Ca ol, Sa ah; Da id, Lea; Maleše ić, Siniša; Uzelac, Go dana
A icle — Published Ve sion
P o-social a i udes owa ds e hno- eligious ou -g oups
du ing he COVID-19 pandemic: A su ey expe imen in
i e coun ies
In e na ional Sociology
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
WZB Be lin Social Science Cen e
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Ca ol, Sa ah; Da id, Lea; Maleše ić, Siniša; Uzelac, Go dana (2024) : P o-social
a i udes owa ds e hno- eligious ou -g oups du ing he COVID-19 pandemic: A su ey expe imen
in i e coun ies, In e na ional Sociology, ISSN 1461-7242, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, Vol. 39, Iss. 1,
pp. 113-137,
h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/02685809231214168
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/313068
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 ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/
h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/02685809231214168
In e na ional Sociology
2024, Vol. 39(1) 113 –137
© The Au ho (s) 2023
A icle euse guidelines:
sagepub.com/jou nals-pe missions
DOI: 10.1177/02685809231214168
jou nals.sagepub.com/home/iss
P o-social a i udes owa ds
e hno- eligious ou -g oups
du ing he COVID-19
pandemic: A su ey
expe imen in i e coun ies
Sa ah Ca ol
Lea Da id
Siniša Maleše ić
School o Sociology, Uni e si y College Dublin, I eland
Go dana Uzelac
London Me opoli an Uni e si y, UK
Abs ac
To wha ex en we e indi iduals willing o help o he s du ing he pandemic? This a icle examines
p o-social a i udes among 7000 esiden s in England, I eland, Ge many, Se bia, and Sweden by
showing a ic i ious scena io o an olde neighbou who needs his g oce ies o be picked up om
a nea by supe ma ke . The online su ey expe imen ollows a 3 × 2 × 2 ac o ial design a ying
he e hno- eligious o igin o neighbou s signalled by he name (Alexande s Mohammed), he
leng h o hei esidence (<1 yea , 10 yea s, en i e li e), and i g oce ies, o g oce ies and bee
need o be collec ed. We ind ha hose o mino i y o igin and hose who ha e spen less han
a yea in a coun y a e disad an aged. O e all, eligiosi y is associa ed wi h a lowe willingness
o help a neighbou .
Keywo ds
COVID-19, Eu ope, mino i ies, p o-sociali y, eligion, solida i y
Co esponding au ho :
Sa ah Ca ol, School o Sociology, Uni e si y College Dublin, Bel ield, Dublin 4, I eland.
Email: [email p o ec ed]
1214168ISS0010.1177/02685809231214168In e na ional SociologyCa ol e al.
esea ch-a icle2023
A icle
114 In e na ional Sociology 39(1)
In oduc ion
Du ing he COVID-19 pandemic, I alians wa bled he song ‘Azzu o’ om hei balco-
nies in solida i y wi h he heal hca e wo ke s de o ed o sa ing pa ien s om he COVID-
19 i us (Ho owi z, 2020). O he coun ies ollowed sui . Libal and Kashwan (2020)
a gue ha he COVID-19 c isis has c ea ed oppo uni ies o local suppo . In ex ao di-
na y imes such as hese, indi iduals migh ha e a s onge belie in common wel a e, as
he pandemic has ad e se e ec s on all. Repea edly, i was emphasized ha we a e all in
his oge he (Nolan, 2021). Solida i y is p oduced by a common cul u e ha os e s a
sense o belonging (Calhoun, 2003). While he coo dina ed ac ion o singing indeed
demons a ed a sign o uni y, he c ucial ques ion is ‘would his solida i y also ex end o
neighbou s in daily li e, pa icula ly i hey a e o a di e en e hno- eligious o igin?’.
This a icle aims o answe his ques ion by d awing on a no el da a se collec ed in
i e Eu opean coun ies: England, I eland, Ge many, Sweden, and Se bia. We conduc ed
a su ey expe imen wi h 7000 esponden s li ing in hose coun ies du ing he pan-
demic. In he su ey expe imen , esponden s we e p esen ed he case o a ic i ious olde
male neighbou who needed help wi h he collec ion o g oce ies due o cocooning.
O e all, h ee cha ac e is ics we e a ied: (1) he e hno- eligious o igin signalled by he
Muslim name Mohammed and he na i e name Alexande , (2) he du a ion o s ay in he
coun y o esidence, and (3) he g oce ies ha needed o be picked up. O he su ey
expe imen s ha e mos ly been conduc ed in single coun ies (e.g., Yemane e al., 2023)
and did no ocus on local helping beha iou (e.g. Hade up La sen and Schae e , 2021;
Schae e and Hade up La sen, 2023), which we belie e is a c ucial aspec o solida i y.
Exis ing esea ch o en imes excludes Eas e n Eu opean and non-Eu opean Union (EU)
membe s a es in Eu ope. Ou da a including Se bia a e he e o e no el and will help us
o assess o wha ex en we can gene alize indings ac oss coun ies.
While he con ex o he pandemic is new, he ques ion abou he eme gence o soli-
da i y in socie ies and p o-social beha iou a e long-s anding ques ions in he social
sciences (Lindenbe g e al., 2006). By p o-social a i udes we mean a i udes owa ds
olun a y helping beha iou o imp o e someone else’s well-being (e.g. Do idio e al.,
2017: 22, 25). The a icle includes a ange o explana ions om socio-demog aphy o
empa hy as co ela es o in o mal help, bu ocuses on eligion due o i s pa adoxical ole
in p ejudice (Allpo , 1979: 413). On he one hand, we can expec ha pious people abide
o he c eeds o b o he hood and unde wen eligious socializa ion, os e ing helping
beha iou owa ds o he s (Do idio e al., 2017: 11 .). On he o he hand, we know om
a ious s udies (e.g. C eigh on and Jamal, 2015; S abac and Lis haug, 2008) ha hos il-
i y owa ds o he eligions, in pa icula , Islam is high. The salience o g oup bounda ies
ac oss eligion is a e y imely opic. Cu en ly, bounda ies be ween Ch is ians and
Muslims a e pe cei ed as salien (e.g. To ekens and Jacobs, 2016).
In ou analyses, we ind p o-sociali y chau inism, meaning esponden s a e less sup-
po i e o hose who would need he suppo – ecen immig an s. Mo eo e , we ind
c oss-na ional di e ences wi h esponden s in Ge many clea ly displaying a signi i-
can ly lowe willingness o help a Muslim- e sus non-Muslim-named neighbou . In
o he coun ies such as Se bia and Sweden, a lowe willingness o help a Muslim-named
neighbou only occu s in combina ion wi h a sho e du a ion o s ay and he ype o
g oce ies ha ha e been o de ed.
Ca ol e al. 115
Theo e ical amewo k
This a icle s a s om he p emise ha he willingness o help comes a one’s expense o
bene i he wel a e o ano he (Dawkins, 1989: 4). Helping beha iou is a subca ego y o
p o-sociali y and deno es beha iou ha is alued by a socie y (Do idio, 1984: 364). I
os e s solida i y du ing he pandemic (P ainsack, 2020) and ensu es social o de mo e
gene ally (Gellne , 1964). Based on Ibn Khaldun’s wo k, Maleše ić (2015) a gues ha
in mode ni y, o ms o mic o-solida i y be ween indi iduals con inue o exis bu in a
di e en shape – h ough emo ional a achmen . Du kheim, on he o he hand, sees
mechanical solida i y o be en i ely ans o med in o o ganic solida i y in indus ialized
socie ies, whe e he high le els o specializa ion in economy c ea e in e dependence
be ween people a he han sha ed alues and li es yles. Gellne (1989: 92 .) expands on
his idea by p oposing ha highly indus ialized socie ies ind speci ic o ms o o ganic
solida i y and de elop new i uals such as he celeb a ion o na ional iden i y. Chains o
in e ac ion i uals gene a e emo ions and a sense o belonging building he undamen o
solida i y. Ye , hese in e ac ions i uals ha e been dis up ed by he COVID-19 pandemic
and a e he e o e expec ed o a ec solida i y (Collins, 2020).
