The Integration Paradox
Proposal of a New Experimental Design
Merlin Schaeffer & Judith Kas (WZB)
2023-04-21
1 / 19

Tocqueville's Paradox

The hatred that men bear to privilege increases in proportion as privileges become fewer and less considerable, so that democratic passions would seem to burn most fiercely just when they have least fuel.
[...]
When all conditions are unequal, no inequality is so great as to offend the eye, whereas the slightest dissimilarity is odious in the midst of general uniformity;
[...]
the love of equality should constantly increase together with equality itself [...].

-- Alexis de Tocqueville (2015 [1840])

2 / 19

Tocqueville's Paradox

Source: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2014)

3 / 19

Tocqueville's Paradox

Source: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2014)

4 / 19

The Integration Paradox

Single family home in Berlin's suburb Rudow

Do immigrants and the children of immigrants who established themselves among the middle-class mainstream report less discrimination than those who remain at the margins of society?

5 / 19

The Integration Paradox

Single family home in Berlin's suburb Rudow

Source: Verkuyten (2016)

6 / 19

Synthesized theoretical model

7 / 19

Fundamental flaw of prior research

False Consciousness: Are the less integrated under-perceiving the true extent of discrimination they face?

8 / 19

Limitation of correspondence studies

Fake CV's have no experiences and feelings

False Consciousness: Are the less integrated under-perceiving the true extent of discrimination they face?

9 / 19

A new experimental design

The Trust game
Two persons' mutual evaluation of their trustworthiness

We'll have endowments of €10
Respondents will play both roles & we define actual role randomly afterwards

10 / 19

A new experimental design

The Trust game
Two persons' mutual evaluation of their trustworthiness

We'll have endowments of €10
Respondents will play both roles & we define actual role randomly afterwards

Non-anonymous games
Profile photo & spoken sentence

10 / 19

Actual discrimination

Non-anonymous games
Profile photo & spoken sentence

$€_{Judith} - {¯ €}_{Co-ethnics}$ , or $€_{Judith} - €_{anonymous}$
- Single measure: May be ethnic or not.
- Aggregated across 10 game partners: Ethnic discrimination.
After all 11 games: Which two of the overall ten (non-anonymous) games do you want to be paid out?

11 / 19

Expected & perceived discrimination

Non-anonymous games
Profile photo & spoken sentence

Expected discrimination After all games are played: What do you think,

Expected $Δ €$ (incentivized, €4 for correct guess)
- how much did that game partner send you? $\to$ €3
- how much did that game partner send other players? $\to$ €5
- why did that game partner send you €2 less than the others?
Do you think, that game partner chose your game as one of the two that are being paid out (incentivized, €2 for correct guess)

Perceived discrimination Three months later, respondents are informed about their aggregate personal and overall average payoffs.

Why did you make less / more?

12 / 19

Implementation in three steps

1) Pre-game online survey
May 2021

Photo & recorded sentence.
Berlin, Hamburg, Cologne, Frankfurt, Munich.
1,500 Germans with native-born parents.
900 immigrants or children of immigrants.
600 Turkish immigrants or children of Turkish immigrants.

13 / 19

Implementation in three steps

2) Online trust games
October 2021

Not simultaneously but strategy method.
1,000 Germans with native-born parents.
600 immigrants or children of immigrants.
400 Turkish immigrants or children of Turkish immigrants.
Guaranteed €20, Average win €60, maximum €100.

14 / 19

Implementation in three steps

3) Final survey
January 2022

Information about personal and overall payoffs.

15 / 19

Envisioned data n = 1,500 X 8 = 12,000

Minority
Pot. discriminator
€i−¯€j(Co-ethnics)€i−€¯j(Co-ethnics)
Exp. Δi€Δi€
jj selected ii
ii exp. selection
ii Education
ii ...


i=1i=1 (Judith)
j=1j=1 (Merlin)
-3
-5
0
0
...
...

i=1i=1 (Judith)
j=2j=2
0
0
1
0
...
...

i=1i=1 (Judith)
j=3j=3
1
0
1
0
...
...

i=1i=1 (Judith)
j=4j=4
-1
0
1
1
...
...

i=1i=1 (Judith)
j=5j=5
-2
0
1
0
...
...

i=1i=1 (Judith)
j=6j=6
-4
0
1
0
...
...

i=1i=1 (Judith)
j=7j=7
3
0
0
0
...
...

i=1i=1 (Judith)
j=8j=8
0
0
0
0
...
...

i=2i=2
j=1j=1 (Merlin)
...
...
...
...
...
...

i=2i=2
j=4j=4
...
...
...
...
...
...

i=2i=2
j=9j=9
...
...
...
...
...
...

i=2i=2
j=10j=10
...
...
...
...
...
...

