe e mann e al.
Nex , we use he same eg ession models o de e mine he ela i e impo ance o
he undamen al belie s by in es iga ing he s eng h o hei ela ionship wi h di e -
si y assen .11 Humani a ian o ien a ions ha e he s onges ela ionship wi h e alua-
ion assen (adjus ed R2=13.4%) and pa icipa ion assen (adjus ed R2=13.8%).
T adi ionalis belie s ollow in second place. Thei in luence on e alua ion assen
(adjus ed R2=4.7%) and pa icipa ion assen (adjus ed R2=3.2%) is less han
hal as s ong as ha o humani a ian belie s. The s eng h o he ela ionships o
egali a ian belie s o e alua ion assen (adjus ed R2=0.5%) and pa icipa ion assen
(adjus ed R2=1.7%) a e signi ican ly weake . Consis en wi h ou expec a ions abou
he ela ionship be ween egali a ian belie s and di e si y a i udes, he s eng h o
he ela ionship wi h pa icipa ion assen is h ee imes as s ong as he s eng h o
he ela ionship wi h e alua ion assen . Finally, he s eng h o ela ionships o sel -
in e es ed belie s o e alua ion assen (adjus ed R2=0.2%) and pa icipa ion assen
(adjus ed R2=0.1%) is negligible.
4.3 Robus ness Checks
To es he obus ness o he eg ession esul s, we ca ied ou wo addi ional anal-
yses. Fi s , we used mul iple impu a ions o he missing alues in he independen
a iables. Second, we calcula ed he wo dependen a iables o di e si y assen wi h
an al e na i e (nonaddi i e) index, which coun e ac s a po en ial endency o ag ee
wi h di e si y a i udes o easons o social desi abili y.
I em non esponse led o abou 8% o cases missing in he eg ession models.
In hose models, missing alues o he con ol a iable income we e al eady ac-
coun ed o by a dummy a iable o missing income da a. Mul iple impu a ions
we e calcula ed o es ima e he obus ness o all missing alues o he independen
a iables, including he income a iable. The wo eg ession models12 o e alua ion
and pa icipa ion assen we e ecalcula ed using hese impu ed alues.
When compa ing he eg essions wi h and wi hou impu ed alues, he di ec ions
and s eng hs o he e ec s a e la gely consis en . In pa icula , he eg ession coe i-
cien s o undamen al belie s a e almos unchanged. Howe e , wi h impu ed alues,
he s anda d e o s a e be e es ima ed, which means ha eg ession coe icien s a e
no longe signi ican in some cases. This applies in pa icula o he eg ession model
o pa icipa ion assen . In his case, he signi ican coe icien s o he undamen al
belie s emain signi ican , bu no he coe icien s o he con ol a iables (mig a-
ion backg ound, educa ion, income). Thus, he e ec s o he ela ionships be ween
undamen al belie s and di e si y assen , which a e he ocus o his s udy, emain
e en when impu ed missing alues a e used.
A second obus ness es uses an al e na i e calcula ion o he indices o di e si y
assen . The backg ound o his is he high app o al a ings o he di e si y a i udes,
which can only be pa ially o se by he addi i e index. We ake an app oach in
11 To de e mine he s eng h o a ela ionship, we used he di e ence in adjus ed R2be ween he ull model
and ano he model ha excluded he espec i e undamen al belie (see he adjus ed R2in Table A4 in
he Online Appendix).
12 Resul s a e no shown bu a e a ailable om he au ho s on eques .
K
Unde s anding Suppo o Di e si y: The Role o Fundamen al Belie s 69
which nega i e a i udes owa ds a leas one o he h ee i ems lead o a nega i e
a i ude in he index. We accep a lowe a ia ion in he index wid h and dis inguish
h ee g oups: assen e s, noncommi ing, and dissen e s, an app oach we success ully
used elsewhe e (Ha is e al. 2024). Fo e alua ion assen , he sha e o assen e s
changes om 75%13 o 63% and he sha e o dissen e s om 5%14 o 22%. Fo
pa icipa ion assen , he sha e o assen e s d ops om 61% o 49%, and he sha e o
dissen e s ises om 10% o 36%. By acco ding mo e weigh o nega i e answe s,
we may coun e ac a po en ial social desi abili y bias. Al hough he changes in he
p opo ions o bo h independen a iables a e subs an ial, we ind ew di e ences
when compa ing he eg ession esul s. De ia ions a ise only in he s eng h bu no
in he di ec ion o signi icance o he e ec s. The only excep ions a e he eg ession
coe icien s o low income and egion in he eg ession model o pa icipa ion assen .