Applied o he pandemic, we hypo hesize ha people who ha e been in a simila si u-
a ion as he neighbou in ou ic i ious scena io – meaning ha ing had o isola e and
expe iencing he se e i y o he i us onesel o in he pe sonal ne wo k – will be mo e
likely o empa hize and help (e.g. Ai hal e al., 2021). The ‘empa hy-al uism model’ sug-
ges s ha indi iduals who a e able o eel empa hy in o m o compassion and sympa hy
a e also mo e likely o help o he s (Ba son e al., 1981). Empa hy (e.g. S ocks e al.,
2009) and he pe cep ion o o he s being less p i ileged p edic helping hose in need
(e.g. Saba o and Kogu , 2018; Schlosse and Le y, 2016). Voicu e al. (2021) ound
indeed highe le els o solida i y among Spanish and Romanian esponden s who knew
an in ec ed pe son in Spain and Romania, and Hunga ian esponden s who had o isola e.
The e o e, indi iduals who had COVID-19 hemsel es o know o someone who had i
migh ha e mo e empa hy and hence exp ess a g ea e willingness o collec he g oce -
ies o hei neighbou . This empa hy should be educed i he neighbou ’s beha iou is
pe cei ed as mo ally w ong, ha is, o de ing alcohol, which goes beyond he basic
necessi ies and i s consump ion is discou aged due o de imen al e ec s on one’s heal h
(e.g. Hol e al., 2014). Mo eo e , a ela ed s udy in es iga ed he solida i y du ing he
pandemic and ound ha people who did no ollow a doc o ’s ecommenda ion
(Gandenbe ge e al., 2023), exhibi ed unheal hy li es yles, and did no comply wi h
COVID-19- ela ed measu es (Reeskens e al., 2021; Schae e and Hade up La sen,
2023) we e seen as less dese ing o help. To sum up, he willingness o help should be
lowe i alcohol is o de ed, as al uis ic beha iou aims a inc easing someone else’s
wel a e. The e o e, we hypo hesize ha he likelihood ha indi iduals a e willing o col-
lec hei neighbou ’s g oce ies dec eases i a six pack o bee is o de ed (H1).
This b ings us o he nex hypo hesis ha he cos s o one’s ac ion a e weighed agains
he o he pe son’s wel a e. P o-sociali y and empa hy should be highe i i does no
di ec ly a ec onesel (e.g. Tu koglu e al., 2022). One migh a gue ha indi iduals a e
less willing o help i i is in con lic wi h hei pe sonal in e es s and obliga ions wi h
espec o ime and abili y, o ins ance, i one belongs o a isk g oup, has childca e
esponsibili ies, o wo ks ull- ime. Acco ding o he cos - ewa d model, he ewa d o
116 In e na ional Sociology 39(1)
helping an in-g oup compa ed o an ou -g oup membe is highe as i can s eng hen eel-
ings o closeness and be ewa ded (Do idio, 1984; Le ine e al., 2005). Du ing he pan-
demic, in-g oup and ou -g oup bounda ies we e salien when i came o p o-social
in en ions (Ai hal e al., 2021; Zage ka, 2021). A pe cei ed na ional h ea du ing he
pandemic was associa ed wi h less p o-social in en ions (Zage ka, 2021), and seeing a
eques o help signed wi h a Chinese o Tu kish name esul ed in a lowe willingness
compa ed o a Ge man name (Ai hal e al., 2021). While hese s udies ocused on na ional
belonging, i sugges s ha o he g oup bounda ies signalling a di e en o igin – such as
eligion – migh also ma e o p o-social in en ions du ing he pandemic.
The eligibili y o help and being pe cei ed as in-g oup membe may u he mo e
a y depending on he du a ion o s ay, o icial s a us, and social secu i y paymen s one
has made in he coun y o esidence. Wel a e chau inism and dese ingness heo y
desc ibe he idea ha only indi iduals who ha e con ibu ed o he wel a e s a e a e also
eligible o be suppo ed in imes o need o p e en ee iding (Ande sen and Bjø klund,
1990; Van Oo scho , 2000). We ex end his idea o in o mal help and hypo hesize ha
he e will be p o-sociali y chau inism wi h indi iduals’ willingness o collec he g oce -
ies o hei neighbou o be dec easing wi h a sho e leng h o esidence in a coun y
(H2). In case o a neighbou who has spen mo e ime in he coun y o esidence, esi-
den s migh be mo e willing o engage in cos ly ac ion o inc ease hei neighbou ’s well-
being, as his neighbou is mo e likely o ha e con ibu ed o hos socie y in e ms o
axes and be well in eg a ed. (Neo-)Assimila ion heo y p edic s ha in eg a ion in e ms
o social ne wo ks, socio-economic s a us, alues, and o he dimensions is mo e likely o
occu wi h a longe du a ion o s ay, and should be highes o hose who ha e spen hei
en i e li e in he coun y o esidence, and belong o subsequen gene a ions (Ca ol,
2016; Alba and Nee, 1997).
Recen esea ch has e ealed heal hca e chau inism du ing he pandemic wi h o eign
ci izens in Ge many being seen as less dese ing o in ensi e ca e (Gandenbe ge e al.,
2023; Helbling e al., 2022) and indi iduals ha ing esided in Denma k only sho ly
being seen as less eligible o hospi aliza ion (Hade up La sen and Schae e , 2021) and
accina ion (Schae e and Hade up La sen, 2023).
In addi ion o he leng h o esidence, we know om p e ious esea ch ha he e a e
e hno- eligious hie a chies. While esea ch on disc imina ion du ing he pandemic
ocused o en imes on pe sons o Asian descen , i also ex ended o o he g oups (Lu
e al., 2021). O e all, he p ejudice owa ds Muslims is highe han o o he immig an s
(S abac and Lis haug, 2008). Acco dingly, he willingness o collec he g oce ies o a
na i e-named neighbou is highe compa ed o a Muslim-named neighbou (H3), as hey
cons i u e he eligious ou -g oup o na i es.
We a gue ha le els o eligiosi y migh explain indi iduals’ willingness o help.
Religion su i ed and adop ed o socie al ans o ma ions and emains a salien social
iden i y in some ega ds (e.g. Go ski and Al ıno du, 2008; Ysseldyk e al., 2010).
Religions de ine mo al beha iou and wha is conside ed o be igh and w ong (B oom,
2003: 1) and h ea en hei membe s wi h consequences in he a e li e when social
no ms a e iola ed (Hi schi and S a k, 1969). Mo al beha iou can conce n helping
beha iou , die a y equi emen s (e.g. alcohol, ood), sexuali y, ai ness, and many mo e
a eas (B oom, 2003: 185; McKay and Whi ehouse, 2015). P e ious esea ch has
Ca ol e al. 117
epea edly poin ed ou ha eligions s ess he c eeds o b o he hood and encou age
p o-social beha iou wi hin hei communi ies (see No enzayan and Sha i , 2008 o a
e iew). Sa oglou e al. (2004) empi ically obse ed a posi i e ela ionship be ween
eligiosi y and bene olence ac oss coun ies. Simila ly, Hen ich e al. (2010) showed
ha eligious ollowe s ea o he s wi h mo e ai ness. This sugges s ha i indi iduals
a e mo e eligious, hey a e gene ally mo e willing o collec he g oce ies o hei
neighbou and ac in line wi h eligious p inciples i hey pe cei e his o be he mo ally
igh choice.
Bu is p o-sociali y chau inism uni e sal o all g oups o mode a ed by eligion?
Religion can ope a e as a cul u al ma ke ha ein o ces g oup bounda ies (Dahinden
and Zi oun, 2013; Pals, 1996). In his con ex , he eligious doc ine can be deployed o
es ablish sha p social hie a chies be ween g oups. The ha dening o social bounda ies
ac oss he eligious lines is likely o os e di e en e hical p esc ip ions: in-g oup
a ou i ism can ump p o-sociali y.
Why do go eligions dis inguish be ween in-g oup and ou -g oup membe s?
E olu iona y app oaches ha e poin ed ou ha eligious communi ies need o sol e he
ee- iding p oblem and make eligion su icien ly cos ly o a oid i (S a k, 1996; Wilson,
2002). The isk o ee iding is a guably highe wi h ou side s who do no adhe e o he
no ms o he eligious communi y. Also he su ey (-expe imen al) e idence on ising
an i-immig an a i udes (Ben-Nun Bloom e al., 2015) and Islamophobic a i udes sug-
ges s ha indi iduals dis inguish be ween membe s o hei eligious g oups and o he s.