16 / 19

Minority	Pot. discriminator	$€_{i} - {\bar{€}}_{j (Co-ethnics)}$	Exp. $Δ_{i} €$	$j$ selected $i$	$i$ exp. selection	$i$ Education	$i$ ...
$i = 1$ (Judith)	$j = 1$ (Merlin)	-3	-5	0	0	...	...
$i = 1$ (Judith)	$j = 2$	0	0	1	0	...	...
$i = 1$ (Judith)	$j = 3$	1	0	1	0	...	...
$i = 1$ (Judith)	$j = 4$	-1	0	1	1	...	...
$i = 1$ (Judith)	$j = 5$	-2	0	1	0	...	...
$i = 1$ (Judith)	$j = 6$	-4	0	1	0	...	...
$i = 1$ (Judith)	$j = 7$	3	0	0	0	...	...
$i = 1$ (Judith)	$j = 8$	0	0	0	0	...	...
$i = 2$	$j = 1$ (Merlin)	...	...	...	...	...	...
$i = 2$	$j = 4$	...	...	...	...	...	...
$i = 2$	$j = 9$	...	...	...	...	...	...
$i = 2$	$j = 10$	...	...	...	...	...	...

Panel attrition

Problem:

Matching happens before Part 2, but not everyone will show up $\to$ incomplete sets.

Consequences: Some data cannot be used if measure of actual or expected discrimination is missing.

17 / 19

ConclusionTocqueville's paradox: Interesting phenomenon & maybe rather pervasive.
Related to claims about false consciousness.
No good toolbox to study these phenomena.

The new experimental design:Arguably artificial.
But first attempt to measure & predict individuals' under- and over-perceived discrimination.
Mis-perceptions may also be used as predictor, e.g. of political mobilization.

18 / 19

Conclusion

Tocqueville's paradox:
- Interesting phenomenon & maybe rather pervasive.
- Related to claims about false consciousness.
- No good toolbox to study these phenomena.

The new experimental design:
- Arguably artificial.
- But first attempt to measure & predict individuals' under- and over-perceived discrimination.
- Mis-perceptions may also be used as predictor, e.g. of political mobilization.

Thank you for your attention!

18 / 19

References

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2014). Violence against women :an EU wide survey : results at a glance. LU: Publications Office.

Tocqueville, A. d. (2015). Democracy in America - Vol. I. and II. Read Books Ltd.

Verkuyten, M. (2016). "The Integration Paradox: Empiric Evidence From the Netherlands". In: American Behavioral Scientist, pp. 583-596.

19 / 19

The Integration Paradox
Proposal of a New Experimental Design
Merlin Schaeffer & Judith Kas (WZB)
2023-04-21
1 / 19

Tocqueville's Paradox

The hatred that men bear to privilege increases in proportion as privileges become fewer and less considerable, so that democratic passions would seem to burn most fiercely just when they have least fuel.
[...]
When all conditions are unequal, no inequality is so great as to offend the eye, whereas the slightest dissimilarity is odious in the midst of general uniformity;
[...]
the love of equality should constantly increase together with equality itself [...].

-- Alexis de Tocqueville (2015 [1840])

2 / 19

Tocqueville's Paradox

Source: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2014)

3 / 19

Tocqueville's Paradox

Source: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2014)

4 / 19

The Integration Paradox

Single family home in Berlin's suburb Rudow

Do immigrants and the children of immigrants who established themselves among the middle-class mainstream report less discrimination than those who remain at the margins of society?

5 / 19

The Integration Paradox

Single family home in Berlin's suburb Rudow

Source: Verkuyten (2016)

6 / 19

Synthesized theoretical model

7 / 19

Fundamental flaw of prior research

False Consciousness: Are the less integrated under-perceiving the true extent of discrimination they face?