Wi h ega d o he cen al ela ionships be ween undamen al belie s and di e si y
assen , we ha e s able esul s wi h he second obus ness check.
5 Discussion and Conclusion
This a icle analysed in wha ways a i udes o di e si y a e unde pinned by mo e
gene al undamen al belie s ega ding he de elopmen o socie y. Using he esul s
o a su ey o a ound 3000 inhabi an s, we exploi a s ong ba e y o i ems on so-
ciocul u al di e si y o measu e wo dimensions o di e si y assen —i s e alua ion
as posi i e o socie y and indi iduals and he demand o equal pa icipa ion. We
ollow p e ious schola ship in assuming ha a i udes a e unde pinned by mo e un-
damen al belie s ega ding he de elopmen o socie y. Following mean compa ison
and eg ession analyses o in es iga e he ela ionship be ween selec ed undamen al
belie s and a i udes o di e si y, ou esul s can be summa ised as ollows.
Ou analyses con i med ha humani a ianism, adi ionalism, and egali a ianism
a e sys ema ically ela ed o bo h he e alua ion o socie al di e si y and o iews
abou e lec ing such di e si y in a socie y’s ins i u ions, con olling o sociodemo-
g aphic ac o s. Howe e , he ways in which humani a ianism and egali a ianism a e
linked o di e si y a i udes a e su p ising on wo coun s. Fi s , in line wi h p e ious
schola ship showing he impo ance o humani a ian belie s o helping e ugees
(D ouho e al. 2023), ou esul s show humani a ian belie s as highly ele an o
assen o di e si y, bo h o e alua ion and, unexpec edly, also o pa icipa ion as-
sen . Simila indings a e p esen o egali a ianism, which is posi i ely associa ed
wi h bo h e alua ion and pa icipa ion assen . T adi ionalism is nega i ely associa ed
wi h suppo o bo h ypes o di e si y, whe eas sel -in e es is only nega i ely as-
socia ed wi h e alua ion assen and is non ela ed o pa icipa ion assen . In con as
o assump ions popula in he poli ical discou se, di e si y assen in i s e alua ion
dimension is only weakly associa ed wi h sel -in e es ed belie s, con ic ions we see
as ela ed o indi idualis and egois ic libe alism. The common ea ha s onge
13 G ouped alues o he addi i e index om 32
3 o 5.
14 G ouped alues o he addi i e index om 1 o 21
3.
K
70 S. Pe e mann e al.
commi men s o di e si y a e associa ed wi h ma ke -libe al iews and con adic
egali a ian aims o pa icipa ion assen seems un ounded.
These esul s poin o wo sepa a e conclusions wi h epe cussions o s udying
a i udes owa ds di e si y. The i s is ha humani a ianism is by a he s onges
ac o associa ed wi h assen o di e si y. No only he gene al e alua ion o socie al
di e si y bu also a i udes abou e lec ing such di e si y in a socie y’s ins i u-
ions and public unding policy a e pa icula ly s ongly linked wi h humani a ian
belie s. This gene al belie may be an unde a ed ac o in he explana ion o poli -
ical belie s and ac ions. Thus, in discussions o solida i y wi h e ugees in Eu ope
wi nessed since hei mass a i al in 2015–2016, humani a ian belie s we e some-
imes dismissed as apoli ical and supe icial (see D ouho e al. 2023). Howe e ,
humani a ianism as measu ed wi h es ablished i ems appa en ly appeals o solida -
i y among humans in a sense ha includes aspec s o pa icipa ion, p esence, and
ecogni ion—as in ou pa icipa ion dimension o di e si y assen . I appa en ly cap-
u es no only a willingness o help he needy, bu a gene al o ien a ion owa ds an
inclusi e socie y.