Islamophobic sen imen is lowes in Sweden and highe in Ge many, I eland, and G ea
B i ain (Ribbe ink e al., 2017). In addi ion, he di iding lines can un along eligious
e sus non- eligious iden i ies. P e ious esea ch has iden i ied non- eligious as holding
mo e esen men s owa ds Muslims in mo e secula socie ies (Ca ol e al., 2015;
Ribbe ink e al., 2017). This is o en imes aced back o a pe cei ed clash o libe al
alues (e.g. Helbling and T aunmülle , 2020). Combining hese insigh s wi h social iden-
i y heo y and he assump ion ha indi iduals’ ac ion is in luenced by hei iden i ica-
ion wi h hei g oups, we would expec ha he willingness o collec g oce ies is
mode a ed by eligiosi y, esul ing in a mo e nega i e e ec o eligiosi y on he willing-
ness o help a Muslim compa ed o a non-Muslim neighbou (H4).
The i e coun ies o s udy: England, I eland, Ge many,
Se bia, and Sweden
We selec ed coun ies ha a y in hei s ingency measu es du ing COVID, wel a e
s a e a angemen s, accommoda ion o mino i ies, eligiosi y bu all hos Muslim mino i-
ies. In mos o he coun ies we s udied, Muslims a i ed as immig an s p ima ily du ing
he las and his cen u y. In Sweden, mig a ion his o y o Muslim mino i ies has been
shaped by labou mig a ion om Tu key and he o me Yugosla ia. In addi ion, Sweden
has hos ed a numbe o asylum seeke s om Tu key, he Middle Eas , and he o me
Yugosla ia (Swedish Ins i u e, 2021). While many Muslims in Ge many also came
h ough gues wo ke p og ammes om Tu key and No h A ica, he popula ion became
mo e di e se a ound 2015 wi h e ugees, o ins ance, om Sy ia and A ghanis an
(P ündel e al., 2021: 42 .). In B i ain, a signi ican amoun o Muslims s em om o me
118 In e na ional Sociology 39(1)
colonies such as Bangladesh, India, and Pakis an (Lunn, 2007). I eland only s a ed o
expe ience he as amoun o immig a ion du ing he ‘Cel ic Tige ’ economy in he
ea ly 2000s (Fahey e al., 2019; McGinni y and Kings on, 2017). Muslims cons i u e a
mino i y among mino i ies. Mos Muslims in I eland s em om Sou h Asia and A ica,
especially Nige ia (Fanning, 2011: 62 .). The inclusion o Se bia ills a esea ch gap, as
i has a ely been co e ed in p e ious s udies. Muslims a e o immig an and na i e o i-
gin since he O oman conques . Mos o hem a e Bosniaks om he Sandžak egion, o
Albanians om he sou h o Se bia (Alibašić, 2009). Se bia is a coun y shaken by he
his o ical legacies o wa , whe e ensions be ween e hnic g oups we e o en amed
h ough eligious di e ences (Maleše ić, 2006). Mo eo e , he coun y is o n be ween
Eas and Wes , s uggling o o e come semi-au ho i a ian p ac ices (Biebe , 2020).
Howe e , Se bia expe ienced as he o he Eu opean coun ies in ou sample an in lux o
e ugees mo e ecen ly (Galijaš, 2019).
Sweden is he mos secula ized coun y, while I eland and Se bia ank among he
mo e eligious coun ies in his sample wi h Ge many and England being loca ed in
be ween (Gallup In e na ional Associa ion, 2012; Halman and D aulans, 2006; Ribbe ink
e al., 2017). Among he i e coun ies, Sweden appea s o be mos suppo i e o mul i-
cul u al policies, ollowed by I eland, Ge many, and England wi h Se bia showing he
lowes suppo .1 When i comes o Islam, he Uni ed Kingdom and Sweden a e mos
accommoda ing ollowed by Ge many (Michalowski and Bu cha d , 2015).
When we look a he s eng h o he wel a e s a es and social expendi u es, Sweden
spends he mos 2 and Se bia he leas (Pejin S okić and Bajec, 2019). E en hough he e
a e sub le di e ences, Ge many is o en imes classi ied as conse a i e wel a e s a e,
England and I eland as libe al, and Sweden as social-democ a ic (Be in e al., 2021).
While he willingness o help is gene ally highe in s onge wel a e s a es, he e is also
he opposi e hypo hesis (Gelissen e al., 2012). Recen esea ch has connec ed his o
mig a ion and showed ha indi iduals a e mo e eluc an o help new immig an s, as
hese new immig an s migh ha e no con ibu ed o he wel a e s a e ye (e.g. Hade up
La sen and Schae e , 2021).
Du ing he ield ime o ou su ey expe imen May–June 2021, some es ic ions
we e s ill in place, mos o hem es ic ing he numbe o gues s a indoo enues
(B i ain, Se bia, Sweden) and/o a el (B i ain, I eland, Ge many). I eland was s ill
comple ely closed o a his ime wi h ega d o enues and es au an s. Ge many s a ed
o in oduce p i ileges o he accina ed (A3M Global Moni o ing, 2022). The o icially
eco ded cases (7-day olling a e age) we e highes in Sweden and lowes in he Uni ed
Kingdom, wi h Ge many, Se bia, and I eland in be ween. The numbe o dea hs was
highes in Se bia and lowes in I eland, wi h Ge many, Sweden, and he Uni ed Kingdom
being in be ween (Johns Hopkins Uni e si y, 2022).
Da a, ope a ionaliza ion, and me hod
Da a
Responden s we e ec ui ed h ough Ipsos online access panels in England, I eland,
Ge many, Se bia, and Sweden a e ecei ing e hical clea ance and ansla ion o he
ques ionnai e by he p ojec eam and Ipsos. As his was a quo a sample, we aimed o
Ca ol e al. 119
a ep esen a i e dis ibu ion o he gene al popula ion in e ms o age, gende , egion,
and educa ion o he espec i e coun ies. The minimum age o pa icipan s was
18 yea s. A p e es was conduc ed. A e he comple ion o he ques ionnai e, espond-
en s ecei ed an incen i e. O e all, 7000 alid cases a e analysed (2000 each in B i ain
and Ge many, 1000 each in I eland, Se bia, and Sweden).3 The ield ime ook place
be ween 19 May and 8 June 2021. Table 1 lis s he speci ic da es o he ieldwo k pe
coun y. The su ey expe imen was p e egis e ed on OSF unde he i le ‘Wo ld p ob-
lems, na ional solu ions’.
Ope a ionaliza ion
We pu sue a be ween-subjec igne e su ey expe imen wi h a 3 × 2 × 2 ac o ial
design. We andomly a y he name, he leng h o s ay, and he g oce ies in he ollowing
scena io:4
The ou b eak o COVID-19 has placed an immense bu den on socie ies and indi iduals who
ha e become mo e isola ed. In he ollowing you a e asked o ake a s and on he case o he
60-yea old neighbou [VARIABLE 1: Alexande (Ge many, England, Sweden, I eland),
Aleksanda (Se bia)/Mohammed] who has li ed in [coun y o esidence] o [VARIABLE 2:
less han a yea / he pas en yea s/all his li e]. Un o una ely, his neighbou li es alone, does
no know many people nea by and has been old o cocoon due o he isks COVID-19 poses
o his heal h. You neighbou is s uggling wi h ge ing his [VARIABLE 3: g oce ies / g oce ies
and a six-pack o bee ], as he supe ma ke s lack possibili ies o deli e ies.
Based on he abo e scena io, o wha deg ee would you be willing o collec he p e-o de ed
and p e-paid g oce ies o you neighbou om he nea by supe ma ke du ing a newly imposed
wo-week lockdown and lea e hem a his doo s ep (0 ‘comple ely unwilling’–4 ‘comple ely
willing’)?
The name o he neighbou (0 = ‘Alexande /Aleksanda ’, 1 = ‘Mohammed’),5 he
du a ion o s ay (0 = ‘less han a yea ’, 1 = ‘ he pas 10 yea s’, 2 = ‘all his li e’), and g o-
ce ies (0 = ‘g oce ies’, 1 = ‘g oce ies and a six-pack o bee ’) cons i u e he ea men
a iables. Ou main independen a iable eligiosi y is measu ed on an 11-poin scale
anging be ween 0 = ‘no eligious’ and 10 = ‘ e y eligious’.