8 / 19

Limitation of correspondence studies

Fake CV's have no experiences and feelings

False Consciousness: Are the less integrated under-perceiving the true extent of discrimination they face?

9 / 19

A new experimental design

The Trust game
Two persons' mutual evaluation of their trustworthiness

We'll have endowments of €10
Respondents will play both roles & we define actual role randomly afterwards

10 / 19

A new experimental design

The Trust game
Two persons' mutual evaluation of their trustworthiness

We'll have endowments of €10
Respondents will play both roles & we define actual role randomly afterwards

Non-anonymous games
Profile photo & spoken sentence

10 / 19

Actual discrimination

Non-anonymous games
Profile photo & spoken sentence

$€_{Judith} - {¯ €}_{Co-ethnics}$ , or $€_{Judith} - €_{anonymous}$
- Single measure: May be ethnic or not.
- Aggregated across 10 game partners: Ethnic discrimination.
After all 11 games: Which two of the overall ten (non-anonymous) games do you want to be paid out?

11 / 19

Expected & perceived discrimination

Non-anonymous games
Profile photo & spoken sentence

Expected discrimination After all games are played: What do you think,

Expected $Δ €$ (incentivized, €4 for correct guess)
- how much did that game partner send you? $\to$ €3
- how much did that game partner send other players? $\to$ €5
- why did that game partner send you €2 less than the others?
Do you think, that game partner chose your game as one of the two that are being paid out (incentivized, €2 for correct guess)

Perceived discrimination Three months later, respondents are informed about their aggregate personal and overall average payoffs.

Why did you make less / more?

12 / 19

Implementation in three steps

1) Pre-game online survey
May 2021

Photo & recorded sentence.
Berlin, Hamburg, Cologne, Frankfurt, Munich.
1,500 Germans with native-born parents.
900 immigrants or children of immigrants.
600 Turkish immigrants or children of Turkish immigrants.

13 / 19

Implementation in three steps

2) Online trust games
October 2021

Not simultaneously but strategy method.
1,000 Germans with native-born parents.
600 immigrants or children of immigrants.
400 Turkish immigrants or children of Turkish immigrants.
Guaranteed €20, Average win €60, maximum €100.

14 / 19

Implementation in three steps

3) Final survey
January 2022

Information about personal and overall payoffs.

15 / 19

Envisioned data n = 1,500 X 8 = 12,000

Minority
Pot. discriminator
€i−¯€j(Co-ethnics)€i−€¯j(Co-ethnics)
Exp. Δi€Δi€
jj selected ii
ii exp. selection
ii Education
ii ...


i=1i=1 (Judith)
j=1j=1 (Merlin)
-3
-5
0
0
...
...

i=1i=1 (Judith)
j=2j=2
0
0
1
0
...
...

i=1i=1 (Judith)
j=3j=3
1
0
1
0
...
...

i=1i=1 (Judith)
j=4j=4
-1
0
1
1
...
...

i=1i=1 (Judith)
j=5j=5
-2
0
1
0
...
...

i=1i=1 (Judith)
j=6j=6
-4
0
1
0
...
...

i=1i=1 (Judith)
j=7j=7
3
0
0
0
...
...

i=1i=1 (Judith)
j=8j=8
0
0
0
0
...
...

i=2i=2
j=1j=1 (Merlin)
...
...
...
...
...
...

i=2i=2
j=4j=4
...
...
...
...
...
...

i=2i=2
j=9j=9
...
...
...
...
...
...

i=2i=2
j=10j=10
...
...
...
...
...
...