Second, he inding ha egali a ianism is associa ed wi h pa icipa ion as-
sen — ha is, assen o e lec ing di e si y in ins i u ions and he dis ibu ion o
public esou ces—con i ms ou expec a ions bu also uns coun e o a common
jux aposi ion o suppo o edis ibu ion and assen o sociocul u al di e si y.
Deba es in poli ical sociology ega ding he jux aposi ion o p o-di e si y and p o-
edis ibu ion iews, as sugges ed in he li e a u e on mul idimensional poli ical
compe i ion (K iesi 2010), a e appa en ly misguided, o ou indings a leas sugges
ha he wo dimensions o “cul u al” and “economic” align mo e closely han is
gi en c edi . Bo h humani a ian and egali a ian belie s align wi h di e si y assen .
Such assen is hus a guably ounded in di e en con ic ions, which we a gue is an
impo an inding.
The e a e a numbe o limi a ions o ou indings: Fi s , hey a e based on a ep e-
sen a i e sample o he popula ion o Ge man ci ies wi h a leas 50,000 inhabi an s.
Ou gene alisa ions hus hold only o he u ban popula ion. S ill, while he dis i-
bu ions o di e si y assen and undamen al belie s in he u ban and u al popula ion
may di e , we see no heo e ical easons o assume ha he ways in which such
belie s and a i udes on di e si y a e ela ed would be any di e en . The la e may
well be he case i , in di e en na ional o egional popula ions, humani a ianism o
egali a ianism acqui e o he meanings. We a e no awa e o any esea ch indica ing
ha such di e ences exis be ween u ban and mo e u al popula ions in Ge many.
E en hough we we e able o show in dep h ha some co e belie s a e mo e s ongly
ela ed o di e si y a i udes han o he s, ou c oss-sec ional su ey is limi ed o co -
ela ion analyses. Whe he co e belie s emain s able o e ime and hus unde lie
a i udes can be analysed only wi h panel da a, and we encou age u u e esea che s
o engage in his endea ou .
In sum, ou s udy o e s a con ibu ion o he as ye li le de eloped s udy o
a i udes abou di e si y and o suppo o an inclusi e socie y. The indings con-
ibu e o ongoing su ey esea ch in unde s anding a i udes owa ds di e si y in
mode n socie ies, including di e en ques ions on a i udes owa ds di e si y, no
jus immig a ion o “non-na ionals”, as included in many s udies. Fu u e esea ch
K
Unde s anding Suppo o Di e si y: The Role o Fundamen al Belie s 71
can con inue his agenda by including di e si y a i udes—mo e sys ema ically in
es ablished su eys alongside s a emen s on undamen al belie s. Ou pape illus-
a es ha , ul ima ely, di e si y assen is unde pinned by bo h humani a ianism and
egali a ianism, impo an ly in bo h e alua ion and pa icipa ion assen .
Acknowledgemen s We hank Lucas D ouho , Ma ghe i a Cusmano, and Nicolas Fliess o hei com-
men s. Lucas D ouho also played an impo an ole in designing he su ey. Fu he , S e en Ve o ec
con ibu ed o he de elopmen o he s udy.
Funding The s udy was unded by he Max Planck Ins i u e o he S udy o Religious and E hnic Di e -
si y.
Funding Open Access unding enabled and o ganized by P ojek DEAL.
Con lic o in e es S. Pe e mann, E. Ha is, and K. Schönwälde decla e ha hey ha e no compe ing
in e es s.
Open Access Diese A ikel wi d un e de C ea i e Commons Namensnennung 4.0 In e na ional Lizenz
e ö en lich , welche die Nu zung, Ve iel äl igung, Bea bei ung, Ve b ei ung und Wiede gabe in
jeglichem Medium und Fo ma e laub , so e n Sie den/die u sp ünglichen Au o (en) und die Quelle
o dnungsgemäß nennen, einen Link zu C ea i e Commons Lizenz bei ügen und angeben, ob Ände ungen
o genommen wu den. Die in diesem A ikel en hal enen Bilde und sons iges D i ma e ial un e liegen
eben alls de genann en C ea i e Commons Lizenz, so e n sich aus de Abbildungslegende nich s ande es
e gib . So e n das be e ende Ma e ial nich un e de genann en C ea i e Commons Lizenz s eh und
die be e ende Handlung nich nach gese zlichen Vo sch i en e laub is , is ü die oben au ge üh en
Wei e e wendungen des Ma e ials die Einwilligung des jeweiligen Rech einhabe s einzuholen. Wei e e
De ails zu Lizenz en nehmen Sie bi e de Lizenzin o ma ion au h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/
4.0/deed.de.