Based on exis ing esea ch, we include a ange o con ol a iables o accoun o
al e na i e explana ions. Empa hy is app oxima ed wi h he ques ions ‘Ha e you been
es ed posi i e o COVID-19?’ and ‘Do you pe sonally know o anyone who died o
Table 1. Fieldwo k.
Fieldwo k
England 19 May–3 June 2021
I eland 19 May–8 June 2021
Ge many 19 May–8 June 2021
Sweden 19 May–2 June 2021
Se bia 25 May–8 June 2021
120 In e na ional Sociology 39(1)
COVID-19?’ (0 = ‘no’, 1 = ‘yes’). Ha ing child en (0 = ‘no’, 1 = ‘yes’),6 employmen s a-
us (0 = ‘unemployed (incl. inac i e)’, 1 = ‘employed’), and ‘Do you coun as an a - isk
g oup o COVID-19-complica ions?’ (0 = ‘no’, 1 = ‘yes’) a e used o es ima e he cos s
o helping beha iou . Fo pa en s and employed indi iduals a e expec ed o ha e less
ime o help, which makes i mo e cos ly o hem. The emaining con ol a iables a e
coun y, gende (0 = ‘ emale’, 1 = ‘male’), educa ion (In e na ional S anda d Classi ica ion
o Educa ion (ISCED) - 97 classi ica ion), age, place o esidence (0 = ‘ u al’, 1 = ‘u ban’),
and mino i y s a us (0 = ‘no’, 1 = ‘yes’).
Me hod
We es ima e o dina y leas squa es eg essions wi h obus s anda d e o s and 20
mul iple impu a ions using Ma ko Chain Mon e Ca lo o eplace missing alues.7 To
achie e g ea e ep esen a i eness, he da a a e weigh ed8 by gende , age, egion, and
educa ion based on he Random I e a i e Me hod (RIM). RIM weigh ing pu s selec ed
non-in e locking and g ouped in e locking a iables (quo a de ined by mo e han one
cha ac e is ic) h ough an i e a i e sequence. The sequence epea s i sel as many
imes as i is equi ed in o de o ob ain a con e gence, in which he sum o he
weigh ed ims ma ches he a ge popula ion es ima es o is as close as i is possible
o achie e. The p ocedu e was pe o med using a specially designed so wa e by
Ipsos o RIM weigh ing.
Resul s
Desc ip i e analysis
Figu e 1 anks he a e age willingness o help by p o ile om a model excluding con ol
a iables.
Responden s who saw he p o ile o a neighbou named Alexande /Aleksanda (in he
ollowing abb e ia ed as Alex) who li ed in he coun y o esidence his en i e li e and
o de ed g oce ies indica ed he highes le el o willingness o collec g oce ies o his
neighbou . The willingness o help his neighbou did no di e signi ican ly om all
o he p o iles con aining he name Alex, excep he one o Alex who li ed in he coun y
o esidence less han a yea and o de ed bee on op o he g oce ies. A neighbou wi h
his p o ile was, in u n, no ea ed signi ican ly di e en om a neighbou called
Mohammed who li ed less han a yea in he coun y o esidence. This igu e gene a es
h ee in e es ing indings: Fi s , no all a ia ions o a neighbou called Alex a e equally
popula , and second, he e is no clea clus e ing wi h all p o iles con aining he name
Alex loca ed a he one end, and all p o iles con aining he name Mohammed a he o he
end. Ins ead, p o iles ha included bee we e a ed lowe when i came o he willingness
o help, and hose wi h g oce ies we e a ed highe . Ye , and hi d, esponden s did no
espond equally well o a Mohammed who has li ed in he coun y o less han a yea
and o de ed g oce ies as compa ed o his coun e pa (Alex who has li ed in he coun y
o less han a yea and o de ed g oce ies), meaning he e is e hno- eligious disc imina-
ion in a i udes.
Ca ol e al. 127
In he la e case, he associa ed cos s would be lowe o coming in o con ac wi h some-
one ou side he household. COVID- ela ed dea hs wi hin he ne wo k played no ole.
Howe e , o he cos s migh a ise. I indi iduals ha e childca e esponsibili ies o wo k
ull- ime, hey should be less willing o collec he g oce ies o hei neighbou . Ye ,
none o hese a iables ma e ed in a mul i- a ia e model (Table 2, Models 1 and 2).
Solida i y mo e gene ally bu also solida i y wi h ou -g oup membe s can be closely
ela ed o us and poli ical o ien a ion, as bo h can spu an i-immig an sen imen (e.g.
Ekici and Yucel, 2015; Kiehne and Ayon, 2016). Especially, a lack o us owa ds sci-
ence has been cha ac e is ic o he pandemic (e.g. Qian e al., 2022). Less us and a
igh -wing o ien a ion migh esul in less suppo o a neighbou wi h a name associ-
a ed wi h an ou -g oup. These wo a iables did indeed ma e bu did no al e he coe -
icien s o o he a iables in he model subs an ially.9 Indi iduals wi h highe le els o
us owa ds public ins i u ions and scien is s we e gene ally mo e willing o suppo
he neighbou , whe eas hose who indica ed a poli ical o ien a ion owa ds he igh
spec um showed a signi ican ly lowe willingness o help (holding he ea men a i-
ables cons an ) (Table 3 in Appendix 1).
Conclusion
This a icle s udied p o-social a i udes owa ds e hno- eligious in-g oup and ou -g oup
membe s in he mids o he pandemic employing a no el la ge-scale da a se collec ed
online in England, I eland, Ge many, Se bia, and Sweden. The da a se is pa icula ly
sui able o he s udy o a i udes owa ds in-g oups and ou -g oups, as online su eys a e
less p one o social desi abili y in answe s compa ed o ace- o- ace in e iews (e.g.
Hee wegh, 2009). The su ey expe imen al design allowed us o assess a e age causal
e ec s. While his design has been exploi ed in a ew s udies add essing e hno- eligious
di ides, hese s udies a e a e, ha e been conduc ed in one coun y only, cen ed on
No h and Cen al Eu ope (e.g. Hade up La sen and Schae e , 2021), o included a di -
e en se o coun ies and key a iables (Helbling e al., 2022). Mo eo e , Se bia adds a
no el and uly in e es ing case o he landscape, as i is cha ac e ized by compa ably
lowe a es o accina ions agains COVID-19 (Ou Wo ld in Da a, 2022), ela i ely
lowe gene alized us compa ed o ou o he coun ies o s udy (Wo ld Values Su ey,
own calcula ion), and hos s a na i e eligious mino i y – Muslims.
Acknowledging omi ed a iable bias (e ec s obse ed o eligiosi y ac ually being
caused by a iables no included in he model), he c oss-na ional design enables us o
unde s and he ole o eligiosi y be e and helps us o con ibu e o he cu en s a e o he
a on he pa adoxical ole o eligion o ou -g oup a i udes mo e gene ally and p o-
social a i udes mo e speci ically. Ou esea ch unde lines ha we ha e o be ca e ul in
gene alizing he ole o eligion in p o-social a i udes owa ds ou -g oups based on sin-
gle-coun y analysis. We e eal ha he e is no uni o m ela ionship ac oss coun ies.
While he e is a small nega i e coe icien ac oss all coun ies, sugges ing ha eligiosi y
goes along wi h less p o-social a i udes owa ds ou -g oup membe s, his a ies by p o-
ile and coun y. Religious indi iduals in Se bia we e signi ican ly mo e willing o help a
neighbou named Alexande han in o he coun ies, while in Sweden eligious indi idu-
als we e signi ican ly less likely o help a neighbou called Mohammed. No iceably, he
128 In e na ional Sociology 39(1)
suppo o a neighbou wi h a na i e name does no go along wi h he ejec ion o help
owa ds a neighbou who belongs o a di e en e hno- eligious ou -g oup, as eligious
indi iduals in Se bia would no be signi ican ly less willing o help a neighbou called
Mohammed compa ed o eligious indi iduals in o he coun ies. This blu s he o en-
imes assumed linea ela ionship be ween in-g oup a ou i ism and ou -g oup ejec ion.