16 / 19

Minority	Pot. discriminator	$€_{i} - {\bar{€}}_{j (Co-ethnics)}$	Exp. $Δ_{i} €$	$j$ selected $i$	$i$ exp. selection	$i$ Education	$i$ ...
$i = 1$ (Judith)	$j = 1$ (Merlin)	-3	-5	0	0	...	...
$i = 1$ (Judith)	$j = 2$	0	0	1	0	...	...
$i = 1$ (Judith)	$j = 3$	1	0	1	0	...	...
$i = 1$ (Judith)	$j = 4$	-1	0	1	1	...	...
$i = 1$ (Judith)	$j = 5$	-2	0	1	0	...	...
$i = 1$ (Judith)	$j = 6$	-4	0	1	0	...	...
$i = 1$ (Judith)	$j = 7$	3	0	0	0	...	...
$i = 1$ (Judith)	$j = 8$	0	0	0	0	...	...
$i = 2$	$j = 1$ (Merlin)	...	...	...	...	...	...
$i = 2$	$j = 4$	...	...	...	...	...	...
$i = 2$	$j = 9$	...	...	...	...	...	...
$i = 2$	$j = 10$	...	...	...	...	...	...

Panel attrition

Problem:

Matching happens before Part 2, but not everyone will show up $\to$ incomplete sets.

Consequences: Some data cannot be used if measure of actual or expected discrimination is missing.

17 / 19

ConclusionTocqueville's paradox: Interesting phenomenon & maybe rather pervasive.
Related to claims about false consciousness.
No good toolbox to study these phenomena.

The new experimental design:Arguably artificial.
But first attempt to measure & predict individuals' under- and over-perceived discrimination.
Mis-perceptions may also be used as predictor, e.g. of political mobilization.

18 / 19

Conclusion

Tocqueville's paradox:
- Interesting phenomenon & maybe rather pervasive.
- Related to claims about false consciousness.
- No good toolbox to study these phenomena.

The new experimental design:
- Arguably artificial.
- But first attempt to measure & predict individuals' under- and over-perceived discrimination.
- Mis-perceptions may also be used as predictor, e.g. of political mobilization.

Thank you for your attention!

18 / 19

References

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2014). Violence against women :an EU wide survey : results at a glance. LU: Publications Office.

Tocqueville, A. d. (2015). Democracy in America - Vol. I. and II. Read Books Ltd.

Verkuyten, M. (2016). "The Integration Paradox: Empiric Evidence From the Netherlands". In: American Behavioral Scientist, pp. 583-596.

19 / 19

↑, ←, Pg Up, k	Go to previous slide
↓, →, Pg Dn, Space, j	Go to next slide
Home	Go to first slide
End	Go to last slide
Number + Return	Go to specific slide
b / m / f	Toggle blackout / mirrored / fullscreen mode
c	Clone slideshow
p	Toggle presenter mode
t	Restart the presentation timer
?, h	Toggle this help
o	Tile View: Overview of Slides

The Integration Paradox

Proposal of a New Experimental Design

Merlin Schaeffer & Judith Kas (WZB)

2023-04-21

Tocqueville's Paradox

Tocqueville's Paradox

Tocqueville's Paradox

The Integration Paradox

The Integration Paradox

Synthesized theoretical model

Fundamental flaw of prior research

Limitation of correspondence studies

Fake CV's have no experiences and feelings

A new experimental design

A new experimental design

Actual discrimination

Expected & perceived discrimination

Implementation in three steps

1) Pre-game online survey May 2021

Implementation in three steps

2) Online trust games October 2021

Implementation in three steps

3) Final survey January 2022

Envisioned data n = 1,500 X 8 = 12,000

Panel attrition

Problem:

Conclusion

Conclusion

References

Tocqueville's Paradox

Help

The Integration Paradox

The Integration Paradox

Proposal of a New Experimental Design

Merlin Schaeffer & Judith Kas (WZB)

2023-04-21

Tocqueville's Paradox

Tocqueville's Paradox

Tocqueville's Paradox

The Integration Paradox

The Integration Paradox

Synthesized theoretical model

Fundamental flaw of prior research

Limitation of correspondence studies

Fake CV's have no experiences and feelings

A new experimental design

A new experimental design

Actual discrimination

Expected & perceived discrimination

Implementation in three steps

1) Pre-game online survey May 2021

Implementation in three steps

2) Online trust games October 2021

Implementation in three steps

3) Final survey January 2022

Envisioned data n = 1,500 X 8 = 12,000

Panel attrition

Problem:

Conclusion

Conclusion

References

1) Pre-game online survey
May 2021

2) Online trust games
October 2021

3) Final survey
January 2022

1) Pre-game online survey
May 2021

2) Online trust games
October 2021

3) Final survey
January 2022