Re e ences
Abels, Heinz. 2019. Ein üh ung in die Soziologie. Vol. 2. Wiesbaden: Sp inge VS.
Ahmed, Sa a. 2007. The language o di e si y. E hnic and Racial S udies 30(2):235–256.
Aquino, K is ine, Laa anya Ka hi a elu and Emma Mi chell. 2022. Loca ing ace in mig a ion and di e -
si y s udies. In In oduc ion o Mig a ion S udies, ed. Pe e Schol en, 265–280. IMISCOE Resea ch
Se ies. Sp inge .
A ewell, Da id. 2020. Dese ingness pe cep ions, wel a e s a e suppo and o e choice in Wes e n Eu-
ope. Wes Eu opean Poli ics 44(3):611–634.
Bandelow, Nils C. 2015. Ad ocacy Coali ion F amewo k. In Handbuch Policy-Fo schung,eds.Geo g
Wenzelbu ge and Reimu Zohlnhö e , 305–324. Wiesbaden: Sp inge Fachmedien.
Ba ne , Michael. 2011. Empi e o Humani y: A His o y o Humani a ianism. I haca: Co nell Uni e si y
P ess.
Bay am, A. Bu cu. 2015. Wha d i es mode n Diogenes? Indi idual alues and cosmopoli an allegiance.
Eu opean Jou nal o In e na ional Rela ions 21(2):451–479.
Bo nschie , Simon. 2010. The new cul u al di ide and he wo-dimensional poli ical space in Wes e n
Eu ope. Wes Eu opean Poli ics 33(3):419–444.
Caughey, De in, Tom O’G ady and Ch is ophe Wa shawn. 2019. Policy ideology in Eu opean mass
publics, 1981–2016. Ame ican Poli ical Science Re iew 113(3):674–693.
Con e se, Philip E. 2006. The na u e o belie sys ems in mass publics (1964). C i ical Re iew: A Jou nal
o Poli ics and Socie y 18:1–74.
Dal on, Russell J., and Ch is ian Welzel. 2014. The ci ic cul u e ans o med. Camb idge: Camb idge
Uni e si y P ess.
Da ido , Eldad, and Ba Meuleman. 2012. Explaining a i udes owa ds immig a ion policies in Eu opean
coun ies: The ole o human alues. Jou nal o E hnic and Mig a ion S udies 38:757–775.
Da ido , Eldad, Pe e Schmid and Shalom H. Schwa z. 2008a. B inging alues back in: he adequacy o
he Eu opean social su ey o measu e alues in 20 coun ies. Public Opinion Qua e ly 72:420–445.
K
72 S. Pe e mann e al.
Da ido , Eldad, Ba Meuleman, Jaak Billie and Pe e Schmid . 2008b. Values and suppo o immig a-
ion: a c oss-coun y compa ison. Eu opean Sociological Re iew 24:583–599.
Da ido , Eldad, Ba Meuleman, Shalom H. Schwa z and Pe e Schmid . 2014. Indi idual alues, cul u al
embeddedness and an i-immig a ion sen imen s: Explaining di e ences in he e ec o alues owa d
immig a ion ac oss Eu ope. Kölne Zei sch i ü Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 66:263–285.
Da ido , Eldad, Daniel Seddig, Anas asia Go odzeisky, Rebeca Raijman, Pe e Schmid and Moshe Semy-
ono . 2020. Di ec and indi ec p edic o s o opposi ion o immig a ion in Eu ope: indi idual alues,
cul u al alues, and symbolic h ea . Jou nal o E hnic and Mig a ion S udies 46(3):553–573.