We see p o-sociali y chau inism wi h only hose seen as eligible o in o mal help
who ha e spen se e al yea s in hese i e coun ies. While his has been documen ed o
wel a e policies, a c oss-na ional s udy on p o-social a i udes du ing he pandemic has
been lacking so a . This inding is uly p oblema ic om a socie al pe spec i e and
bea s ele ance o he cu en e ugee s eam b inging indi iduals om Uk aine wi h
simila names o he coun ies o s udy. I a p o ile included a ecen immig an and bee
was o de ed, esponden s we e also less willing o help a neighbou named Alex. This
sugges s ha we need o dedica e mo e a en ion o o he cha ac e is ics han names in
u u e s udies on disc imina ion.
One example ha could be s udied wi h su ey expe imen s in he u u e is he ole o
assimila ion cues. P e ious esea ch on he disc imina ion o people wi h A abic names
e ealed ha hey we e no ea ed di e en ly om people wi h na i e names i secula -
i y was men ioned (Ca ol e al., 2023). Simila ly, he consump ion o bee could ha e
been in e p e ed as signal o assimila ion in hose i e coun ies, pa icula ly o he
neighbou wi h a Muslim name as he consump ion o alcohol is less common among
Muslim mino i ies (e.g. Tillie e al., 2013). Al e na i ely, indi iduals migh ha e been
eluc an due o cos s ha a ise wi h ca ying a six-pack, o bee signalling a less heal hy
li es yle, which esponden s migh ha e pe cei ed as w ong due o he possibili y o
de imen al e ec s on one’s heal h o i s non-essen ial na u e. In addi ion, add essing he
he e ogenei y and di ision o Muslim mino i ies wi hin coun ies would help us o u -
he unde s and animosi y (e.g. be ween Bosniaks om he Sandzak egion and Albanians
om he sou h o Se bia, o wo poli icized Islamic communi y o ganiza ions in Se bia)
(see also Galijaš and Kos ić, 2021).
To sum up, we ha e lea ned ha p o-sociali y and ou -g oup a i udes du ing he pan-
demic ha e o be in e p e ed wi hin hei na ional con ex s. Socie al di e ences in he
ole o eligion cons i u e a ele an explana ion ha should no be neglec ed when in es-
iga ing social cohesion in Eu opean socie ies. I would also be desi able o epea his
expe imen in a pos -COVID pe iod o di e en gende , names, and also see whe he he
ole o eligiosi y in p o-social a i udes has been mo e impo an du ing a c isis. I is
possible ha indings would ha e been di e en a he ou se o he pandemic wi h di -
e en es ic ions being in place. A longi udinal pe spec i e would ha e allowed us o
cap u e wa es o solida i y. Emphasizing g oup bounda ies du ing he pandemic can
dec ease empa hy wi h ou -g oups as Van Ba el e al. (2020) a gue, and empa hy, in u n,
has knock-on e ec s on p o-sociali y (Poli i e al., 2023). Recen esea ch e ealed ha
an emphasis on global solida i y esul ed in p o-sociali y owa ds in-g oup and ou -g oup
membe s (Zage ka, 2022), whe eas he blame o a hi d pa y o he COVID-19 c ises
esul ed in less helping beha iou owa ds ou -g oup membe s (Zage ka, 2021). Howe e ,
gi en ha in some coun ies no pandemic e ec was obse ed o xenophobia and dis-
c imina ion (Aue e al., 2023; e.g. D ouho e al., 2021; Helbling e al., 2022), we do no
expec di e ences in he p o-sociali y owa ds Mohammed and Alexande ac oss ime.
Ne e heless, changes in eligiosi y a e plausible. A e all, ongoing esea ch indica es
Ca ol e al. 129
an inc ease o eligiosi y/spi i uali y du ing he pandemic (Ben zen, 2021) in some coun-
ies mo e han in o he s (Sahgal and Connaugh on, 2021). Religion is he e o e likely o
con inue shaping Eu opean socie ies’ u u e.
Da a a ailabili y s a emen
The da a ha suppo he indings o his s udy a e a ailable om he co esponding au ho upon
easonable eques .
Decla a ion o con lic ing in e es s
The au ho s decla ed no po en ial con lic s o in e es wi h espec o he esea ch, au ho ship, and/
o publica ion o his a icle.
E hical app o al
The s udy ecei ed app o al o exemp ion om ull e hical e iew by he Human Resea ch E hics
Commi ee a Uni e si y College Dublin (HS-E-21-11-Malese ic).
Funding
The au ho s disclosed eceip o he ollowing inancial suppo o he esea ch, au ho ship, and/
o publica ion o his a icle: We acknowledge unding om he Heal h Resea ch Boa d I eland
(g an numbe : COV19-2020-103) and a e indeb ed o Me lin Schae e o his in aluable com-
men s on he design o he su ey expe imen .
ORCID iD
Sa ah Ca ol h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0002-5403-8931
No es
1. www.mipex.eu (accessed 20 Ap il 2022), 18:10h.
2. h ps://www.oecd.o g/social/expendi u e.h m (accessed 20 Ap il 2022), 18:14h.
3. Da a a e a ailable on eques om (email [email p o ec ed]).
4. We use he p o ile o an olde male, as olde people and males ha e been seen as signi ican ly
less dese ing o help (Helbling e al., 2022).
5. We chose he name Mohammed as one o he mos common Muslim names (Wallwo k,
2015), and Alexande , as i is common in all o he coun ies s udied. In Se bia, he spelling o
he name Alexande is di e en and eplaced by Aleksanda . While a ange o names would
ha e been desi able, he emphasis lies on compa abili y ac oss coun ies due he s udy design.
6. Please no e ha his a iable de ia es om he p e- egis a ion (ma i al s a us), as we con-
side ed his o be close o he mechanism o ca e esponsibili ies and he su ey ins i u e
implemen ed i only a e p e- egis a ion.
7. Missing alues we e low. Fo mos a iables, he sha e o missings is <10%, only he a i-
able on poli ical o ien a ion sligh ly exceeded i wi h 11% missings.
Wi h impu ed da a, he con idence in e als displayed in he igu es can be inco ec .
Howe e , addi ional analyses (a ailable on eques ) e ealed ha he di e ence is close o 0
(di e ences a e in he i h decimal place o la e ), as i is o en imes he case o la ge sample
sizes and no isually isible (Klein, 2022; h ps://www.s a alis .o g/ o ums/ o um/gene al-
s a a-discussion/gene al/1481264-mim gns-and-ma ginsplo (accessed 2 July 2022), 10:01h).
Mo eo e , he models based on lis wise dele ion lead o compa able esul s.
130 In e na ional Sociology 39(1)
8. Resul s emain s able in unweigh ed models.
9. We measu ed us wi h he ques ion ‘How much do you us he ollowing pe sons and
ins i u ions in dealing wi h COVID-19?’ Responden s a ed hei us in o scien is s, local
adminis a ion, go e nmen , heal h minis y, and he Wo ld Heal h O ganiza ion (WHO) on a
scale om 1 = ‘Comple ely dis us ’, 2 = ‘Dis us ’, 3 = ‘Nei he dis us no us ’, 4 = ‘T us ’,
5 = ‘Comple ely us ’. The ac o sco es e ie ed om a con i ma o y ac o analysis we e
s o ed and used in he analysis. All ac o loadings we e >.6 and highe . Poli ical o ien a ion
is cap u ed wi h he ques ion ‘In poli ics people some imes alk o ‘le ’ and ‘ igh ’. Whe e
would you place you sel on his scale, whe e 0 means he le and 10 means he igh ?’
Re e ences
A3M Global Moni o ing (2022) COVID-19 pandemic. A ailable a : h ps://global-moni o ing.
com/
Ai hal L, A nu H, Vei S, e al. (2021) Solida i ä mi allen? Hil e e hal en gegenübe Angehö igen
e hnische Minde hei en in Zei en on Co ona. 3. Be lin: Dezim.
Alba R and Nee V (1997) Re hinking assimila ion heo y o a new e a o immig a ion. In e na ional
Mig a ion Re iew 31(4): 826–874.
Alibašić A (2009) Se bia. In: Nielsen JS (ed.) Yea book o Muslims in Eu ope, ol. 1. Leiden;
Bos on, MA: B ill, pp.295–304.
Allpo GW (1979) The Na u e o P ejudice. New Yo k: Basic Books.
Ande sen JG and Bjø klund T (1990) S uc u al change and new clea ages: The p og ess pa ies
in Denma k and No way. Ac a Sociologica 33(3): 195–217.
Aue D, Ruedin D and Van Belle E (2023) No sign o inc eased e hnic disc imina ion du ing a
c isis: E idence om he Co id-19 pandemic. Socio-Economic Re iew 21: 1501–1524.
Bade KJ and Ol me J (2011) Ge many. In: Bade KJ, Emme P, Lucassen L, e al. (eds) The
Encyclopedia o Eu opean Mig a ion and Mino i ies om he Se en een h Cen u y o he
P esen . New Yo k: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, pp.65–82.
Ba son CD, Duncan BD, Acke man P, e al. (1981) Is empa hic emo ion a sou ce o al uis ic
mo i a ion? Jou nal o Pe sonali y and Social Psychology 40(2): 290–302.
Ben-Nun Bloom P, A ikan G and Cou emanche M (2015) Religious social iden i y, eligious
belie , and an i-immig a ion sen imen . Ame ican Poli ical Science Re iew 109(2): 203–
221.
Ben zen JS (2021) In c isis, we p ay: Religiosi y and he COVID-19 pandemic. Jou nal o
Economic Beha io and O ganiza ion 192: 541–583.
Be in G, Ca ino L and Pan alone M (2021) Do s anda d classi ica ions s ill ep esen Eu opean
wel a e ypologies? No el e idence om s udies on heal h and social ca e. Social Science &
Medicine 281: 114086.
Biebe F (2020) The Rise o Au ho i a ianism in he Wes e n Balkans (New pe spec i es on Sou h-
Eas Eu ope). Cham: Palg a e Macmillan.
Bohman A and Hje m M (2013) How he eligious con ex a ec s he ela ionship be ween eligi-
osi y and a i udes owa ds immig a ion. E hnic and Racial S udies 37(6): 937–957.
B oom DM (2003) The E olu ion o Mo ali y and Religion, 1s edn. Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y
P ess. A ailable a : h ps://www.camb idge.o g/co e/p oduc /iden i ie /9780511610226/ ype/
book (accessed 27 July 2023).
Calhoun C (2003) ‘Belonging’ in he cosmopoli an imagina y. E hnici ies 3(4): 531–553.
Ca ol S (2016) Social In eg a ion and In e ma iage in Eu ope: Islam, Pa ne -Choices and
Pa en al In luence (Resea ch in Mig a ion and E hnic Rela ions Se ies). New Yo k: Rou ledge.
Ca ol S, Helbling M and Michalowski I (2015) A s uggle o e eligious igh s? How Muslim
mino i ies and na i es iew he accommoda ion o eligion in six Eu opean coun ies. Social
Fo ces 94(2): 647–671.
Ca ol e al. 131
Ca ol S, Kuipe s C, Koesling P, e al. (2023) E hnic and eligious disc imina ion in he wed-
ding enue business: E idence om wo ield expe imen s in Ge many and Aus ia. Social
P oblems 70: 104–125.
Collins R (2020) Social dis ancing as a c i ical es o he mic o-sociology o solida i y. Ame ican
Jou nal o Cul u al Sociology 8(3): 477–497.
C eigh on MJ and Jamal A (2015) Does Islam play a ole in an i-immig an sen imen ? An expe i-
men al app oach. Social Science Resea ch 53: 89–103.
Dahinden J and Zi oun T (2013) Religion in meaning making and bounda y wo k: Theo e ical
explo a ions. In eg a i e Psychological and Beha io al Science 47(2): 185–206.
Dawkins R (1989) The Sel ish Gene. Ox o d and New Yo k: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
Di S asio V, Lancee B, Vei S, e al. (2019) Muslim by de aul o eligious disc imina ion? Resul s
om a c oss-na ional ield expe imen on hi ing disc imina ion. Jou nal o E hnic and
Mig a ion S udies 47(6): 1305–1326.
Do idio JF (1984) Helping beha io and al uism: An empi ical and concep ual o e iew.
In: Be kowi z L (ed.) Ad ances in Expe imen al Social Psychology. Camb idge, MA:
Academic P ess, pp.361–427. A ailable a : h ps://www.sciencedi ec .com/science/a icle/pii/
S0065260108601239
Do idio JF, Pilia in JA, Sch oede DA, e al. (2017) The Social Psychology o P osocial Beha io ,
1s edn. New Yo k: Psychology P ess.
D ouho LG, Pe e mann S, Schönwälde K, e al. (2021) Has he Co id-19 pandemic unde mined
public suppo o a di e se socie y? E idence om a na u al expe imen in Ge many. E hnic
and Racial S udies 44: 877–892.
Ekici T and Yucel D (2015) Wha de e mines eligious and acial p ejudice in Eu ope? The e ec s
o eligiosi y and us . Social Indica o s Resea ch 122(1): 105–133. DOI: 10.1007/s11205-
014-0674-y.
Fahey É, McGinni y F and G o i R (2019) I ish a i udes o Muslim immig an s. The Economic
and Social Re iew 50(3): 491–514.
Fanning B (2011) Immig a ion and Social Cohesion in he Republic o I eland. Manches e :
Manches e Uni e si y P ess.
Galijaš A (2019) Pe manen ly in ansi . Middle Eas e n mig an s and e ugees in Se bia.
Compa a i e Sou heas Eu opean S udies 67(1): 75–109.
Galijaš A and Kos ić IE (2021) Being a Muslim in Belg ade. I an Ejub Kos ić in con e sa ion wi h
A mina Galijaš. Compa a i e Sou heas Eu opean S udies 69(1): 109–132.
Gallup In e na ional Associa ion (2012) Global Index o Religion and A heism. Washing on, DC:
Gallup. A ailable a : h ps://www. edc esea ch.ie/wp-con en /uploads/2015/10/RED-C-p ess-
elease-Religion-and-A heism-25-7-12.pd
Gandenbe ge MK, Kno z CM, Fossa i F, e al. (2023) Condi ional solida i y – A i udes owa ds
suppo o o he s du ing he 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. Jou nal o Social Policy 52: 943–
961.
Gelissen JPTM, Van Oo scho WJH and Fins een E (2012) How does he wel a e s a e in luence
indi idual’s social capi al? Eu opean Socie ies 14(3): 416–440.
Gellne E (1964) Though and Change. London: Weiden eld & Nicolson.
Gellne E (1989) Muslim Socie y (Camb idge s udies in social an h opology 32). Camb idge; New
Yo k; Po Ches e : Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
Go ski PS and Al ıno du A (2008) A e secula iza ion? Annual Re iew o Sociology 34(1):
55–85.
Hade up La sen M and Schae e M (2021) Heal hca e chau inism du ing he COVID-19 pan-
demic. Jou nal o E hnic and Mig a ion S udies 47(7): 1455–1473.
Halman L and D aulans V (2006) How secula is Eu ope? The B i ish Jou nal o Sociology 57(2):
263–288.
132 In e na ional Sociology 39(1)
Hee wegh D (2009) Mode di e ences be ween ace- o- ace and web su eys: An expe imen al
in es iga ion o da a quali y and social desi abili y e ec s. In e na ional Jou nal o Public
Opinion Resea ch 21(1): 111–121.
Helbling M and T aunmülle R (2020) Wha is Islamophobia? Disen angling ci izens’ eelings
owa d e hnici y, eligion and eligiosi y using a su ey expe imen . B i ish Jou nal o
Poli ical Science 50: 811–828.
Helbling M, Maxwell R, Munze S, e al. (2022) The impo ance o ci izenship o dese ing
COVID-19 ea men . Humani ies and Social Sciences Communica ions 9(1): 302.
Hen ich J, Ensminge J, McEl ea h R, e al. (2010) Ma ke s, eligion, communi y size, and he
e olu ion o ai ness and punishmen . Science 327(5972): 1480–1484.
Hi schi T and S a k R (1969) Hell i e and delinquency. Social P oblems 17(2): 202–213.
Hol CL, Cla k EM and Ro h DL (2014) Posi i e and nega i e eligious belie s explaining he eli-
gion–heal h connec ion among A ican Ame icans. In e na ional Jou nal o he Psychology
o Religion 24(4): 311–331.