Dennison, James, and And ew Geddes. 2019. A ising ide? The salience o immig a ion and he ise o
an i-immig a ion poli ical pa ies in Wes e n Eu ope. The Poli ical Qua e ly 90:107–116.
D ažano á, Lenka. 2022. Some imes i is he li le hings: A me a-analysis o indi idual and con ex ual
de e minan s o a i udes owa d immig a ion (2009–2019). In e na ional Jou nal o In e cul u al
Rela ions 87:85–97.
D ouho , Lucas G., Sö en Pe e mann, Ka en Schönwälde and S e en Ve o ec. 2021. The “Di e si y As-
sen ” (Di A) Su ey – Technical Repo . Wo king Pape s WP 21-20. Gö ingen: Max Planck Ins i u e
o he S udy o Religious and E hnic Di e si y.
D ouho , Lucas G., Ka en Schönwälde , Sö en Pe e mann and S e en Ve o ec. 2023. Who suppo s
e ugees? Di e si y assen and p o- e ugee engagemen in Ge many. Compa a i e Mig a ion S ud-
ies 11(1):4.
Eisen au , Ma cus. 2019. Explaining a i udes owa d mino i y g oups wi h human alues in Ge -
many—Wha is he di ec ion o causali y? Social Science Resea ch 84:102324.
Emmenegge , Pa ick, and Robe Klemmensen. 2013. Wha mo i a es you? The ela ionship be ween
p e e ences o edis ibu ion and a i udes owa d immig a ion. Compa a i e Poli ics 45(2):227–246.
Feldman, S anley, and Ma co S eenbe gen. 2001a. Social wel a e a i udes and he humani a ian sensibili y.
In Ci izens and Poli ics. Pe spec i es om Poli ical Psychology, ed. James H. Kuklinski, 366–400.
Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
Feldman, S anley, and Ma co S eenbe gen. 2001b. The humani a ian ounda ion o public suppo o
social wel a e. Ame ican Jou nal o Poli ical Science 45:658–677.
F ase , Nicholas A. R., and Go Mu akami. 2022. The ole o humani a ianism in shaping public a i udes
owa d e ugees. Poli ical Psychology 43:255–275.
Ha is, Eloisa. 2023. Educa ional di ides and class coali ions: How mains eam pa y o e s di ide and
uni e o e immig a ion issues. Jou nal o E hnic and Mig a ion S udies 49(17):4481–4500.
Ha is, Eloisa, Ka en Schönwälde , Sö en Pe e mann and S e en Ve o ec. 2024. Di e si y assen : concep-
ualisa ion and an empi ical applica ion. E hnic and Racial S udies 47(15):3212–3236.
Häuse mann, Silja, and Hanspe e K iesi. 2015. Wha do o e s wan ? Dimensions and con igu a ions in
indi idual-le el p e e ences and pa y choice. In The Poli ics o Ad anced Capi alism, eds. Pablo Be-
amendi, Silja Häuse mann, He be Ki schel and Hanspe e K iesi, 202–230. New Yo k: Camb idge
Uni e si y P ess.
Hea h, An hony, Geo ey E ans and Jean Ma in. 1993. The measu emen o co e belie s and alues: The
de elopmen o balanced socialis /laissez ai e and libe a ian/au ho i a ian scales. B i ish Jou nal o
Poli ical Science 24:115–132.
Hi lin, S e en, and Jane Allyn Pilia in. 2004. Values: e i ing a do man concep . Annual Re iew o Soci-
ology 30:359–393.
Hje m, Mikael, Mau een A. Ege , And ea Bohman and Filip Fo s Connolly. 2020. A new app oach o he
s udy o ole ance: Concep ualizing and measu ing accep ance, espec , and app ecia ion o di e -
ence. Social Indica o s Resea ch 147(3):897–919.
Hooghe, Liesbe , and Ga y Ma ks. 2018. Clea age heo y mee s Eu ope’s c ises: Lipse , Rokkan, and he
ansna ional clea age. Jou nal o Eu opean Public Policy 25(1):109–135.