Ho owi z J (2020) I alians ind ‘a momen o joy in his momen o anxie y’. The New Yo k Times,
14 Ma ch. A ailable a : h ps://www.ny imes.com/2020/03/14/wo ld/eu ope/i alians- ind-a-
momen -o -joy-in- his-momen -o -anxie y.h ml
Johns Hopkins Uni e si y (2022) Daily new con i med COVID-19 cases & dea hs pe million
people. A ailable a : h ps://ou wo ldinda a.o g/explo e s/co ona i us-da a-explo e ?zoomT
oSelec ion= ue& ime=2021-05-18..la es &uni o mYAxis=0&picke So =desc&picke Me
ic=new_cases_pe _million&Me ic=Cases+and+dea hs&In e al=7-day+ olling+a e age&
Rela i e+ o+Popula ion= ue&Colo +by+ es +posi i i y= alse&coun y=DEU~IRL~SRB~
SWE~GBR (accessed 25 No embe 2022).
Kiehne E and Ayon C (2016) F iends o oes: The impac o policical ideology and immig an
iends on an i-immig an sen imen . Jou nal o Sociology & Social Wel a e 43(3): 135–154.
Klein D (2022) MIMRGNS: S a a module o un ma gins a e mi es ima e. S a is ical So wa e
Componen s S457795. Ches nu Hill MA: Bos on College Depa men o Economics.
A ailable a : h ps://EconPape s. epec.o g/RePEc:boc:bocode:s457795
Koopmans R, Vei S and Yemane R (2019) Tas e o s a is ics? A co espondence s udy o e h-
nic, acial and eligious labou ma ke disc imina ion in Ge many. E hnic and Racial S udies
42(16): 233–252.
Le ine M, P osse A, E ans D, e al. (2005) Iden i y and eme gency in e en ion: How social g oup
membe ship and inclusi eness o g oup bounda ies shape helping beha io . Pe sonali y and
Social Psychology Bulle in 31(4): 443–453.
Libal K and Kashwan P (2020) Solida i y in imes o c isis. Jou nal o Human Righ s 19(5):
537–546.
Lindenbe g S, Fe chenhaue D, Flache A, e al. (2006) Solida i y and p osocial beha io : A am-
ing app oach. In: Fe chenhaue D, Flache A, Buunk B, e al. (eds) Solida i y and P osocial
Beha io (C i ical Issues in Social Jus ice). Bos on, MA: Sp inge , pp.3–19. A ailable a :
h p://link.sp inge .com/10.1007/0-387-28032-4_1 (accessed 6 July 2022).
Lu Y, Kaushal N, Huang X, e al. (2021) P iming COVID-19 salience inc eases p ejudice and
disc imina o y in en agains Asians and Hispanics. P oceedings o he Na ional Academy o
Sciences 118(36): e2105125118.
Lunn K (2007) Wes eu opa. G ossb i annien. In: Bade KJ, Emme PC, Lucassen L, e al. (eds)
Enzyklopädie Mig a ion in Eu opa. Vom 17. Jah hunde Bis Zu Gegenwa . Pade bo n:
Fe dinand Schöningh, pp.68–84.
Maleše ić S (2006) Iden i y as Ideology: Unde s anding E hnici y and Na ionalism. Basings oke
and New Yo k: Palg a e Macmillan.
Maleše ić S (2015) Whe e does g oup solida i y come om? Gellne and Ibn Khaldun e isi ed.
Thesis Ele en 128(1): 85–99.
Ca ol e al. 133
McGinni y F and Kings on G (2017) An I ish welcome? Changing I ish a i udes o immig an s
and immig a ion: The ole o ecession and immig a ion. The Economic and Social Re iew
48(3): 253–279.
McKay R and Whi ehouse H (2015) Religion and mo ali y. Psychological Bulle in 141(2): 447–473.
Michalowski I and Bu cha d M (2015) Islam in Eu ope: C oss-na ional di e ences in accom-
moda ion and explana ions. In:Bu cha d M and Michalowski I (eds) A e In eg a ion:
Islam, Con i iali y and Con en ious Poli ics in Eu ope. Wiesbaden: VS Ve lag ü
Sozialwissenscha en, pp.105–128.
Nolan R (2021) ‘We a e all in his oge he !’ Co id-19 and he lie o solida i y. I ish Jou nal o
Sociology 29(1): 102–106.
No enzayan A and Sha i AF (2008) The o igin and e olu ion o eligious p osociali y. Science
322(5898): 58–62.
Ou Wo ld in Da a (2022) Sha e o people who ecei ed a leas one dose o COVID-19 accine.
A ailable a : h ps://ou wo ldinda a.o g/g aphe /sha e-people- accina ed-co id?coun y=SR
B~DEU~IRL~SWE~GBR
Pals DL (1996) Se en Theo ies o Religion. New Yo k: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
Pejin S okić L and Bajec J (2019) Financial Social P o ec ion. Se bia and B ussels: Eu opean
Commission.
P ündel K, S ichs A and Tanis K (2021) Muslimisches Leben in Deu schland 2020
(Fo schungsbe ich 38). Bundesam ü Mig a ion und Flüch linge. A ailable a : h ps://
www.bam .de/Sha edDocs/Anlagen/DE/Fo schung/Fo schungsbe ich e/ b38-muslimisches-
leben.pd ?__blob=publica ionFile& =15
Poli i E, Van Assche J, Lüde s A, e al. (2023) Does h ea igge p osociali y? The ela ion
be ween basic indi idual alues, h ea app aisals, and p osocial helping in en ions du ing
he COVID-19 pandemic. Cu en Psychology. Epub ahead o p in 13 June. DOI: 10.1007/
s12144-023-04829-1.
P ainsack B (2020) Solida i y in imes o pandemics. Democ a ic Theo y 7(2): 124–133.
Qian Y, Xie Y and Jin Y (2022). Belie in science and belie s abou COVID-19: Educa ional
g adien s. Sociology, June. SAGE Publica ions L d, 00380385221091129. DOI: 10.1177/
00380385221091129.
Reeskens T, Roosma F and Wande s E (2021) The pe cei ed dese ingness o COVID-19 heal h-
ca e in he Ne he lands: A conjoin expe imen on p io i y access o in ensi e ca e and ac-
cina ion. BMC Public Heal h 21(1): 447.
Ribbe ink E, Ach e be g P and Hou man D (2017) Secula ole ance? An i-Muslim sen imen in
Wes e n Eu ope. Jou nal o he Scien i ic S udy o Religion 56(2): 259–276.
Saba o H and Kogu T (2018) The associa ion be ween eligiousness and child en’s al uism: The
ole o he ecipien ’s neediness. De elopmen al Psychology 54(7): 1363–1371.
Sahgal N and Connaugh on A (2021) Mo e Ame icans Than People in O he Ad anced Economies
Say COVID-19 Has S eng hened Religious Fai h. Washing on, DC: Pew. A ailable a :
h ps://www.pew esea ch.o g/ eligion/2021/01/27/mo e-ame icans- han-people-in-o he -
ad anced-economies-say-co id-19-has-s eng hened- eligious- ai h/
Sa oglou V, Delpie e V and De nelle R (2004) Values and eligiosi y: A me a-analysis o s udies
using Schwa z’s model. Pe sonali y and Indi idual Di e ences 37(4): 721–734.
Schae e M and Hade up La sen M (2023) Who should ge accina ed i s ? Limi s o solida i y
du ing he i s week o he Danish accina ion p og amme. Eu opean Sociological Re iew
39: 1–13.
Schlosse AE and Le y E (2016) Helping o he s o onesel . Jou nal o Consume Psychology
26(4): 461–473.
S a k R (1996) Why eligious mo emen s succeed o ail: A e ised gene al model. Jou nal o
Con empo a y Religion 11(2): 133–146.
134 In e na ional Sociology 39(1)
S ocks EL, Lishne DA and Decke SK (2009) Al uism o psychological escape: Why does empa-
hy p omo e p osocial beha io ? Eu opean Jou nal o Social Psychology 39(5): 649–665.
S abac Z and Lis haug O (2008) An i-Muslim p ejudice in Eu ope: A mul ile el analysis o su -
ey da a om 30 coun ies. Social Science Resea ch 37: 268–286.
Swedish Ins i u e (2021) Sweden and mig a ion. A ailable a : h ps://sweden.se/cul u e/his o y/
sweden-and-mig a ion (accessed 10 Feb ua y 2022).
Tillie J, Koomen M, Van Helsum A, e al. (2013) Finding a Place o Islam in Eu ope:
Cul u al In e ac ions Be ween Muslims and Recei ing Socie ies. Ams e dam: Uni e si y o
Ams e dam. A ailable a : h p://hdl.handle.ne /11245/1.398286
To ekens C and Jacobs D (2016) Muslims’ eligiosi y and iews on eligion in six Wes e n
Eu opean coun ies: Does na ional con ex ma e ? Jou nal o E hnic and Mig a ion S udies
42(2): 325–340.