Hülle, Sebas ian, S e an Liebig and Meike Janina May. 2018. Measu ing a i udes owa d dis ibu i e jus-
ice: The Basic Social Jus ice O ien a ions Scale. Social Indica o s Resea ch 136:663–692.
Hu e , Swen, and Hanspe e K iesi. 2021. Poli icising immig a ion in imes o c isis. Jou nal o E hnic
and Mig a ion S udies 48(2):1–25.
Ingleha , Ronald F., and Pippa No is. 2016. T ump, B exi , and he ise o populism: Economic ha e-no s
and cul u al backlash. Facul y Resea ch Wo king Pape Se ies. Ha a d Kennedy School Camb idge,
Mass.
I a s la en, Elisabe h, and Paul M. Snide man. 2022. The s uggle o inclusion: Muslim mino i ies and
he democ a ic e hos. Chicago: Uni e si y o Chicago P ess.
K
Unde s anding Suppo o Di e si y: The Role o Fundamen al Belie s 73
Jenkins-Smi h, Hank, Ca ol L. Sil a, Kuhika Gup a and Joseph T. Ripbe ge . 2014. Belie sys em con-
inui y and change in policy ad ocacy coali ions: Using cul u al heo y o speci y belie sys ems,
coali ions, and sou ces o change. Policy S udies Jou nal 42:484–508.
Jolli e, I.T. 2002. P incipal componen analysis. New Yo k: Sp inge .
Knigh , Ca ly R., and Ma y C. B in on. 2017. One egali a ianism o se e al? Two decades o gende - ole
a i ude change in Eu ope. Ame ican Jou nal o Sociology 122(5):1485–1532.
K iesi, Hanspe e . 2010. Res uc u a ion o pa isan poli ics and he eme gence o a new clea age based on
alues. Wes Eu opean Poli ics 33(3):673–685.
Kus o , Alexande , Dillon Laake and Cassidy Relle . 2021. The S abili y o Immig a ion A i udes: E i-
dence and Implica ions. Jou nal o Poli ics 83(4):1478–1494.
Kymlicka, Will. 2015. Solida i y in di e se socie ies: beyond neolibe al mul icul u alism and wel a e chau-
inism. Compa a i e Mig a ion S udies 3(17):1–19.
Lamon , Michèle, and Sada Aksa o a. 2002. O dina y cosmopoli anisms. S a egies o b idging acial
bounda ies among wo king-class men. Theo y, Cul u e & Socie y 19(4):1–25.
Leong, Chan-Hoong, and Colleen Wa d. 2006. Cul u al alues and a i udes owa d immig an s and mul i-
cul u alism: The case o he Eu oba ome e su ey on acism and xenophobia. In e na ional Jou nal
o In e cul u al Rela ions 30:799–810.
Liebig, S e an. 2002. Ge ech igkei seins ellungen und Ge ech igkei su eile. Zu Un e scheidung zweie
U eilska ego ien. In In e disziplinä e Ge ech igkei s o schung, eds. S e an Liebig and Holge
Leng eld, 77–102. F ank u a. M.: Campus.
Lipse , Seymou Ma in. 1963. The i s new na ion. The Uni ed S a es in his o ical and compa a i e
pe spec i e. New Yo k: Basic Books, INC.
Mau, S e en, Jan Mewes and Ann Zimme mann. 2008. Cosmopoli an a i udes h ough ansna ional so-
cial p ac ices? Global Ne wo ks 8:1–24.
Mau, S e en, Thomas Lux and Linus Wes heuse . 2023. T igge punk e. Konsens und Kon lik in de Gegen-
wa sgesellscha . Be lin: Suh kamp.
Newman, Benjamin J., Todd K. Ha man, Pa ick L. Lown and S anley Feldman. 2013. Easing he hea y
hand: Humani a ian conce n, empa hy, and opinion on immig a ion. B i ish Jou nal o Poli ical Sci-
ence 45:583–607.
Oyamo J ., Cli on M., Emily L. Fishe , G ace Deason and Eugene Bo gida. 2012. A i udes owa d immi-
g an s: The in e ac i e ole o he au ho i a ian p edisposi ion, social no ms, and humani a ian alues.