Tu koglu O, Cana an M and Icduygu A (2022) The economic limi s o empa hy? Analysing a i-
a ion in he a i udes o opp essed mino i y g oups owa ds e ugees. Jou nal o E hnic and
Mig a ion S udies. Epub ahead o p in 5 July. DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2022.2085081.
Van Ba el JJ, Baicke K, Boggio PS, e al. (2020) Using social and beha iou al science o suppo
COVID-19 pandemic esponse. Na u e Human Beha iou 4(5): 460–471.
Van Oo scho W (2000) Who should ge wha , and why? On dese ingness c i e ia and he condi-
ionali y o solida i y among he public. Policy & Poli ics 28(1): 33–48.
Voicu B, Ba olome Pe al E, Rusu H, e al. (2021) COVID-19 and o ien a ions owa ds solida i y:
The cases o Spain, Hunga y, and Romania. Eu opean Socie ies 23(Suppl. 1): S887–S904.
Wallwo k E (2015) Muslim baby names. Hu Pos , 20 May. A ailable a : h ps://www.hu ing on-
pos .co.uk/2014/08/14/muslim-baby-names_n_7330342.h ml
Wilson DS (2002) Da win’s Ca hed al: E olu ion, Religion, and he Na u e o Socie y. Chicago,
IL: Uni e si y o Chicago P ess.
Yemane R, A nu H, Ai hal L, e al. (2023) Solida i y wi h e e yone? In e g oup helping and
COVID-19. Jou nal o Communi y & Applied Social Psychology 33(5): 1309–1326. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1002/casp.2714
Ysseldyk R, Ma heson K and Anisman H (2010) Religiosi y as iden i y: Towa d an unde s and-
ing o eligion om a social iden i y pe spec i e. Pe sonali y and Social Psychology Re iew
14(1): 60–71.
Zage ka H (2021) In e g oup helping du ing he co ona i us c isis: E ec s o g oup iden i ica ion,
ing oup blame and hi d pa y ou g oup blame. Jou nal o Communi y and Applied Social
Psychology 31(1): 83–93.
Zage ka H (2022) P osociali y du ing COVID-19: Globally ocussed solida i y b ings g ea e
bene i s han na ionally ocussed solida i y. Jou nal o Communi y and Applied Social
Psychology 32(1): 73–86.
Au ho biog aphies
Sa ah Ca ol is Assis an P o esso in he School o Sociology. She wo ks in he ield o mig a ion
and eligion. He wo k has appea ed in jou nals such as Social Fo ces, In e na ional Mig a ion
Re iew, U ban S udies, Sociology o Religion and many mo e. Fo he a icle on a i udes owa ds
abo ion, she ecei ed he Dis inguished Sociology o Religion Jou nal Awa d om he Associa ion
o he Sociology o Religion.
Lea Da id is Assis an P o esso in he School o Sociology. He wo k examines he impac ha
he in e na ional human igh s egime has on na ionalis ideologies. She published he book ‘The
Pas Can’ Heal Us: The Dange s o Manda ing Memo y in he Name o Human Righ s’ wi h
Camb idge Uni e si y P ess in 2020. He a icles appea ed in jou nals such Thesis Ele en, C i ical
Sociology, Memo y S udies, and Human Righ s Qua e ly.
Ca ol e al. 135
Siniša Maleše ić is UCD Chai o Sociology. His main esea ch in e es s include he s udy o wa
and iolence, e hnici y, na ion-s a es, and na ionalism, empi es, ideology, sociological heo y and
he compa a i e his o ical sociology. Recen books include: Why Humans Figh : The Social
Dynamic o Close-Range Violence (Camb idge UP, 2022), Compa a i e Sociological Theo y
(Sage 2021) + Classical Sociological Theo y (Sage 2021), bo h wi h S. Loyal, G ounded
Na ionalisms: A Sociological Analysis (Camb idge UP, 2019, unne up/honou able men ion,
2020 S ein Rokkan awa d), The Rise o O ganised B u ali y: A His o ical Sociology o Violence
(Camb idge UP, 2017, Ou s anding Book Awa d om he Ame ican Sociological Associa ion),
Na ion-S a es and Na ionalisms: O ganiza ion, Ideology and Solida i y (Poli y, 2013), and The
Sociology o Wa and Violence (Camb idge UP, 2010, ep in ed in 2012).
Go dana Uzelac is Senio Lec u e in Sociology who specialises in heo ies o na ions and na ional-
ism, issues o e hnic and na ional iden i y in he o me Yugosla ia and in he UK. She applies he
expe ise in quan i a i e and quali a i e me hodology on s udying pe cep ions o he na ion as well
as o ms o na ionalis ideologies. He wo k has been published by Rou ledge and in leading jou -
nals in he ield such as Na ions and Na ionalism, Na ionali ies, as well as E hnic and Racial S udies.
Résumé
Dans quelle mesu e les indi idus é aien -ils p ê s à aide les au es pendan la pandémie? Ce a icle
examine les compo emen s p osociaux de 7000 pe sonnes i an en Angle e e, en I lande, en
Allemagne, en Se bie e en Suède, en p ésen an le scéna io ic i d’un oisin âgé qui a besoin
qu’on aille lui che che ses cou ses dans un supe ma ché des en i ons. L’enquê e en ligne sui un
plan ac o iel 3x2x2 a ian l’o igine e hno- eligieuse du oisin signalée pa le nom (Alexande pa
appo à Mohammed), la du ée de sa ésidence dans le pays (< 1 an, 10 ans, ou e la ie) e si les
cou ses à alle che che incluen ou non de la biè e. Nous cons a ons que les pe sonnes issues
d’une mino i é e celles qui i en depuis moins d’un an dans le pays son désa an agées. Dans
l’ensemble, la eligiosi é es associée à une plus aible olon é d’aide son oisin.
Mo s-clés
Co id-19, Eu ope, mino i és, p osociali é, eligion, solida i é
Resumen
¿Has a qué pun o es aban dispues os los indi iduos a ayuda a los demás du an e la pandemia?
Es e abajo examina las ac i udes p osociales de 7.000 indi iduos esiden es en Ingla e a, I landa,
Alemania, Se bia y Suecia exponiéndoles la si uación ic icia de un ecino mayo que necesi a que
le ecojan la comp a en un supe me cado ce cano. El expe imen o de encues a online sigue un
diseño ac o ial 3x2x2 que a ía el o igen é nico- eligioso del ecino indicado po el nomb e
(Alexande en e a Mohammed), la du ación de su esidencia (< 1 año, 10 años, oda la ida)
y si hay que ecoge la comp a, o la comp a y ce eza. Se ha hallado que quienes ienen o igen
mino i a io y quienes lle an menos de un año en un país se encuen an en si uación de des en aja.
En gene al, la eligiosidad se asocia a una meno disposición a ayuda al p ójimo.
Palab as cla e
COVID-19, Eu opa, mino ías, p osocialidad, eligión, solida idad
136 In e na ional Sociology 39(1)
Table 3. Reg ession willingness o help.
(1)
Mohammed ( e . Alexande ) –0.082***
(0.024)
G oce ies and bee ( e . g oce ies) –0.066**
(0.024)
Less han a yea ( e .)
The pas 10 yea s s <1 0.130***
(0.030)
En i e li e s <1 0.133***
(0.029)
Ge many ( e .)
I eland –0.022
(0.040)
Se bia 0.326***
(0.040)
Sweden –0.206***
(0.044)
England –0.040
(0.034)
Educa ion (ISCED) 0.036**
(0.012)
Employed ( e . unemployed) 0.047+
(0.026)
Female ( e . male) –0.161***
(0.024)
Age 0.009***
(0.001)
U ban ( e . u al) –0.056+
(0.029)
Tes ed posi i e ( e . no ) –0.113**
(0.041)
COVID- ela ed dea h in ne wo k ( e . no) –0.006
(0.028)
A isk ( e . no ) –0.151***
(0.030)
E hnic mino i y ( e . no ) –0.143*
(0.056)
Child en ( e . no) 0.049+
(0.028)
Religiosi y –0.010*
(0.004)
Appendix 1
(Con inued)