Jou nal o Expe imen al Social Psychology 48:97–105.
Reckwi z, And eas. 2017. Die Gesellscha de Singula i ä en. Zum S uk u wandel de Mode ne. Be lin:
Suh kamp.
Rokeach, Mil on. 1973. The na u e o human alues. New Yo k, NY: F ee P ess.
Shen, Fuyuan, and Heidi Ha ield Edwa ds. 2005. Economic indi idualism, humani a ianism, and wel a e
e o m: A alue-based accoun o aming e ec s. Jou nal o Communica ion 55:795–809.
Teney, Céline, and Li Ka h in Rupiepe . 2023. A new social con lic on globalisa ion- ela ed issues
in Ge many? A longi udinal pe spec i e. Kölne Zei sch i ü Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie
75:205–234.
Ve o ec, S e en. 2012. “Di e si y” and he social imagina y. Eu opean Jou nal o Sociology 53(3):287–312.
Ve o ec, S e en, and Robin Cohen (eds.). 2002. Concei ing cosmopoli anism: Theo y, con ex and p ac-
ice. Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
Zick, And eas, and Bea e Küppe . 2010. Vo u eile und Tole anz on Viel al – on den Fallen all ägliche
Wah nehmung. In Di e si y – anskul u elle Kompe enz in klinischen und sozialen Handlungs-
elde n, eds. E a an Keuk, Cinu Ghade i, Lijljana Joksimo ic and Dagma M. Da id, 54–65.
S u ga : Kohlhamme .
Publishe ’s No e Sp inge Na u e emains neu al wi h ega d o ju isdic ional claims in published maps
and ins i u ional a ilia ions.
Sö en Pe e mann P o . D ., Ruh Uni e si y Bochum. Resea ch a eas: u ban sociology, mig a ion, di e -
si y, social ne wo ks. Publica ions:Di e si y and Con ac . Immig a ion and Social In e ac ion in Ge man
Ci ies. Basings oke 2016 (wi h K. Schönwälde , J. Hü e mann, S. Ve o ec, M. Hews one, D. S olle, K.
Schmid and T. Schmi ); Mig an O ganiza ions: Mul i unc ional and Flexible P o ide s o Social P o ec-
ion and Wel a e in Changing Socie ies. Special Issue o Social Sciences, 2024 (ed. wi h K. Ba glowski and
T. Schlee); Pe sonal and Social Resou ces as Incen i es o Local Poli ical P o es . Sociological Qua e ly,
2020.
K
74 S. Pe e mann e al.
Eloisa Ha is D ., pos doc o al esea che , Uni e si y o Lausanne. Resea ch a eas: mig a ion, social
policy (public a i udes, elec o al poli ics, policy e o ms). Publica ions: The mic o- ounda ions o so-
cial democ a ic wel a e chau inism and inclusion: class demand and policy e o ms in Wes e n Eu ope,
1980–2018. Eu opean Poli ical Science Re iew, 2023 (wi h M. Enggis ); Social p o ec ion o mobile pop-
ula ions? A global pe spec i e on immig an social igh s. Social Policy & Adminis a ion 58, 2024 (wi h
F. Röme and J. Henninge ); Educa ional di ides and class coali ions: How mains eam pa y o e s di ide
and uni e o e immig a ion issues. Jou nal o E hnic and Mig a ion S udies, 2022.
Ka en Schönwälde P o . D ., Resea ch g oup leade , Max Planck Ins i u e o he S udy o Religious
and E hnic Di e si y, Gö ingen. Resea ch a eas: mig a ion, di e si y, poli ical sociology, poli ical ep-
esen a ion, o ganiza ions. Publica ions: O ganisa ionale Wandel du ch Mig a ion? Zu Di e si ä in de
Zi ilgesellscha . Biele eld 2022 (ed. wi h H. on Unge , H. Bayka a-K umme and S. Ka akayali); The im-
mig an p esence in collabo a i e s uc u es o u ban poli ics. Go e nance 35, 2022 (wi h M. Mou selos);
Di e si y in local poli ical p ac ice. Special Issue E hnic and Racial S udies 43, 2020, as book: London
2021.
K
